Talent Development: Evidence or Magical Thinking?

"I don't understand how a system can predict high potentials. It can predict if I'll continue to perform well or poorly as an engineer, for example, but it has no data on how I'll perform as a manager or in marketing or in logistics.

No data = no prediction of any significance, statistical or otherwise.

Those deliberate job assignments and coaching opportunities and so forth have to come first in order to generate the data needed. After all, a mediocre, but generally honest, employee could become great at something else, if they are interested in that path"

This astute insight comes from Beth Robinson, a wonderful writer, chemical engineer, and MBA candidate whose web log tag line is Thinking Towards the Whole. Beth's comments are extra-welcome since we're focused on Systemic Thinking.

Talent Investors: Follow the Financial Caveat

Every financial prospectus carries the warning that "Past performance is no guarantee of future returns."

As Beth points out, the same is true of our own performance. Yet companies are locked in to the idea that past performance in one role can somehow indicate future success in another. The entire reality of systemic influence guarantees that the only way you know if someone is going to be successful is to put them into a new role. Assessment Centers offer the promise of simulating reality and many of them are darned good at placing candidates in situations to see how they will respond to given situations. They are helpful to the extent that you can see someone's actions and reactions, but in a sterile environment.

At work, people report to a real-life boss who is the biggest influence on their willingness and ability to perform; actual organizational systems and their idiosyncrasies are different than simulated ones; reward and recognition systems can lift up or demoralize the best performer; real marketplace changes will create sudden situations that will test character and adaptability; and none of these can be accurately captured outside of the system in which one has to operate.

Do you want to develop talent? Then give people hands-on experiences so they can learn and you can have evidence upon which to base decisions.

We don't put our money in a savings account to see how it will perform in the stock market. Why not show the same thoughtfulness to the organization and the people in it?

Comments

[Jo]

To be technical, we are muddling issues: What can be used to predict and how well we can do it. Sorry personnel psychologist here.

Past behavior is repeated. Thus to the extent that it is repeated and relevant, we can predict. Both questions are answered empirically. Not everything is repeated and not everything is relevant!

The closer the future situation is to the present, the better we can predict. Personnel psychologists have stormy debates on the outer limits. Most of us work on the assumption that we can predict 4-9% of variance of performance in the future(the place where all is unknown). In practice that means we can predict extremes - we can't distinguish between people in the middle. Psychologists are taught to work out their error ranges and should be able to supply them on demand (mmmm...)

Personnel psychology has its place in a wider toolbox. We have a lot of other tools to add more information.

The biggest mistake, I think, is assuming that we have to know the outcome before we begin. To take the example of watching a sports match: I hate when people predict the result. It's like reading the end of a book first!

For an example of how personnel psychology fits into a wider "system" - it helps us cut out obvious mistakes. So I don't like gory books and movies (past behavior predicts future behavior). I like books that are well written. I hate hardbacks - they are too heavy.

I use those observations in my decision making and don't work any harder to chose a book well. I hit the library shelves and I am in and out in five minutes. I pick paper backs where the reviewer talks about the style and not the story. Easy peasy. Thereafter I live serendipitously.

When I am buying a book and the costs are higher, aha, I mitigate the cost of failure by asking whom I will give the book to when I have read it. That way I bring down the cost of error of my decisions.

I ask the same in a selection system. If the book or person doesn't like us, what will the person do afterwards? If working for us is still a plus on their CV, even if things didn't work out quite like we originally wanted, we move forwards!

The need to define outcomes is a feature of 'gap' technologies and works on the presumption that the boss has all the answers.

To pick up Steve's theme, we are moving to a place where we accept that
a) we do not have the answers right now
b)the good ideas come from the workers and the unfolding events they find themselves in and
c) our task as managers is to make environments where people work together to produce good ideas and are sufficiently attractive for people to come together to do it.

Steve is a genius at that!

[Tom Haskins]

Steve: I've found it's easier to invest in unproven abilities in the context of a mentoring relationship. I've set-up lots of managers to function as mentors, besides doing lots of mentoring myself. As a result of processing what has happened, how to define the opportunity, what to do next, etc -- we mentors gain insights. We learn how the other people conceptualize their responsibilities, respond to challenges and critique their own efforts. On this basis, we can "guesstimate" with informed intuition how they might perform in unfamiliar situations, call upon untested abilities, and relate to unimpressed colleagues.

Thanks for keeping this systemic approach to talent development going!

Tom

[Jo]

Sorry Steve, that comment was longer than it looked on my screen. I hope someone found it of some use.

[Steve Roesler]

Jo,

That's exactly the kind of empirical data that people need to see more of.

And yes, that is exactly where Steve is headed, although Steve's mother wouldn't have labeled him so generously.

[Steve Roesler]

Tom, the foundation of your mentoring example gets at the real crux of the situation:

When managers and others have close, ongoing working relationships with people--in a variety of situations--there exists an enormous body of accurate evidence regarding one's capabilities.

In the absence of long-term, personal observation, organizations tend to rely on third-party methodologies as a crystal ball. The margin of error in election polling is vastly smaller than the margin of error in one's ability to predict the behavior of a heretofore untested human being.

Mentoring does provide experiences to test the waters; sadly, mentoring is more of a politically-correct cocktail party topic than a reality in the workplace.

With thanks again. . .

[Jo]

So let's ask the 100 million or trillion dollar question.

Which organizations in north American have "strong internal labor markets"? Are there any left who take in young people and provide systematically increasing opportunities for development with formally designated mentors, buddies, and review panels made up of senior executives?

And where organizations might not be large enough to do this, are there any industries that do this? Or even professions? Or geographical regions?

[Beth Robinson]

Steve, seeing my comment start off a blog post was great. Thank you for the intro that went with it.

I don't have an official mentor - but I would say that all the managers I've had at my current employer have all had mentoring attitudes, even when two of them were only coworkers before becoming managers. Each of the three have been available to answer questions, went into additional detail, encouraged me to try something I was a little unsure about, and so forth. And each year at my performance review I'm always asked about what my short and long term goals are - and then my manager has put things in my path that will help me meet them.

[Steve Roesler]

Beth,

It sounds as if your company doesn't need an official mentor "program" because the attitude and action is woven into the fabric of the organization.

Just doesn't get any better than that.

[Tender]

It's really interesting reading. I like it. Thanks for cool blog