The Talent Management System (TMS) is an effective tool for creating a symbiotic relationship between Talent and the organization to dramatically accelerate performance improvements. The TMS is a distinct function within the organizational management system devoted exclusively to attracting Talent, keeping Talent, managing Talent, and identifying Talent. It is administered by the management team in cooperation with the human resource function.
TMS elevates Talent to a visible, exalted position to which others aspire. The TMS should be implemented and communicated as a big deal because it promotes distinct tracks for Talents and other employees. The introduction of a TMS system could create commotion, gossip about the insensitivity of management to people’s feelings, complaints of discrimination, outright rebellion, and work stoppages. But if introduced carefully, TMS can also cause people to recognize special contributors in meaningful ways.
Special tracks are not new. Most corporations identify high-potential employees (hi-pos) and put them on a hi-po track with a higher pay scale. Engineering organizations identify gifted engineers and put them on a “dual ladder” track that can extend upward through several vice presidential levels. The same for gifted scientists. Why not the same for other Talents?
The Talent Management System should be a powerful magnet to Talents, demonstrating that the corporation cares about Talents and their joy-of-work needs.
The Talent Management System is structured into four elements:
Attracting Talent describes how to become a strong magnet for Talent.
Keeping Talent describes how to create and maintain daily working environments in which Talents can productively pursue the joy of work and financial benefits from contributions.
Managing Talent describes how to treat Talents as customers and create opportunities and freedoms for Talents to stretch for their dream, for the things that make big differences for the company and for society.
Identifying Talent describes three ways to identify visible and hidden Talents: (1) notice and identify the obvious Talents, (2) use a performance-based identification tool, and (3) use a test-based identification tool.
New management systems that impact human resource practices often frighten management. New “fads” don’t always work. Getting a management system wrong can take down a company. Enormous benefits and minimal risk need to be shown.
The Talent Management System can quickly transform an organization from an also-ran or a laggard to a world-class leader. The TMS is designed to minimize risk. It is a small overlay on whatever system is in place. The overlay resides primarily with line management, not human resources. Human resources picks up some new administrative responsibilities, such as introducing and maintaining a new system that promotes inequities between Talents and others. This is not a new challenge. Hi-po and dual ladder tracks are the norm in manufacturing corporations. The suggested Talent track is no different. Special tracks are very manageable when the portion of the population in them is small and clearly distinguished from the general population. By definition, the Talent population will always be small because Talent is defined by a level of contribution compared to the level of contribution of the rest of the population. If the overall level of capability rises, the bar for Talent status also rises.
The benefits winnow down to winning or losing. In long races, the best Talent with the fastest vehicle wins. The vehicle is the corporation. Being fastest means changing faster than the toughest competitors. XYZ analysis indicates that 60 to 70 percent of contributions come from 5 to 10 percent of the employees, the Talents. The TMS will create enormous excitement.
Management behaviors will immediately change, at least for those you want to keep. The concept of treating Talent like customers completely changes the paradigm about the roles of employees and managers. Envision writing a stage play about telling a manager that she is now the supplier of “joy of work” to temperamental customers called Talents.
The Talent Management System will be a strong magnet for attracting and keeping Talent.
Non-Talents will aspire to become Talents. They will seek guidance about how they can improve to be worthy of becoming a candidate for moving to the Talent track, hi-po track, or dual ladder track.
Hidden Talents will become visible. The silent ones will feel safe in coming forward.
External Talents will be knocking on your door to get in.
If you are first or second in creating a significant Talent pool among practitioners and managers, then your organization will develop a reputation of being the absolutely best place in the world to work. Then you can further increase your Talent pool. Of course, the opportunity to leverage early successes to spiral up is accompanied by the opportunity to trail behind and spiral down.
Talent can go anywhere, and most of them know it. Be the first to make a big splash about your new Talent Management System oriented around treating Talent like the customers that they are. Then advertise: “We know that you have more attractive opportunities than you can investigate. So do we. We need more Talent. We are truly different. Our very livelihood depends on Talent. We are different, we need you, we know we need you, and we will behave in ways that you want us to behave. And that’s different.”
Be first. Catch the best Talent.
Attracting Talents, transforming hidden Talents into visible Talents, and keeping the work environment attractive to Talents are ongoing tasks. Talents work for the joy of work. They need to be compensated commensurate with their contributions. Compensation is a tangible measure of how the organization values their contribution, not fluff. “Thank you’s” and compliments are nice but meaningless measures. Money per se is mostly a maintenance factor, not a motivational factor for Talents. Treat Talents as customers, and you will attract them.
Explaining the liberal pay-for-performance compensation system for Talents will further attract them. In his article “The Job That No CEO Should Delegate” in the March 2001 issue of Harvard Business Review, Honeywell chairman and CEO Larry Bossidy says that no CEO should delegate the job of hiring key people. He feels that the interview process in hiring is the most flawed process in American business. He says you can’t spend too much time on hiring and developing the best people. Many of the people he developed in that company later left to become CEOs of other companies.
The relentless pursuit of Talent should be a main management strategy. Most companies can’t recruit talented people fast enough. This Talent shortage is the biggest obstacle to growth, and overcoming it can mean a huge strategic advantage. But money alone won’t do it. Talented people want to be part of an organization they can believe in, one that excites them.
Here are seven ways organizations can attract Talent:
Treat Talent as customers
Have a Talent Management System
Promise future reward and recognition with stock options, other ownership options, and performance-based pay packages
Have a flexible work environment and positive culture
Practice visionary management and leadership
Conduct performance reviews and succession planning
The single most important thing organizations can do to become more attractive to Talent is to create a flexible work environment. To attract more Talent, an organization needs to create an environment that attracts the most talented people to create the knowledge base needed in the organization. Rather than have narrow job functions—“This is the only thing I do and nothing else”—people should feel free to walk around. For example, even though they are working in the marketing organization, talented employees may go to product development and say, “Here is an idea.” It may be wild, but still the marketing people should have the freedom to talk about it—and product development should consider the idea. For example, suppose you want to develop a car, and somebody in marketing comes up with a phenomenal car design and concept. Nothing wrong with that. That is the kind of flexible work environment that attracts talent.
When Herbert returned from his recruiting trip to Company XYZ, all he could talk about was how great the people were. He was so excited he practically screamed about how enthusiastic everyone was about the company and their work. He explained how Joe got out some of the presentations he used to explain his new widget to management. Although the widget was highly secret because the company was in a close race with its toughest competitor, Joe granted Herbert the trust that he would keep the secret. Herbert’s friends knew that he could never break such a trust. The secret was in good hands. Apparently, Joe also knew that trust granted is trust secured.
Herbert charged on without taking a breath in an attempt to emulate the enthusiasm exuded by the hiring manager, George. He was astonished by George’s explanation of his management style. George explained that he sought out the best Talents that he could find, asked them what they wanted to do, and then firmly instructed them to go do it. Herbert explained how George rushed nonstop to explain that talent is an important word. Talented people are different from good people or, to use the vernacular, hi-pos. Hi-pos are usually strong contributors to the daily needs of the projects that they are assigned to. Some Talents could not be successfully assigned to pursue a set of sequential activities in a disciplined way to get a body of identified work done by a particular time. Other Talents could perform “routine work” from time to time if they were given the freedom to pursue their dreams part of the time.
Talents are different and need the freedom to pursue their thing. Talents nucleate new ideas, new ways of thinking, and new ways of doing things. Talented people may or may not fit very well into the culture of the organization; some do, and some don’t. Some visibly work hard, and some don’t. But they are all special and worth their weight in gold. Yes, they require extra attention, extra management time, and often myriad other strange demands. But they make big differences in totally unexpected ways. They are the spirit and real leaders of the organization.
George went on to explain that the company’s personnel systems did not support people outside of the norm very well but that top management had the insight and the trust to let managers identify and work with Talents. This informal system caused some problems, to be sure, a few serious problems. Some hi-pos wanted to be identified as Talents or at least get the special privileges, including the higher compensation afforded Talents. After all, the hi-pos felt they contributed more everyday than the so-called Talents contributed in a year or perhaps a lifetime.
Finally, Herbert said, George lowered his voice, slowed the pace of the conversation, and with deliberate care began to explain what Herbert had expected him to explain, namely, the mission of the organization and how someone like Herbert was needed to fill an important role, not just a position. Herbert recalled that George had a folder on his desk that contained all the formal recruiting materials about the mission and vision of the corporation and how his Advanced Development Department fit into the corporation. He showed the organization chart and what organization Herbert would be in. George continued to explain some of the strengths of the company, including the competitive compensation system, the reward and recognition programs, how much more his company spent on benefits than did most other companies, and, in general, why it was a super place to work.
Herbert stopped and yelled, “All of a sudden George lunged at me, took the written mission statement, wadded it up, threw it in the wastebasket, and bellowed, ’That is how much the mission statement is worth. Our mission is in our heart, not on a piece of paper. That is why we are good at what we do. The few Talents have caused all of us to band together like rebels with a cause and do what’s right for society, for our customers, for our employees, for our company, and for our stockholders. We can’t even write our mission on a sheet of paper. It changes every day in some important way. We are an undisciplined, dynamic, passionate group of people striving to do what is right. People in other organizations point to us, only partially in jest, as the collection of misfits who can’t adjust to normal expectations of more orderly and structured organizations. We collectively strive to create an environment of “freedom to act, freedom to fail, and freedom to succeed.” Such freedoms engender a high degree of responsibility, a passion to do what is right for the corporation and for society. That is why we are good, and that is why you should join us.’”
George closed with “Have a good day. I need to walk around to find out what the misfits are doing today.” Herbert said that he was so excited that he was scared that he might not get an offer. Herbert went on to explain, “All I did was listen and occasionally nod. He did not ask me anything about my background or interest until his last words as I was closing the door. ’Go home, think about what you would like to do and then tell me so that when I hire you I can firmly instruct you to go do it.’” Herbert said he went home and thought all night about his two hours with George. He did not know what he wanted to do. He kept hoping for a burst of creativity, an idea, any idea, before the sun came up.
Herbert had the good fortune of interviewing at an exciting corporation that attracted and retained Talent. George was a Talent who attracted Talent. Talent attracts Talent. A performance-based compensation package is another key to attracting as well as keeping Talent. At the end of the day, you have to create an environment where Talents feel that they will be free financially. If talented people do not feel that they will be well compensated for their contributions, they will seek opportunities elsewhere and find them. Once on board, if Talents feel, “I am not getting enough money relative to my contribution,” Talents won’t perform, or Talents will walk.
Talents are restless and mobile. To keep Talents happy, treat them like customers. Provide ongoing services that continue to make your company an obviously better place to work and contribute to the world than any other company in the world. Customer loyalty is created by ongoing services beyond the initial purchase. Successful organizations do not take the loyalty of talented people for granted. They constantly try to recruit and keep them and have think tanks at every level. Mutual commitment of the employer and employee characterizes a successful organization.
Joe Liemandt, CEO of Trilogy Software, a fast-growing software firm based in Austin, Texas, says: “Trilogy treats its employees like they are all managers, partners, and shareholders.” That is why Trilogy is so successful. But Liemandt’s biggest worry is keeping his talented people. He knows they can go anywhere. “There’s nothing more important than recruiting and growing people. That is my number one job.” Barb Karlin, director of great people at Intuit, boldly says: “If you lose great people, you lose success. It’s that simple.” The organization must foster an atmosphere that makes its Talents want to stay.
Organizations keep talented employees by doing the following:
They treat Talents as customers.
They compensate Talents as preferred suppliers.
They offer the right compensation, including proper reward and recognition.
They conduct meaningful performance appraisals.
They design jobs to appeal to talented people.
They assign the right Talent to the right jobs.
They choose the right location to attract and retain the right Talent.
They provide proper training, development, and succession planning.
They provide a proper research facility.
They balance age, race, gender, and color.
They create a challenging environment or excitement in jobs.
They communicate candidly without fear of reprisal.
They provide unassigned time to seed and cultivate ideas.
They create social bonds with Talent through adventures, sports, games, contests, parties, and celebrations. For example, a former IBM manager used to take his twenty-four managers on a white-water rafting trip down the Colorado River each summer. He says, “When you’re in white water together, and someone falls out of the raft, and you have to think how to get him back in, that creates deep bonding. At night, at a campsite that is far removed from cell phones and other distractions, the group can discuss different business strategies.”
We can create a symbiotic relationship between Talent and the organization. Talents can’t be owned forever or even purchased temporarily unless you satisfy them properly. There is no guarantee of lifetime employment of this most critical asset. Corporate growth depends on the growth of individual Talents; and Talents grow faster when an organization grows vigorously. When a proper symbiotic relationship is developed between Talents and the organization, Talents give their physical, mental, and even spiritual support to that organization.
To create a symbiotic relationship with Talents, try these seven actions:
Recognize and reward Talents properly.
Offer profit-sharing plans or stock options that create a sense of ownership.
Measure team and individual performances.
Evaluate the performances.
Develop a performance-based, semivariable compensation package.
Define responsibility, authority, and accountability for each project.
Eliminate people who are not performing.
The number one reason why most good Talents leave is because they are not recognized and rewarded. They are frustrated, and the primary source of their frustration is the lack of recognition and reward—social, emotional, and financial recognition. They see their boss get ten times more recognition and compensation than they get from their ideas and work. So they get frustrated and say, “Okay, I am leaving.” Smart Talent managers ask, “Who came up with this cool idea? I want to recognize this person personally in front of the entire staff.” How often does your organization do that? Without the recognition, talented people will leave. Typically the rewards go to the wrong people. If Talents feel undervalued or exploited, they will leave. When people feel exploited, it doesn’t matter how much money you give them, they leave.
Talents must learn to accurately assess the value of their contributions. If they always overestimate the value of their contributions, the organization may let them go. True Talents neither overestimate nor underestimate the value of their contributions. If they do, they can cause dissent and may hurt the company more than they help.
For example, when Talent comes up with a powerful idea, but the organization doesn’t buy into it, Talent quits. Most talented people will leave if they receive significantly less financial reward for their innovative ideas while some executives make tons of money. Often Talents are told, “We would like to pay you more or promote you, but you don’t have managerial skills.” So, the Talents leave—and their former managers are then likely to be laid off because they no longer have the Talent needed to achieve desired results.
Some organizations may want to create a dual ladder so that Talents can climb upward without taking on management responsibilities. Job grades and titles for higher-level Talents on the individual contributor ladder for Talents should be considered. Not all Talents want to be managers. But you want to keep all Talents.
True Talents are people who make a significant contribution. There are people who just make noise, saying, “I’ve done this, and I’ve done that.” True Talents don’t make much noise—they let their performance speak for them. Success to them is in the success of the products or processes they create. Still, in their hearts, they are deeply bothered when they don’t get the recognition and rewards for their ideas, especially when others who made a minimal contribution receive the rewards. This is a key point for managers to understand. Talents may not say they need to be recognized, but they are like anyone else, but are more likely to feel slighted. Talents will stay with an organization for ten, twenty, or thirty years only if they are having fun. Having fun means they are contributing something that they believe is important and are being recognized and rewarded for their contributions. They work in a speak-your-mind, freedom-to-act, freedom-to-fail, freedom-to-succeed atmosphere, and they can excel at whatever they do. Most Talents will stay or come back to an organization if they are treated well. They may leave to see if the grass is really greener in another place, but if they were recognized well and treated fairly, they might come back. Few organizations make a concerted effort to recruit former Talents. If and when Talents return, they need to be put in a new position or location or given a fresh challenge. Returning employees need to keep having fun. Most organizations have little long-term memory, and so when Talents leave, they are soon forgotten. If talented people come back, they need a new position.
Managing Talents may seem a hopeless endeavor. Talents seek freedom and support, not managing. Again, think of Talents as customers. You can’t manage customers. You can only provide them with the goods and services they want and need. Determine their customer requirements. Ask Talents what they believe is the most important thing they can do for the company. If it is within the boundaries of the strategic direction of the company, ask them what they need from you and then provide those needs instantly. Act quickly. Delays in service indicate that you don’t care—not a message you want to send to temperamental customers.
Managing Talent has to be learned. Managers must know how to get the best out of people and how to strategically place them in the right position where they are not dragged down by routine work. Managers must provide the setting in which their Talents can produce maximum knowledge and maximum innovation and have maximum impact. When strategically managed, Talents will generate maximum return. Many companies don’t bother to grow their own Talent or have farms or ways to grow Talent because they don’t have anything like a Talent Management System. They think managing Talent is the human resource manager’s job. Many managers mistake “people who kiss the manager” for Talents—and they may promote the wrong people. Whom you know becomes much more important than what you know or what you do. This is a common mistake. Don’t let politics get in the way of making good decisions. The manager may have a hard time making the proper decision. Often, the employees will know the Talent better than the manager does. There are a couple of easy ways to solve this problem. The simplest way is for the manager to get an unbiased read from the employees on who is doing the best work. If the manager does it regularly enough, the employees will let down their guard, and the communication will be best. Absent that level of communication, the manager may need a more formal way of ascertaining who might be most talented. The manager might need an independent unit led by a chief Talent officer (CTO) who manages the Talent. In addition, the company could establish a “Keep Talent Happy Council” headed by a chief Talent officer, to provide the guidance and training of the management team. If the organization is having a difficult time analyzing, finding, managing, or keeping its most talented people, something along these lines is a good idea.
Treating Talents as preferred suppliers by spectacularly compensating them for their spectacular contributions will also change the behaviors of the managers whom you wish to retain. The demand for Talent places new demands on management. Managers who attract Talent should be on the Talent track. Those who repel Talent should be somewhere else.
More organizations should have CTOs and Talent management councils whose job will be to manage Talent effectively inside and outside the organization. CTOs must hire the best, use the best, and keep the best. They manage Talent effectively by treating Talents as customers; they compensate Talents as preferred suppliers; they choose the right Talent for right job; they allow Talent to focus on creating and applying knowledge; they create an emotional bond by touching the mind and emotions; they embrace a trust culture; they build trust by talking and listening to each other freely; they present positive challenges to their Talents to increase their performance level—and “positive challenges” does not mean criticism or humiliation but rather constructive coaching and encouragement; they provide a continuous learning environment; they focus on performance; they reward Talent immediately; they build a culture where Talents can turn their dreams into reality; and they create a boundaryless organization where information can flow freely.
The success of any project depends on the proper allocation of Talent resources. Talent is a scarce as well as costly resource. Proper Talent allocation prevents overlapping activities. At every level, management must keep at least one Talent on each team. Management should identify the critical activities and create a priority network. Management should allocate its Talents to those activities on a priority basis. More or less allocation of Talents in any department can cause major gains or losses. For example, suppose a company has a superior product in quality, but it is not getting proper market share due to a dearth of Talent in sales, marketing, and public relations. Management should arrange for a balanced Talent network in every level.
XYZ analysis is a powerful way for organizations to manage their workforces effectively. Management should divide its workers into three categories—X, Y, and Z. See figure 5-1.
Category X workers represent only about 5 to 10 percent of the workforce, but they typically produce about 60 to 70 percent of the intellectual or knowledge value. Although 5 to 10 percent of the workforce is a small group, these people are the most valuable. This category X workforce needs much more attention and should be carefully managed. Organizations cannot afford to lose category X workers because they are difficult to replace. Category X people are the top Talents of the organization.
Category Y workers represent about 25 to 30 percent of the workforce; these knowledge workers produce about 25 to 30 percent of intellectual or knowledge value.
Category Z workers represent 60 to 70 percent of the workforce and produce 5 to 10 percent in total intellect or knowledge value.
XYZ analysis clearly shows which people are the organization’s greatest assets. Larry Bossidy, chairman and CEO of Honeywell, said: “At the end of the day, we bet on people, not strategies.” But it’s a blind bet if managers don’t monitor their Talent assets. XYZ analysis clearly identifies the people who are valuable to the organization, and management must pay special attention to keep these people. Management can decrease turnover of category X Talent by doing XYZ analysis.
For example, suppose three people come up with a blockbuster idea that brings in a lot of revenue for the company. If the company doesn’t know who those three people are, the company will likely think of each of them as “just another employee” and fail to recognize or reward them. The talented people who come up with great ideas need to get some recognition, perhaps in the form of a promotion or bonus. They are a select breed. Without them, the organization fails to evolve. And yet often instead of being rewarded, such top Talents see others who had little or nothing to do with the creation of the product get all the rewards. So, a frustrated Talent may say, “My boss made five times more money out of my work. Who cares about this company? I am leaving and going to the competition.”
To classify workers into X, Y, and Z categories, you have to assess the value of their knowledge contributions. Sort the workforce members according to their value contribution. Constantly monitor the X category, then the Y category. Evaluate how the company can effectively manage those talented people. Create a contingency plan for the event that you lose a significant percentage of people in the X category. Over the years, I’ve talked with several senior executives of major corporations who confidently told me, “Absolutely. We know who our top Talents are,” often referring to the management team. But, are these people the true Talent of the organization? Often they are usually people who kiss up to the boss—who play politics.
When allocating Talent, management should follow six steps:
Set the business goal or objectives
Develop an action plan or develop each division’s goal to meet the business goal
Identify the strengths and weaknesses of each division to meet the goal
Assign new Talents or train existing Talents to overcome the weaknesses of each division
Constantly monitor the performance of each division
Take corrective actions if necessary
Soccer is a great analogy of Talent allocation. In a soccer game, it is difficult to win a match by putting all ten players (excluding goalkeeper) in one position—like forward, midfield, or defense. According to the team’s strategy, you have to keep some players in each sector to win the game. One team may keep four players on defense, two at midfield, and four in the striker position. Or it may keep four players on defense, three in midfield, and three at striker. A good coach fields a balanced team who has a good defense, a good midfield, and a good striker to win a game. Similarly, managers should keep Talents in each division as needed.
Today business is a team game. It is very difficult to run a business by having an individualistic mentality. If a true Talent team is formed, team performance will be better than individual performance. The team increases the knowledge level of every Talent, and that ultimately increases the performance level. The chances of taking a wrong strategy or making a wrong decision will be less. Also, changing direction or deploying plans is much easier. If everybody is part of the change process and believes in it, a learning climate is created. Talent always wants to learn. If a Talent team is formed, members on the team share their knowledge and learn from each other, which creates a true “learning organization.” Talent teams are better than individual Talents because the organization is less dependent on one particular Talent. If for any reason that one Talent left the organization, the organization has others who can pick up the slack.
Talent shortage is often the biggest obstacle to a company’s growth. More companies need to grow their own Talent, instead of just hiring Talent. Hiring Talent away from a competitor creates a war mentality. In fact, the personnel market is often called the “war for Talent” because companies are hiring (stealing) Talent from their competitors.
Some people cast an unmistakable aura of talent. Others are hidden by impersonal company bureaucracies or overbearing bosses. External people may or may not carry a brand as Talent. Internal or external, put the obvious Talents on the Talent track with significant and immediate compensation appropriate to the Talent track. When uncertain, go prospecting. Prospecting for scarce, valuable resources is an honorable profession. If your apparent gold turns out to be “fool’s gold,” throw it back and try again. Talent assessment tools are introduced later and in the context of a Talent scorecard to help identify and guide potential Talents.
Year after year, I come across managers who do not know how to identify talented people. Over the years I have met many bright men and women, but management fails to use them effectively. They are frustrated Talents and are therefore unproductive Talents. If management does not use these Talents properly, someone else will. Big benefits come from identifying Talents within the company before hiring new employees.
Identifying your own Talents before hiring new Talents is beneficial because existing Talents already know the strength and weakness of the organization; they are already familiar with the culture; they already know what corrective steps are needed to improve; they take less time in action or implementation of any strategy or idea; and identifying them eliminates recruitment costs. If you still need to hire Talent, and you almost certainly will, visible internal Talent will help attract outside Talent. Talent attracts Talent.
Employees can change behaviors; head-down, obedient doers of what is asked can explode into dynamic leaders of big ideas that can make big differences to your corporation. But they can do this only if they are given freedom to explore and act, the encouragement to champion new ideas, support in championing ideas when the opposition gets tough, bosses who devote the time and energy to listen for understanding and even work on and add to Talent’s new ideas, and the experience of being rewarded with a “thank you,” rather than chastised, for out-of-the-box ideas. In other words, they need a whole new environment that fosters creativity, not just the daily grind of executing a project. Such environments have transformed wimps into tigers, really strong, agile Talents. The challenge is to find the tigers hiding as wimps. It is certain that there are some such people within your organization. Find them and free them. That is what the Talent Management System is all about.
Conversely, all employees have to be accountable for what they do. If some people don’t perform, get rid of them. If you want to move fast, you have to get rid of dead weight. You can’t afford people who just go to work from 8 to 5, check e-mail, or surf the Net. This is the flip side of what the Talent Management System is all about.
Talents within the organization often stand out as different. Bosses, peers, and subordinates all recognize obvious Talents. However, some Talents are hidden by the system. Some Talents are quiet, unassuming, mild mannered. Such people are sometimes difficult to identify as Talents. In these instances, other assessment tools can be used.
The first method of identifying Talents is to pay attention, notice, explicitly identify them, and put them on the Talent track. Two other methods are tools: the performance-based identification tool and the test-based identification tool.
This tool uses a current performance appraisal system coupled with dialog with current and past bosses. Dialogs with peers and subordinates might also be conducted. The collection of existing information becomes an assessment tool when it is used to assess and make judgments about who might be identified as potential Talents. This is a process of assessing past performance and contributions to predict future capabilities within a new set of circumstances. This tool is the method commonly used to identify hi-pos. With changes in criteria against which employees are identified, the same methodology can be effectively applied to identification of Talents. The performance-based identification tool has the advantage of not needing to explicitly involve candidate employees. This feature makes it a useful screening tool to identify promising candidates who might then be asked to participate in the test-based identification tool.
As its name implies, the test-based identification tool intensely involves candidates. Testing should be judiciously used as a complement, not a replacement, to management judgment. Some people just don’t do well on tests, especially when the outcomes might be perceived as career threatening. Other candidates test better than they actually perform.
Testing for special positions such as dual ladders is common and generally effective. An important benefit of test-based systems is that they provide all employees the opportunity to apply to take the test. Performance-based systems are utilized by management in top-down processes, making it awkward for people to nominate themselves.
The test-based tool consists of attribute scorecards and a balanced scoring methodology. Like the performance-based identification tool, the test-based identification tool is applicable only to known, internal candidates. An example of a Talent scorecard is shown in figure 5-2.
Table 5-2. Talent scorecard
TALENT SCORECARD | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Attributes | Type of Evidence | Self-Scores | Jury Scores |
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
Totals | |||
Talents may have special expertise in certain areas, or the company may need to search for a particular type of expertise. Complementary scorecards can be developed for special purposes. Examples include leader, individual contributor, and subject matter expert scorecards.
The scorecard in figure 5-2 is only an example. The company, and perhaps the organizations within the company, needs to decide what attributes are the most important within its culture. Attribute lists should be generated by a carefully selected group of representatives from multiple levels and multiple functions within the company.
The first column of the scorecard contains a list of “Attributes” that a true Talent would be expected to have. The second column, “Evidence,” provides spaces to enter the form of evidence that is used to score the degree to which a person exhibits the corresponding attributes. Two objective measures (observation, fact) and two subjective measures (aura, judgment) are suggested as effective types of evidence. The third and fourth columns provide for entering self-scores and jury scores. The self-scores allow individuals to score each attribute as they assess the degree to which they possess and practice that attribute. Colleagues selected to serve on a “jury of peers” enter the jury scores.
The scoring process consists of seven steps:
Selecting a Jury
The jury is a group of coworkers selected to examine the evidence and vote on the strengths of the evidence for each of the listed attributes (see figure 5-3). The use of a jury is common for this type of task, whether the jury is a group of customers being asked for its requirements, a jury of coworkers examining management styles, or a jury of coworkers identifying Talents. To identify a potential Talent with management responsibility, the jury should include a minimum of the boss, a supplier peer, a customer peer, and a subordinate. It is best to have a second representative from the boss’s level and a second subordinate, totaling six to eight members. In the spirit of court proceedings, the candidate should select half of the members and the boss the other half.
Selecting and Understanding Evidence
The notion of selecting two objective and two subjective types of evidence has been mentioned. One effective scheme is:
Observation: You see it consistently occur.
Aura: Your feelings about the Talent. Aura is fuzzy but important.
Judgment: The Talent’s behaviors suggest it to be true.
Fact: You strongly believe it to be true. It is verifiable.
The scoring process may seem too dependent on opinions and subjective judgments. For any single attribute scored by a single person, the process would be flawed. However, long lists of attributes combined with multiple jury members tend to average a large number of scores toward a mean that is likely to be close to reality. In addition, the more the attributes are stratified, the easier each attribute is to diagnose and score. Finally, the analysis of scores (which will be discussed later) may reveal inconsistencies that the jury members can strive to resolve.
Self-Scoring
The Talent should make a self-assessment and score himself or herself. Self-scoring serves several purposes. It helps the Talent understand the process. It involves the Talent in the process. It provides the opportunity to explore any major differences about how the Talent perceives himself or herself and how others perceive the Talent. It provides a consistency check for the analysis activity.
Jury Scoring
Any number of scales may be used for scoring, such as the 1-to-5 scale, where 3 is taken as the average for the organization population. A method that focuses attention on comparisons to average rather than numerical evaluations is to use pluses and minuses designated either with p’s and m’s or +’s and −’s. The highest scores for a single attribute are ++ and −−. Above the average is +, below is −. Assume that the scorecard has twenty-six attributes. The highest possible bottom line score would be twenty-six times ++ or fifty-two counts of +’s. The lowest score would be fifty-two negative counts. An average score would be zero or “s.” It is best to enter s’s to simplify bookkeeping while doing the scoring. However, s’s are not summed because their numerical value is zero, and the sum of zeros is zero. See figure 5-4.
Averaging Scores of Jury Members
Averaging is straightforward. Add the scores from all jury members for each attribute and divide by the number of jury members. Enter the averaged score for the attribute.
Analyzing the Scores
Analyzing the scores shows the strengths and weaknesses of the Talent as well as the behaviors and feelings of the members of the jury.
Look for inconsistencies in the raw scores of the jury members. If one score is dramatically different from the others, strive to understand what the member with that score used as evidence and what is behind the different perception. Resolve if possible and feel free to change scores: either the group of similar scores or the seemingly out-of-step score. If the members cannot resolve the differences, then average and enter the scores.
If there are wild variations between all of the scores, again try to resolve. If no one will change his or her scores, then average and enter the scores.
If the lack of consistency in scoring persists through many of the attributes, complete the scoring process and consider whether to repeat the total scoring process. Often, a second pass, after discussions about each of the attributes, leads to much more consistency in the scoring. Compare the total averaged scores of the first and second passes. Very likely, they will be very close in spite of the apparent inconsistencies. If the bottom line scores are different, then take the second pass as the score.
Compare the averaged jury score with the self-score line by line for each attribute and the bottom line totals. If major discrepancies emerge, one or all of the jury members should meet with the Talent to present, discuss, and understand the source of the discrepancies. The jury can then decide whether to modify scores.
If there is a consistent biasing between the two scores, ignore it for now. It will receive consideration in the next step.
Decide whether to include the self-score with the jury score. This is an opportunity for the jury as a whole to influence the scores and the outcome. Take the opportunity with reasonable prudence.
Working through these suggested actions normally improves the confidence in the methodology to reliably discriminate between the potentials of the Talents within the organization to rise to the top (whatever the top may mean).
Normalizing Scores to a Common Scale
Assume a scale of 1 to 11 and characterize the numerical values as indicated. See figure 5-5. The general formula for normalization of scores to some scale range is:
For example, assume a total of twenty-six attributes for a scorecard. When all scores are ++ or −−, the maximum of fifty-two counts is realized. Assume the bottom line score of forty. Then the score = 40, the maximum count = 52, and the scale range = 11, or: (40/52) × 11 = 8.46.
The test-based Talent identification tool may appear somewhat daunting at first, but with practice it becomes an efficient tool in the manager’s tool kit. It will come to be perceived by employees, potential Talents, Talents, managers, and human resources as a mutual benefit to all. Properly administered, it is a tool that fosters socialization between all those involved. It is not a dreaded performance appraisal system. It is more of a career guidance system.
If you feel that there is a lot of untapped potential in certain people and that you’re not getting the full performance out of them, but you don’t want to fire them, you might give them a wakeup call to get that talent out of them, to get them to perform better. You might select these people to participate in the test-based identification tool. And you might involve them in adventurous games together so they can develop a social bond.
Most corporations confuse Talents with knowledge workers. Talents may have devised a prevention strategy or a phenomenal innovation, but it may not save or make the company immediate money, and so they are ignored. I know hundreds of engineers who have come up with phenomenal innovations and did not receive any promotion, recognition, or reward—nothing. Because they are talented, they don’t want to kiss up to anybody. But if they don’t, they are out of the loop. They are not selected to go to a management program. In our society, the big problem for Talent is the internal politics. The more we can break that political barrier, the more Talent can contribute. Talent seeks performance-based, not politics-based, environments. Often senior managers will tell you they have some kind of Talent Management System in place, but they are really talking about their personal preferences or the company political system. True Talents avoid political environments. Typically Talents don’t show much interest in politics because of their professional pride. To them political game playing is a waste of time. To them it is not a valid, value-added contribution to the organization. If I am Talent, I need a free environment. Even if I am just an associate, I need to feel that I can discuss anything with the top executive.
By using TMS, managers can properly deploy the skills of talented employees. Many talented people do not produce significant results—due to the lack of a proper TMS. The same talented people working in an organization that uses a TMS will produce better results.
Companies for the most part have some kind of human resources plan, and they certainly have standard procedures to follow. But it is not unusual to find the department to be very bureaucratic. The best companies going forward will have a Talent Management System that operates as a separate or semiautonomous unit. HR management includes every employee. TMS involves only those deemed to have talent. The TMS unit has the responsibility to keep track of the talented people. Organizations are starting to use TMS as the need for Talent has become much clearer in recent years. In the past when you joined an organization such as GM or Ford, you typically wanted to make a career out of it. For the most part, this is no longer the case. So talented people are becoming tough commodities to find and keep.
The Talent Management System is for managers, not for human resources. TMS is a strategic, transformational initiative. The notion of Talent as customer can change the behavior of managers in ways that can benefit the entire organization. Even tough command-and-control-style managers might be motivated to lighten up, develop better motivational skills, and balance the use of a stick with the use of a carrot. The existence of TMS will help attract and keep the best and the brightest Talents. It will set your enterprise above in the minds of those inside and outside the organization.
Adopt, adapt, and become adept at the Talent Management System. Adopt the basic construct as presented in this book. Adapt it to fit your organization and become adept at using the system to attract, keep, and inspire the Talents to new levels of achievement. The new standard of performance set by the Talent track will cause all employees to strive for better performance.