The 1, 2, 3's of Talent Management

It is a mystery to me why some companies choose to separate succession planning discussions from talent review.  I am further baffled when other organizations choose to engage in either activity, but not in both.  The practice of Talent Management, in my view, is a simple three part process.

STEP 1 of talent management involves assessing the business needs for the upcoming 12 - 18 months.  Leaders assess the organization's business imperatives and critical needs as the basis for identifying critical talent needs and key roles.  The process of defining and identifying "business critical" roles is an often missed opportunity in talent review.  It takes discipline to maintain this business discussion without considering people.  Leaders must prioritize the why and the what before considering the whom.

STEP 2 becomes a succession discussion and requires balanced consideration between the employee and leaders.  Employees put their best foot forward via their employee profile, their past year's performance and demonstrated (or assessed) potential.  Leaders may now use organizational priorities to match critical roles with key talent in the pipeline.  This principle should prevail:  right job, right time, right person.  Organizations would do well to consider (a) who is ready now, (b) who could be ready in 12 - 18 months, and (c) what experiences do those identified need to prepare them for additional responsibilities?  Step 2 becomes the succession planning component of Talent Management.  Further, if the pipeline isn't adequately populated, this is the time to partner with Talent Acquisition to formulate a strategy to begin sourcing qualified candidates.

STEP 3 is a drill-down discussion of part (c), above, or development planning.  Talent Management is not a complete process without this step.  As there is no "one size fits all" for development,  this should be a rich discussion to determine whether those successors identified need exposure to other parts of the business (to prepare them for general management roles), to learn a new skill (so that they may become more valued contributors as utility players), or whether they need to become more self-aware through assessments, mentoring or coaching.  Step 3 becomes very tactical at the end of the discussion.  For each person identified during succession discussions, leaders should have a clear understanding and be able to articulate "who is responsible for developing whom in what measurable ways, by when, and how will that success be measured and reported?"

For organizations that have progressed beyond year one of a holistic talent review, Step 2 should begin with an accounting of the prior year's progress.  Not only does this formula bring closure to last year's process, it also builds accountability for developing talent at the highest levels in the organization.  You do want leaders to be accountable for developing talent, right?

As a Talent Management leader, the most important question you can ask yourself right now is "how can I simplify this process for my leaders, my HR business partners and for myself?"  Over-engineered talent reviews with multiple levels of accountability, confusing tools and unclear procedures are a death knell to an otherwise healthy and value-added function.  Simplify yours today!  (Need help?  Contact me!)

Time to Scrap Performance Appraisals?

In my 35 years of corporate experience, I’ve lived through nine iterations of performance management.  At best, some have accurately captured, reported and calibrated my performance.  I’ve also observed that leaders in some top-down organizations feel a need to weed out bottom performers and marginalize the efforts of the middle 80%.   At the same time, they’re not quite sure how best to reward top performers.

As the workforce and the workplace changes, progressive organizations are looking at doing away with traditional performance ratings and the performance appraisal process.  Josh Bersin, founder of Bersin by Deloitte, asserts, “Businesses thrive on agility, speed, passion and alignment.  The process of driving and measuring performance has to do the same.”  The Forbes article (link below) provokes the question, “do we really need a performance appraisal system?”

While pondering that thought, here are a few key points to consider:

·         Do you have a feedback rich organizational culture?  If not, it is high time to create one.  Incorporate feedback models into every aspect of organizational life, including performance discussions, 360 reviews (including peer-to-peer and employee to manager), and talent review.  Invite and appreciate the gift of feedback.

·         Separate performance discussions from development discussions.  Managers who listen with an open mind are more highly regarded than those who prescribe development without accurately diagnosing both performance and motivation.  Development discussions are not constructed in such a way so as to “fix” performance.  

·         Expect that performance discussions are a part of regular one-on-one conversations, and that performance discussions are a two-way street.  Have your employees provide you feedback as well; you’ll be amazed at how impactful that feedback can be.   Don’t discount group feedback; I’ve seen mentoring circles and peer feedback sessions be very beneficial!

·         Assume positive intent – and if someone isn’t performing up to standard, don’t assume you know the reason.  ASK.  You may be part of the problem.

·         Challenge pay-for-performance plans.  Few things in corporate life demotivate and demoralize workers more than being “leveled” or “calibrated” against others’ performance. 

 

For more thought-provoking questions, follow the link below to the Forbes article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2013/05/06/time-to-scrap-performance-appraisals/

Understand Your Company's Talent Philosophy

For talent strategists, Marc Effron's "Understand Your Company's Talent Philosophy" is a must read.  The Talent Strategy Group created a Talent Philosophy Survey™ to help executives focus on consistent, strategic guidelines to inform talent decisions.

Effron's research suggests that if leaders managed "talent" as they do "product", companies would have clear guidelines on measuring performance, agreement on how to differentiate investment in high performers and a consistent approach to transparency regarding leaders' advancement within a company. 

The questions below are from the Talent Philosophy Survey™.  How would your executive

team respond to each?

• Performance: How long is it OK to be an average (50th percentile) performer in your organization today? How long should it be in the future?

• Behaviors: To what extent do a manager’s behaviors impact their career progress and compensation today? How much should they in the future?

• Differentiation: How much larger of an investment do you make in your highest potential leaders compared to an average potential leader? What should this difference be in the future?

• Transparency: How transparent are we today with employees about their career potential in our organization? How transparent should we be?

• Accountability: How accountable are managers today for increasing their team’s engagement? How accountable should they be in the future?

Here is the link to the complete article:

http://talentstrategygroup1.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Whats-Your-Talent-Philosophy1.pdf