talent

That’s not talent, that’s process

Posted on by Blog

Sometimes there is an unassailable truth that needs to be told. A guilty secret that needs to be revealed. A lie that needs to be challenged.

Because, in your organisation, you’re not managing talent, you’re managing process.

Well, if you work in 99% of organisation you aren’t. And if you work in the other 1%, you’re lying.

The thing is, the language that we use around “talent management”, the behaviours that we all display, the way in which we approach it has as much to do with managing talent as chocolate has to do with teapot formation.

Most of us don’t know how to measure talent. And where we do measure, we’re not really measuring talent at all.

HiPo? Is the definition of talent someone who is capable of being more senior?

Because Leonardo Da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Sylvia Plath. They were all destined for management?

And if they weren’t then they clearly weren’t talent.

Our organisations are based on a myth of hierarchy that assumes that power and value is added as one progresses, rather than understanding the true mechanisms that drive organisational performance and rewarding the people who truly add value.

As a result we reward a politically charged, single focussed, rise to the top. A game that is suited, not to the most talented, but the most politically adroit. We promote the people who impress by playing the game, and we neutralise the people who don’t fit the mould.

You’ll argue that you don’t do this, that you’re different. But you’re not.

And that’s because our organisations, our businesses, the western world is geared up to systemically ignore true talent. Your reward systems, your recruitment processes, your learning and development programmes. Not a single one of them really recognises talent.

And the funny thing is, the hours we spend on “talent management” the grids we fill in, the conversations we have, the investment we place in systems that effectively wipe the lipstick off the pig are a complete and utter waste of everyone’s time.

You would still make the same promotion and development decisions without doing it.

Until we are willing to re-engineer the way in which our organisations operate, to refocus our energy on the right argument, rather than the incessant and dogmatic pursuit of a rather badly dressed up false promise.

Until then, we will always be managing process.

And that has nothing to do with talent.

The 9 box model explained

Posted on by Blog

The nine box model exists in most companies. Some have twelve, some have sixteen. Because they’re greedy. You may not know it, but each year you’re being evaluated and put in to a box on a grid. And each box has a definition. Here’s what they say. And what they really mean:

What it’s called:  Enigma

What they say: Individuals with high potential but low performers. They are either wrongly placed or could be working under the wrong supervisors who have not been able to tap their potential. They are totally wasted in an organisation. To help them perform, external intervention is required and open communication and feedback between employees and supervisors might be able to yield good results.

What they mean: We’ve screwed up. So it’s time to outsource the problem. Thankfully there are suckers out there to help us. Coaching anyone?

 

What it’s called: Dilemma

What they say: Individual with average potential but low performance levels. The reasons for this are many but to boost their performance, motivation, inspiration and encouragement, proper opportunities and communication can certainly yield the desired results.

What they mean: Can’t they get a new job? Have a mid-life crisis? Fall down a ditch? Get me the hit men. Or a training course.

 

What it’s called: Under Performer

What they say: Individuals with low potential coupled with low performance levels. Management provides them time to prove themselves but if they still continue to under perform and to not show scope of improvement, they may be asked to leave the organisation.

What they mean: Pond life. Call the undertakers.

 

What it’s called: Growth Employees

What they say: This category has people who show high potential but do not perform up to the mark. Upon motivating, providing challenges, opportunities, and words of encouragement, such employees deliver at a higher level, move forward and often turn into valuable assets for an organization

What they mean: Lazy bas***ds. Bring the bull whip. And the caffeine shots. For the eyeballs….

 

What it’s called: Core Employees

What they say: Just like dilemma category, these individuals have high potential levels and are average performers but can be very promising. They need to be constantly challenged and pushed into giving their best.

What they mean: Cannon fodder. Thank you.

 

What it’s called: Effective

What they say: Individuals with high performance levels but low potential. Such employees have reached their full career potential and need to be engaged and motivated to keep going.

What they mean: Dumb cannon fodder. We don’t even need to thank you.

 

What it’s called: Future Leaders

What they say: Best possible options for succession at senior positions. They score highest on performance and leadership skills. Such employees should be motivated, rewarded for their efforts, promoted and trusted with more roles and responsibilities.

What they mean: Suck-ups. Of the highest order. Avoid at all costs. Or put on an expensive management course to distract.

 

What it’s called: High-impact Performers

What they say: By grooming and motivating, such employees can become future leaders.

What they mean: Deploy mushroom management, these are the enemy my friends. Treat with contempt and caution in equal measure.

 

What it’s called: Trusted Professionals

What they say: People score much higher than the potential because of their capabilities and talent. Such employees should be rewarded and recognized and their capabilities should be used to mentor other upcoming talent in an organization.

What they mean: These guys run the business. At no cost let them know it. Keep them thinking that they’re on the way out and less valuable than you know they are.

 

Notes: Thanks to Wikipedia for the original definitions. The comments here are for fun only, we recognise and understand that the talent review process is actually a highly scientific and complex affair that warrants no humour whatsoever.

A chain of thought

Posted on by Blog

It seems a a week can’t pass without someone warning of the risk to business of the ageing workforce and a resultant skills gap.

I also repeatedly hear arguments to fragment the function by separating out Resourcing, Learning and Development, Talent (repeat and replace with whichever specialism the complaining person works in) from the evil HR.

And I sigh and try not to resort to my wearied protestations of idiocy.

I don’t know of any other area of business where we would fragment the management of the supply chain and believe that it would result in a better performance.

Internal capability, succession, resourcing, talent, skills, development and education need to be seamless and integrated, not fragmented and disparate. We need to unite, not divide.

Instead of assuaging our fragile egos, let’s think about the challenges that face us and how we might raise our game to meet them.

Complex problems, require complex solutions. Not simplistic thinking and vacuous soundbites.

Just a middle class white guy

Posted on by Blog

I have a confession to make. A thing that has been weighing on my mind for a while now, lying in the deep recesses of my consciousness, troubling me. There is something that I want to get off my chest, something that I want to share, that I feel I need to share.

I’m a white middle class male and I may not actually deserve what I have achieved.

“Achieved” to successfully bring about or reach (a desired objective or result) by effort, skill, or courage….so that’s a joke in itself. What if it wasn’t through my effort, skill or courage. What if it was though the lottery of demographics, socio economics and genetics?

I’m not suggesting that anyone ever said, “lets give him the job because he’s a white male” or thought, “I should listen to him because he is a middle class, middle aged dude and he is bound to say something sensible”.

But what if it just happens….because of the way we are, the way we are brought up, the norms we are expected to adhere to?

I was sat in Berlin a few weeks ago, working as an assessor on an international development centre. Because it was a development centre and because, in HR, we have no imagination, there was a group exercise. When we came to the wash up and validation session, there was a debate about the scoring. My sense was that some of the candidates had been scored less highly than others because they’d said less. But they hadn’t contributed less. And they were disproportionately female.

One of the people I was observing had nodded, reaffirmed, encouraged, listened and supported. She didn’t say that much, but she had played an important role. Others suggested that as she hadn’t said anything, she couldn’t be rated highly for her contribution. These were skilled and experienced HR professionals.

And that is just one simple example.

I’ve learnt how to behave from my experience, I know how to position myself in a room, to hold myself to…..encourage, consider, control, direct. I can get my views heard and considered, not necessarily because I make sense, but because they make sense because they are coming from someone behaving in a way that makes us think that they must.

Does this help at interview? Sure. Does it help when you go for promotions? Of course. Does it mean that others have anything less to offer. Not at all.

I’m not sure I have any answers, I’m not sure I have even formulated the questions. The great thing about having a blog is that I don’t have to. This isn’t a text book, you’re not paying, I’m not Ulrich.

But it seems to me that the world of work is still heavily prejudiced towards certain ways of being, certain behaviours, certain mannerisms that are predominantly associated with the middle class, white guy like me. Which means that I might not be here because of what I do, but because of who I am.

And maybe, so are you.