I would like to thank Alice Snell at the Taleo Blog for posting on McKinsey's new thinking on talent. Here is the link directly to the McKinsey site.
I agree with all of the "New Way". I think if you asked most people in the HR profession today, they would agree too. So, why does the "New Way" not happen and how can more organizations implement the "New Way"? Let's consider each in turn:
Talent Mindset -- All managers -- starting with the CEO -- are accountable for strengthening their talent pool -- Of course, managers should be accountable. However, why are they often not accountable? Performance and compensation systems are not aligned to encourage accountability. The culture does not support accountability. It could be a number of things. The important thing for HR professionals is that they need to support managers so that they know what they can do to strengthen their talent pool and help make sure that the accountability for this is institutionalized.
Employee Value Proposition -- We shape our company, even our strategy, to appeal to talented people -- I do not know if I agree with this entirely. I think the strategy, what uniquely defines the competitive advantage in the marketplace, should shape the people I have in the organization. I think it was put quite well in the book "Good to Great". Great companies make sure that they have the right people in the right roles and that everyone is committed (i.e., engaged) to successfully executing on the strategy. I am paraphrasing here, but I think you get the drift. Having said that, it is still important to have a strong employee value proposition to attract and retain the best talent. Dr. John Sullivan has done a great job of discussing this on ERE in many different ways. I am not going to link to all of the posts. Just visit ERE and see what he has written.
Recruiting -- Recruiting is like marketing -- It is like sales, marketing and supply chain management. All of the disciplines are important to apply. As I have said in previous posts, when was the last time your recruiting organization talked to people in those other parts of the organization to understand best practices.
Growing Leaders -- We fuel development through stretch jobs, coaching, and mentoring -- I agree that these can be important to developing future leaders. How do you know what is having the most impact and where you should invest and what results you should expect? C-level executives want to know. See the case study I recently published (subscription required) on using Workforce Analytics to show the effectiveness of a mentoring program.
Differentiation -- We affirm all of our people, but invest differentially in our A, B, and C players -- Again, I agree, but have you truly differentiated your A, B, and C players? Many organizations I talk to have grade inflation. They do not do a good job of calibrating their performance appraisals. This has a negative downstream impact on compensation (especially if you are not truly paying for performance), succession management (you do not have the right talent pools identified), and morale (employees do not trust the system and true "A" players feel less appreciated). Technology is not a cure to these problems, but it can help. Employee Performance Management systems that include integrated performance management, compensation management, and succession management can provide an infrastructure to help managers and executives differentiate their talent investments. This is one of the reasons that updated MarketScope for Employee Performance Management Software will include performance, compensation, and succession management.
