Talent: How Big Is Your Organizational Aquarium?

If you are involved in any way with the issue of "growing talent," I hope this will add something to your mental map of the subject.

Because I'm in the middle of designing a talent management process, the topic is in the front of my mind.

Designing a process isn't difficult. There a million models out there.

Designing a talent process that people want to use and that works the way it's supposed to--that's the real trick.

However, there are some alluring intellectual traps that get in the way of workable talent processes:

1. Too much information about human behavior but not enough insight into how it works in the context of "our" organization.

2. A shopping list of competencies from which to select our faves for each role being examined. The trap: Piling on a laundry list of competencies that actually can't be delivered by a single human being.

3. Because lists of competencies already exist, they are frequently allowed to drive the talent process. It's easier that way.

4. Talent management is about the future. To make it meaningful you've got to look at your longer strategy, ask yourself "What would we see happening around here if that were being executed successfully?", and then define the kind of talent needed.

5. Related to #3 & 4: Most organizations start by looking at what and who they already have. That causes an unconscious (albeit well-meaning) tendency to form a baseline using existing standards rather than what the ideal will require five years from now.

6. Viewing classroom learning and training programs as the path to development.

They are paths to skill development. The path to professional and leadership development lies in the deliberate introduction of new experiences and assignments.

What Will Your Organizational Fish Tank Allow?

If you catch a small shark and confine it, it stays proportionate to the size of the aquarium. Sharks can be fully mature but only six or seven inches long. If you turn them loose in the ocean, they'll sprout to their normal length of eight feet.

So the real talent question for your organization becomes: "How big an aquarium will we create?"

1. Let people swim, sink, and bob to the surface so they can learn from it.

2. Build progressively larger tanks.

3. Don't treat the sharks like guppies.

4. Let them know how much they're growing and how far it is to the ocean.

What are you doing with your talent process or with your own professional development?

Reminder: Our "sharkness" has been noted and we're honored to be nominated for Best of Leadership Blogs 2008. We consider your vote fish food for All Things Workplace:-)

Comments

[GL HOFFMAN]

Steve,
Another good article. Many times, the hunt for talent gets bogged down with the mundane tasks and great talent goes un noticed or recognized. We developed a tool that helps, it is basically a robust ATS system for medium to small companies...you can see it at www.jobdigtracker.com. I would love to hear how you think it could help in other ways.
best,
GL

[Dan McCarthy]

Steve –

I agree with your six traps and like the fish tank metaphor.

We do tend to overcomplicate the talent management process. I’ve seen 30 page manifestos and slick charts and models that make my head spin! We need more “fish tank” models.

Here’s my simple way of looking at talent management:

1.Decide what kind of talent (leadership, functional, whatever) we’ll need in order to successfully execute our strategy (your point #4). Of course, this assumes you have a strategy.
2.Define what that stuff looks like (usually some kind of competency model, or models)
3.Assess your current players
4.Develop and acquire the right stuff

It’s been my experience that organizations spend way too much time on steps 1-3 (90%) and not nearly enough time on step 4. I’ll admit I do take shortcuts (or maybe I’ve just gotten good at it) with steps 1-2, a fair amount of time with step 3 (usually a facilitated discussion using a performance and potential matrix), and then really try to push hard on step 4. That’s where it gets challenging. Best case involves the resolve to replace underperformers and the commitment to aggressively invest in sourcing and development. Worst case ends up with fluff development plans that sit in notebooks and gather dust. Then, a year later, we repeat the annual steps 1-3 process.

Good luck with your process design!

[Steve Roesler]

Will take a gander, GL. Thanks for the heads up.

[Steve Roesler]

Dan,

It sounds as if our experiences have been quite similar. There is also a direct correlation between the complexity of the "program"/philosophical description and its ability to be used.

Just got back from the session outlining the structure for a global company. It took all of 3 hours to lay out using everyday language.

I also remembered something that I left out of the post. Whatever you do has to be easy for supervisors to implement; bring an obvious benefit to their work lives and productivity; and not be so administrative-oriented that the task of completing forms takes the place of getting and growing talent.

Thanks for moving the discussion forward. . .