Systemic Talent Interaction: What Else Do You Know?

Systems and People Pressing Against Each Other

The ongoing Systems/Talent: Systemic Thinking discussion has led me to do a back-of-the-napkin graphic on the elements that come into play.

This was a quick free-association and I invite you to add or refine, using your own experience and observations.

Here's the first cut:

We're pretty much agreed, through discussion, that Systems and Talent aren't mutually exclusive and that systems can help or hinder talent of any degree.

It's not either/or, it's really both/and.

The first take shows the number of connections that can impact individual or team performance.

1. Yeah, I know we said that good systems can lift up even average talent. And I agree. But I've gotta tell you, one's immediate boss will make you or send you running every time. Period. So both the Organizational Systems and  "Manager" boxes are set apart by color.

Note: Feel free to argue. I know you will:-)

2.  Opportunities for Development  rank  high on the current list of potential employees' "I want. . ." lists.
We could easily say these are part of the organizational system; I set the category apart because of its unique desirability amongst candidates.

3. HR plays a huge role. That's normally the first point of contact between candidates and a company; HR also plays a big part in the development of talent inside the organization. Therefore, the level of talent, discernment, and organizational savvy within HR itself has a big impact on ultimate performance.

4. Educational Institutions. This is going to receive special attention later this week. There is a large disconnect between what students are being told is needed; what educational institutions are churning out; and what the workplace really requires in the future.

5. Personal Stuff. The remaining categories all come into play when deciding on a job, discussing one's future on the job, and shaping the degree of accuracy with which one assesses one's contributions--and opportunities.

A quick primer for you

If you are joining the series for the first time, here are the articles that got us to this point. The running comments are educational and show the depth and breadth of thinking on the topic, so take a minute to read them:

• The Real Talent: Think and Act Systemically

• Systems + People Do Concern CEO's

• Talent, Performance, & Family Systems (?!)

• What Talents Create The Heart of Your Business?

• If Systems Trump People, Then. . .

• Talent Development: Evidence or Magical Thinking?

OK, your turn. . .

 

Comments

[Ed Brenegar]

A more ambivalent set of influences would be popular/material culture and the media. It could be either positive or negative depending on the representation that they encounter.

[Steve Roesler]

Legitimate influences, Ed.

I'm going to add them to an update.

[Tom Haskins]

Steve
This diagram is a great start to capturing all the systemic influences on talent development. I'm thinking the next generation diagram may model a single "user's" experience of moving through a talent development system. That sequence of encounters would include both formal and informal systems. It would capture how the system impinges on the individual, as well as how the system learns from the individual, uncovers latent talents, puts potential talents to the test, and learns to revise the system to become more responsive, effective, inclusive and efficient.

In my imagination I've gone off into too much complexity with this possibility, as is my nature. I've had a glimmer of also diagramming some of the cyclical dynamics along the way for an individual. Perhaps it could be shown how go into vicious cycles of getting pigeon-holed, profiled, or trapped by an exceptional trait. It could show virtuous cycles where the interaction effects with the system would energize both the provider & beneficiary, generate new opportunities, and spin off repercussions in the development of others. It might also model the feedback where the front end of the talent development system captures some of the effects on the individuals midway through the process, as utilized feedback to better filter, set-up or orient the newcomers.

Have I effectively shared my feeling of being overwhelmed by systemic complexity? :-)

[Robyn McIntyre]

Steve, glad your label for self-awareness was preceded by "accurate." I note you put a large emphasis on HR; how do you think talent recruiting and development is impacted in small companies or nonprofits where the HR person is usually wearing another hat (for instance, Finance Manager or Executive Assistant)?

[Steve Roesler]

Tom,

I would have been totally disappointed if you hadn't quickly free-associated all that was running through your creative mind and ended up at a place that was as complex as possible:-)

Fact is, I'm in the process of trying to map out with a client many of the things you've highlighted--and you've offered up some new things to explore, so I thank you for your generous input.

I've always felt that to really help a client, it's my job to understand the elements and nature of complex systems; at the same time, it's then my job to synthesize those into accurate, simple, workable solutions.

Isn't that the real challenge--and responsibility-- when it comes to delivering something useful to a client?

[Tom Haskins]

Steve:
Thanks for the "great expectations" of me.
Yes, your characterization of the challenge we face serving clients with "simplicity after complexity" is right on. Keep up the good work!

Tom

[Steve Roesler]

Robyn,

Well, the "accurate" part is pretty darned important, eh? We all have our blind spots but when people refuse to hear lots of corroborating feedback, that's never a hopeful thing.

I like the question about small companies and HR wearing two (or more!) hats. Maybe that's worth an entire post in itself.

My experience with this is that many of the small companies who do that sort of thing actually view HR as an admin function. Record keeping, put out a call for resumes, maybe screen candidates. . .

With some intentionality, small companies could select a person who also has the heart and mind of a "talent scout," internally and externally. I haven't seen it done very often and in the case of most small companies with whom I've worked, the person with the HR second hat is often the last to be brought into hiring and promotional discussions.

What's your take on this, Robyn?

[Robyn]

Hey, Steve:

In my experience, candidate selection in nonprofits is driven by the Executive Director's needs and expectations. In one instance, the HR/Finance manager was against hiring a particular candidate because of her lack of experience with databases and contracts - a very important part of the job she would be doing. But the HR/Finance manager was overruled by the ED because the candidate had marketing experience that dovetailed with his desire to work on a large grant. Two years later, the work for the grant has been finished, but the day to day work the hire should have been doing has now largely been farmed out to the HR/Finance manager, who resents it and is irritated by the hire's seeming inability to learn anything about these areas (she keeps coming back with the same questions). This has caused a lot of friction. Moreover, it appears the hire is not a good fit with the other staffers, which has added to the tension. The ED doesn't worry about any of this, however; he got what he wanted and a closed door shuts out a lot of things.
But while we're on the subject of HR and talent, I'd like to say that it's also been my experience that many HR departments in larger for profits seem to have been trained to do checklist hiring: that is, they review a candidate's work experience against the laundry list (often using a keyword identifier) developed by the hiring manager. If the percentage of items matching doesn't meet an expected threshold, the candidate ends up in the round file. Smaller companies and smaller nonprofits with HR people wearing multiple hats often seem to do a better job at reading between the lines and identifying people whose experience may not match the requirements exactly, but who have displayed qualities and talents that could make hiring them the better decision.
What do you think?