Eddie (and Ann and Angelita) are the first slot after lunch - good luck Eddie! The team were paid to do this research, so the sponsors have asked to remain anonymous: interesting start. They're looking at TNC's and talent management inside these corporations. What is 'talent' then? We'd like to know your definition of talent Eddie. There is a cultural perception that talent is the critical success factor for success. Keep the talent away from the competition; accelerate the development of high potentials; and ensure the right people in the right jobs at the right time (old wine in new bottles). Such is the LR of Eddie's paper.
Here we go on a definition of talent: but first some definitional questions. What happens to non talents? what happens if you don't define talent? How do you do it without dehumanising the workforce? So what percentage of the organisation is talent(ed)? 3-5% for Berger; 100% egalitarian paradise; and somewhere in between these extremes.
Do you tell people whether or not they're considered as talented? People leave if they think their company will not meet their career expectations. Line managers influence turnover decisions most. But, difficult conversations are necessary. Is an opaque system subversive? Do you lose discretionary effort if opaque? Impact on reflected self and self esteem. Do you perform better if you know which rung of the ladder you're on.
So how do you develop high potential? Core competence development can conflict with individual difference. Focus on strengths or weaknesses; need for original commitment to continuing professional development; accelerated path or differentiated path? What is the impact on moral development (i.e. the longer you've been in the workforce, working, the more ethical you become. But the higher up the org echelons you are, the less ethical you are. Umm...interesting; this from the LR. So do talented individuals want to be managed? Can talented individuals actually be managed? Does everyone want to be considered talented? And there's the fervent belief that "talent will save the day!" So, does TM contribute to the development of future leaders? Good intentions are more difficult to achieve than anticipated. Lack of segmentation results in an enhanced performance management system. Culture of an organisation is key to acceptance. High transparency may disenfranchise. Low transparency may be self-defeating.
Here we go on a definition of talent: but first some definitional questions. What happens to non talents? what happens if you don't define talent? How do you do it without dehumanising the workforce? So what percentage of the organisation is talent(ed)? 3-5% for Berger; 100% egalitarian paradise; and somewhere in between these extremes.
Do you tell people whether or not they're considered as talented? People leave if they think their company will not meet their career expectations. Line managers influence turnover decisions most. But, difficult conversations are necessary. Is an opaque system subversive? Do you lose discretionary effort if opaque? Impact on reflected self and self esteem. Do you perform better if you know which rung of the ladder you're on.
So how do you develop high potential? Core competence development can conflict with individual difference. Focus on strengths or weaknesses; need for original commitment to continuing professional development; accelerated path or differentiated path? What is the impact on moral development (i.e. the longer you've been in the workforce, working, the more ethical you become. But the higher up the org echelons you are, the less ethical you are. Umm...interesting; this from the LR. So do talented individuals want to be managed? Can talented individuals actually be managed? Does everyone want to be considered talented? And there's the fervent belief that "talent will save the day!" So, does TM contribute to the development of future leaders? Good intentions are more difficult to achieve than anticipated. Lack of segmentation results in an enhanced performance management system. Culture of an organisation is key to acceptance. High transparency may disenfranchise. Low transparency may be self-defeating.
No comments:
Post a Comment