Finally: Talent War Re-Visited

Last Wednesday I mentioned I'd be back shortly with a follow-up on talent war confusion followed by reports from WorldBlu Live! "Shortly" extended way beyond the most liberal meaning of the word due to a mixture of no wireless at the conference site and unexpected business that emerged.

The  "Talent War" Thing

Check out the in-depth comments from managers and other consultant/coaches.You'll see varied and thoughtful responses, each reflecting insights from different vantage points. If you are at all interested in the whole "talent" thing you won't be disappointed.

My original issue was about the mixed message we are all hearing:

Business: We're in a "War for Talent."

Employees: My company isn't using my talent.

It's easy to point fingers at powerful, uncaring corporate entities. But I don't think that's the real answer,  as attractive as it may seem to many. Here is what I've watched unfold in recent years:

1. Companies--especially publicly-held companies--are under pressure to produce short-term numbers. That's simply a fact.

2. Part of those numbers are generated by keeping costs down.

3. Statistics from ASTD and other sources show that large corporations are spending less money on professional development than they did, say, 10 years ago. There are fewer opportunities for workers at all levels to:

     a. Participate in the kinds of developmental workshops that help them focus on self-development within the organization. Part of those programs were dedicated to identifying strengths, areas of further development, and ways to initiate developmental discussions with bosses and others in the company.

     b. Be exposed to others who could see their talent and do something about it. Most of the leadership and management programs with which I've been involved have had a heavy participative component that included senior managers and executives. Their interactions with participants offered a first-hand look at people outside of their own functions. Informal  sessions provided a give-and-take about where the company was headed and what the future might look like. Workshop participants had the opportunity to talk about their interests and aspirations with those who could help the most.

4. One's talents need the light of day to find expression. That means being given the chance to "try things out" in different areas of an organization. Right now, there appears to be an emphasis on lowering risk while increasing current workload. This does at least two things:

     a. It discourages employees from "trying out" new ideas and demonstrations of talents not present in the immediate job description. This breeds a focus on "more of the same," but under stress. Therefore, one's talents may actually be subverted as a result of demands that are near-impossible to meet.

     b. It drives people to seek expression of their talents elsewhere. At a moment when organizations want to do more with less, the very people who may be capable of doing more don't see their current employer as a vehicle for their growth.

5. Many people haven't deliberately identified and acknowledged the range of talents that they possess. This isn't the fault of their employer; it's also a self-responsibility issue. In some cases, people over-estimate their inherent abilities. In others, they grossly underestimate themselves. What is most helpful to all concerned is a deliberate and accurate assessment regardless of age, industry, or level.

Are You "Talent" or "Talented?"

I don't really like the label "talent." I understand the goal and am involved in designing ways for companies and individuals to come together productively. But language is a powerful thing. We're talking about "talented people" not "talent" or "human capital." To the extent that language becomes impersonal, our ability to objectify people increases.

Here's another thought:

If the War for Talent turned into a Search for Talented People, the subjects might feel a bit safer and come out of hiding. And those doing the searching would have a more accurate picture of whom they were seeking (rather than "what").

This isn't a warm and fuzzy conceptual plea for a group hug. It's a hard-nosed look at a fact of life: You'll get what you ask for. If you want a "who," don't ask for a "what."

Comments

[Jo]

Good points. Like it.

[Dean Fuhrman]

Businesses are always looking to match someone up to a scenario they are looking to solve. It seems to me that in a lot of cases what is really desired is a turnkey solution - find that capable person, parachute them in, problem solved no muss no fuss. That may occur to me because it is what I have seen most recently and I saw it a lot. Other may differ on the point but I think it exists, I just can't say to what degree.

In any event, in the formulation "talented people" if one were to add "are need to do X" and that was a known fact that was open to all, perhaps the so called war for talent would cease because there are a lot of talented people who are looking for ways to unleash their talents that are right under management's nose in the form of existing employees. The key would be that these matters were on the table for discussion and that there was some support for getting the talent applied. This may seem naive ... it may however go some distance to get the side with the problem to talk more fruitfully to the side with the ability to solve the problem and vice versa.

[Wally Bock]

Here's the money quote for me.

We're talking about "talented people" not "talent" or "human capital."

[Allison O'Neill]

Yep I hugely agree. I am a big fan of what I call 'skill stocktakes' where individuals and their employer get to see in black and white all the skills they have achieved over their total working life AND their personal one. Whether they can do amazing art, whip up a killer chocolate cake, landscape or fly to the moon - all are skills that are alive and can be channeled into their role - sometimes in the most unexpected ways! www.thebossbenchmark.blogspot.com

[Steve Roesler]

Jo, that was your briefest reply to date. I'll take it! :-)

[Steve Roesler]

Dean,

I hadn't thought of it in exactly that way but it makes sense. The language with which a situation is framed can go a long way toward shifting the focus.

[Steve Roesler]

Wally,

Good to know it struck a note with you.

[Steve Roesler]

Allison,

My experiences are similar to yours. It can be quite telling when one takes inventory and sees the cumulative nature of professional and personal abilities.

[William Arruda]

I like the distinction between talent and talented people. Each person is talented in a unique way and has a unique promise of value (personal brand) to offer his/her employer. The message here for talented individuals is to ensure they are taking what they are talented at (in work and play) and integrating it into everyting they do, every day. It is hard to believe, but many professionals need to be given permission to maximize their strengths. I see this in my personal branding work inside companies all the time. Once people give themselves permission to focus on their strengths, they show how they are talented with every phone call they have, email they write and meeting they attend.

[Steve Roesler]

William,

So true.

Your branding work offers participants a powerful"double-dip." In order to identify and develop their respective brands, they also have to dig more deeply into how they are uniquely gifted. Can't beat that!

The use of the word "permission" strikes an all-too-familiar chord with the internal crowd. Traditional approaches to "developing" employees have long focused on "closing the gaps" in one's role. Using that model, employees can spend entire careers chipping away at that which they were never meant to do in the first place.

Let's continue to keep people and organizations zeroing-in on the right things.

Thanks for stopping by, William.