One of the surveys of corporate directors found that directors today are less worried about competitive threats, rising costs, innovation, risk management, technology, debt, or the regulatory environment. They are more worried about talent management as their single greatest strategic challenge. Please see the statistic of this report in the above hyperlink.
In a way, this statistics is not surprising. My humble opinion is that the companies are barking at the wrong tree. And the cause to me is very obvious. We just cannot see it perhaps because it is right infront of us: talent management in a company today is 'company-centric'.
Company-centric talent management
Companies are naturally interested in identifying and nurturing talent that 'suits' its strategic position, current organisation structure, and its business mix. But while doing this they inevitably face a conflict of interest with the status and aspirations of a professional.
For instance, in the organisation where i was consulting, we found that we were more interested in fulfilling leadership pipeline instead of offering time to let the candidate grow at his/her pace. We were keen to identify the 'ideal package' of star performer ( and slot them in pockets) that company needed , instead of finding the 'package' that he is coming with. Instead of altering our talent management practices to align with the aspirations of the professionals, we were more interested in 're-channelising' the aspirations of the professionals.
Professional-centric talent management
Talent management, at the core, is individual-centric. An individual has to manage his talent. We can only help or hinder him. Talent management therefore works only when we can see a problem of a professional from the 'lens of professional', not from the lens of 'HR professional'.
Sometimes, it may be appropriate to let the performer develop his 'doing' qualities instead of 'managing' qualities, because that is his source of strength. Sometimes, it is better to find a position where his 'weakness' is compensated by a subordinate, instead of forcing him to 'correct his weakness'. Sometimes, it is better to create a position that will suit him, instead of 'fitting him into an existing position'. And sometimes, it may be useful to let the professional work with a 'diametrically opposite boss' to increase his capacity of 'dissension', instead of helping him move away from a difficult boss.
On the other hand, the talent decisions can also be drastic. Sometimes, it may be smart to let the 'talent go away' because the company does not 'suit' his growth path. That at least enables the company to 're-hire' him when he is more ready. This is smart way because it enables us to use other companies to 'develop our talent'. Or help the professional use his 'family' challenges to help him grow, even though it may distract his attention from his work-life.
Like Peter Drucker used to say, we must find out 'what should be done', before deciding 'what can be done'. It is of course important to keep the organisation's interest in mind, but it should be always be after the professional's perspective is understood and addressed. It is true that professional-centric talent management will bring far more tough decisions on the table, but i am sure that companies are equipped to tackle them.
In a way, this statistics is not surprising. My humble opinion is that the companies are barking at the wrong tree. And the cause to me is very obvious. We just cannot see it perhaps because it is right infront of us: talent management in a company today is 'company-centric'.
Company-centric talent management
Companies are naturally interested in identifying and nurturing talent that 'suits' its strategic position, current organisation structure, and its business mix. But while doing this they inevitably face a conflict of interest with the status and aspirations of a professional.
For instance, in the organisation where i was consulting, we found that we were more interested in fulfilling leadership pipeline instead of offering time to let the candidate grow at his/her pace. We were keen to identify the 'ideal package' of star performer ( and slot them in pockets) that company needed , instead of finding the 'package' that he is coming with. Instead of altering our talent management practices to align with the aspirations of the professionals, we were more interested in 're-channelising' the aspirations of the professionals.
Professional-centric talent management
Talent management, at the core, is individual-centric. An individual has to manage his talent. We can only help or hinder him. Talent management therefore works only when we can see a problem of a professional from the 'lens of professional', not from the lens of 'HR professional'.
Sometimes, it may be appropriate to let the performer develop his 'doing' qualities instead of 'managing' qualities, because that is his source of strength. Sometimes, it is better to find a position where his 'weakness' is compensated by a subordinate, instead of forcing him to 'correct his weakness'. Sometimes, it is better to create a position that will suit him, instead of 'fitting him into an existing position'. And sometimes, it may be useful to let the professional work with a 'diametrically opposite boss' to increase his capacity of 'dissension', instead of helping him move away from a difficult boss.
On the other hand, the talent decisions can also be drastic. Sometimes, it may be smart to let the 'talent go away' because the company does not 'suit' his growth path. That at least enables the company to 're-hire' him when he is more ready. This is smart way because it enables us to use other companies to 'develop our talent'. Or help the professional use his 'family' challenges to help him grow, even though it may distract his attention from his work-life.
Like Peter Drucker used to say, we must find out 'what should be done', before deciding 'what can be done'. It is of course important to keep the organisation's interest in mind, but it should be always be after the professional's perspective is understood and addressed. It is true that professional-centric talent management will bring far more tough decisions on the table, but i am sure that companies are equipped to tackle them.
Summary
Companies are worried that, if they take professional's interest into the forefront, they will compromise the organisation's interest all the time. But in my coaching, i have found that professional's and company's interest are often aligned; someone simply has to show that alignment objectively.
Talent management also fails, because the professional not only should get right advice, but the professional should also perceive that he is getting the right advice. Until professionals 'trust' the advice, talent management is going to fail. And to make the advice seem objective and fair, the companies will have to do something extra. Here are some thoughts on it.
Until companies learn to tackle this inherent conflict of interest between the professional's growth path and the company's desired path, their attempts to bell the cat of talent management will not succeed.
Let us explore in the next few blogs the challenges that the company is likely to face in practicing professional-centric talent management.
Until companies learn to tackle this inherent conflict of interest between the professional's growth path and the company's desired path, their attempts to bell the cat of talent management will not succeed.
Let us explore in the next few blogs the challenges that the company is likely to face in practicing professional-centric talent management.
