|
Times have changed, and the strategic
approach to talent management and succession planning must be refocused to
address those changes.
Fifty years ago, talent management and succession planning strategy was simplicity itself.
- Attract graduates.
- Expose the graduates to different corporate functions.
- Fast track promotion as experience increased to fulfill the succession plan.
Three significant changes subsequently occurred that required a strategic rethink:
- The "job for life" or at least the expectation of double digit
years of employment with a single corporation expired.
- Operational and informational globalization became a reality and spurred
fundamental and on-going changes in the organization structures for which
succession was planned.
- Diversity and discrimination legislation was enacted, and the era of
"No win - No fee" litigation became a reality.
Many corporations did not engage with, or react to this critical strategic
refocusing requirement, and have ended up investing in training and fast tracking
talent for organization functions that became redundant, and in non-retained
talent that subsequently benefited their competitors.
It is undoubtedly time to rethink the 50-year-old talent management and
succession planning strategy, and refocus it to be relevant in the 21st century.
To do so, the definition of talent must be re-examined. Traditionally, talent
has been recognized using 'potential' criteria, but there is no provable direct
relationship between this 'potential' and performance, as the translation of
potential to performance requires the behavioral component of engagement. It is
logical to assume a direct relationship between previous demonstrated learning
capability and the future ability to absorb complex organizationally relevant
information. However, it is simplistic, erroneous and discriminatory to assume
that this singular ability will produce the leaders of the future. One has only
to look at the number of Cxx level employees in major successful corporations
who have started at the 'bottom' to comprehend that 'talent' must be identified
through performance rather than potential, and to recognize that real talent
exists AT ALL LEVELS OF A COMPANY. The strategic model of 'talent pipeline'
feeding a succession plan similarly needs to be addressed. Whilst this model is
an engaging 'ducks in a row' visual image, it is in fact strategically flawed.
Capability development is not sequential - it is simultaneous. In the same way
that the dynamic change management capabilities afforded by simultaneous access
CD's replaced the limitations of sequential access cassette tapes, the
sequential talent 'pipeline' must be replaced with a simultaneous talent 'pool.'
The relationship between this pool and the succession planning matrix is not a
one-way flow, but is symbiotic. It is essential that the succession planning
matrix evolves into a multidirectional opportunity matrix to feed the
experiential development of talent, and the talent pool feeds the opportunity
matrix with engaged individuals with quantifiable performance credentials who
have outgrown their current job description. As organization change occurs, an
opportunity matrix flexes dynamically to reflect the current situation, and
automatically redirects the capability requirements pointer simultaneously to
any area of the talent pool to meet the needs of any opportunity identified.
Once a dynamic opportunity matrix has been put in place, a matching dynamic talent
identification process must be implemented to fill the talent pool. A talent
pool is a dynamic entity, not an exclusive club with life-long membership.
Inclusion is earned not for what you did yesterday but for what you are
doing today. If an employee is exhibiting aberrant performances that are
producing an unexpected value-add, then the excess capabilities of these
exemplar performers must be channeled into either a scope or a scale adjustment
to their job description. Most companies have an existing process to deal with
under performers by applying support, training and/or job migration to a better
fit, but fail to recognize that talent management is simply the other side of
the pendulum swing. As companies develop into performance focused leadership
cultures, it is time to re-address the validity of Talent management and
succession planning strategy. The implementation of a privileged 'talent
pipeline' related to 'potential' but unrelated to performance is obviously
discriminatory, and de-motivates unrecognized exemplars at all levels of a
company who are going through the obstacle route rather than the pipeline. The
linking of this pipeline as a unidirectional cloning flow to feed a succession
plan in organizational structures that are evolving in a rapidly changing world
is an illogical anomaly. If the strategic imperative in an organization is to
develop the capabilities of all employees to their maximum potential, then once
the functional scope of a position in a company has been mastered then cross
functional scale experiential progressive responsibilities must become the norm. So
- How do you identify real talent in your organization? If talent
identification is to be related to performance, then an IT infrastructure is
required is required to support the process. The first question is where to
locate this infrastructure. Should it be a component of the IT Enterprise
system, or should it be a Legend-type system running in parallel to the ERP
infrastructure? In the UK, two thirds of all major corporations are running
these infrastructures external to the major IT matrix even though the
infrastructure could be integrated into that existing system. This approach is
understandable, as the design criteria for the two systems are different in
terms of both scope and scale. The scope of the corporate Enterprise system is
designed to collate individual inputs into larger measurement groups, and the
performance system is designed to break down information into specific
actionable interventions. In terms of scale, the Enterprise system is global,
whilst the performance system is by necessity localized. The differences are
further exacerbated as the Enterprise system produces static reporting data
based on fixed criteria, whilst the performance system must produce dynamic,
graduated fuzzy logic data measuring changes occurring due to focused field
change initiatives. The Enterprise data can be compared directly with
longer-term history to derive trend management criteria, but the performance
system requires subjective interpretation of data generated over a much shorter
timescale to determine results of actions rather than trend projection.
This subjective interpretation of data in
performance management systems means that algorithms designed for performance
management need adjusting for operating anomalies known only at the operating
interface of the company - an implausible strategic IT proposition.In
essence, performance management systems can interface with, or be a
component of an Enterprise system and have significant commonalities in
terms of data collection, but will always need an interpretive IT process to
translate data into a format that can be efficiently reviewed.
Talent
cannot be identified solely from the output from the interpretive IT
process. A subjective management appraisal of the data and an
understanding of the operational context to which an individual is
exposed is essential to identifying exemplar performance. Management leadership skills are essential to this process, as are
strong coaching and mentoring skills. Mentoring activities are
particularly relevant, as an understanding of each
individual's core drivers and aspirations gives a direct focus to
the identification of compatible experiential growth opportunities.
The key to identifying real talent is
that both quantitative and qualitative evaluation must be used.
It is unimportant in which order the identification process is
initiated, but it is critical that both components are used. If as a
leader you suspect that an individual is exhibiting talent performance,
the IT process must produce not only a quantification of the
performance, but also a benchmark to compare against. If a positive
quantifiable anomaly exists between benchmark and actual performance in
a like-for-like operating interface, then talent has been identified and
mentoring and opportunity analysis activities should be initiated.
Conversely, if the IT process identifies a quantifiable positive
performance anomaly, the qualification process must be initiated to
determine whether the performance and benchmark are like-for-like valid
or whether the performance is an operating exception due to ancillary
factors.
In the real world, it is highly
probable that effective leaders already know some individuals who are
producing exemplar performances, but that is not enough in a
whole-company leadership culture. Exemplar performance is a scale
activity, and every positive performance anomaly, whether large
or small, must be identified and processed as a talented performance if
each individual is to reach their maximum value-add and potential and be
successfully retained in an organization. If you are planning to
introduce a whole-company talent and opportunity matrix, Best Practice
Transfer Ltd. offers a comprehensive consulting service from initial
strategy discussion through design of infrastructures to implementation
of specific initiatives.
|
