Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Transforming Talent
Project Sponsors
Nigel Carruthers, LGA
Kerry Furness, Norfolk County Council and PPMA
Authors
Professor David Clutterbuck and Dr Julie Haddock-Millar
02/06/2014
2
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 4
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Report Structure ................................................................................................................................. 7
CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................................. 8
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 12
RESULTS and DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 14
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Challenges ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Talent management strategy ............................................................................................................ 16
Integration: A systemic approach ................................................................................................. 22
Succession planning ...................................................................................................................... 24
Leadership ..................................................................................................................................... 31
Equality and Diversity ................................................................................................................... 33
Defining talent .................................................................................................................................. 37
Recruiting and identifying talent ...................................................................................................... 41
Developing and retaining talent ....................................................................................................... 55
Facilitating Career Ownership and Accountability............................................................................ 66
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 70
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 71
Talent management strategy ............................................................................................................ 72
Defining, recruiting and identifying talent ........................................................................................ 76
Developing and retaining talent ....................................................................................................... 78
Facilitating career ownership and accountability ............................................................................. 81
Conversation 1: the inner dialogue ............................................................................................... 83
Conversation 2: systemic dialogue with immediate stakeholders ................................................ 83
Conversation 3: between the organisation and the employees .................................................... 84
Conversation 4: between social networks ..................................................................................... 85
Conversation 5: between HR, senior managers and line managers ............................................. 86
Recommendations for individuals and team .................................................................................... 87
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 89
CONTRIBUTORS ..................................................................................................................................... 95
3
Figures
Figure 1: Data Analysis Process ............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 2: Results of Thematic Analysis .................................................................................................. 15
Figure 3: Level of confidence in the talent management strategy ....................................................... 19
Figure 4: Staff levels of confidence in the talent management strategy .............................................. 19
Figure 5: Approaches to succession planning ....................................................................................... 27
Figure 6: Organisational success in enabling workforce movement .................................................... 28
Figure 7: Employees willingness to change roles .................................................................................. 29
Figure 8: Diversity in senior organisational positions ........................................................................... 35
Figure 9: Nine-Box Grid ......................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 10: Organisation's success in identifying talent ......................................................................... 51
Figure 11: Method used to identify talent ............................................................................................ 52
Figure 12: Evaluation and/or measurement processes ........................................................................ 53
Figure 13: Methods used to develop talent .......................................................................................... 59
Figure 14: Effectiveness of talent development methods .................................................................... 62
Figure 15: Measurement of talent development approaches .............................................................. 64
Figure 16: Quality of career conversations ........................................................................................... 66
Figure 17: Communicating change messages ....................................................................................... 69
Figure 18: Five types of critical conversation for talent management ................................................. 82
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The intent of this project was to identify the key challenges facing the Local Government
Sector in talent management, how authorities are tackling those challenges and examples of
good practice both within the sector and in the wider world of employment. The need to
take a radical look at talent management and create new, more systemic (as opposed to
systematic) approaches is common to all sectors. Indeed, comparing the results of this study
with other recent multi-sector global studies, it appears that the sector is far from being in
the rear-guard of change – the need to achieve more with less has stimulated many
authorities to experiment with new, more flexible, more dynamic approaches that align
employee and organisational aspirations more closely. Our study, which consisted of a
survey, interviews with those responsible for talent management both within and outside
the sector, and an extensive literature search, identified five core themes the sector needs
urgently to address.
How to create a viable and coherent talent management strategy. Standard HR
practice is increasingly inadequate to cope with the complexity of today’s rapidly
evolving, resource-stretched employment environment – examples of defined
practice in this area include, amongst others, BAE Systems, Birmingham City Council,
Danny Kalman Consulting, Manchester City Council, Sunderland City Council and
Warwickshire County Council
How to define talent. How widely or narrowly should we define it? How do we
establish a sufficiently diverse talent population to meet evolving job roles? –
examples of defined practice in this area include, amongst others, Andrew Mayo
Learning, BAE Systems, Hertfordshire County Council and Unilever
How to recruit and identify talent. Should we be trying to identify talent or find
better ways for talented people to identify themselves? – examples of defined
practice in this area include, amongst others, Hertfordshire County Council,
Nottingham City Council,
How to develop and retain talent. Is it justifiable to invest developmental resources
preferentially in a “chosen few” high potentials? How do we balance the need for
specific expertise against the need for increased role flexibility? – examples of
5
defined practice in this area include, amongst others, East Sussex County
Council/PPMA, Hertfordshire County Council and Unilever
How to facilitate talented employees to take accountability for and manage their
own careers and self-development. What processes and structures will remove the
barriers? How can we engage people in constructive dialogue that aligns employee
and employer aspirations? – examples of defined practice in this area include,
amongst others, Adobe, Birmingham City Council, Manchester City Council and
Unilever
We present evidence from both within and outside the sector, exploring these themes in
greater depth and illustrating good practice. We provide a number of recommendations in
line with the themes that emerged and suggest critical questions to ask in relation to each,
and suggest five types of critical conversation to facilitate talent management as illustrated
in the diagram below.
6
Ret
ain
ing
and
Dev
elo
pin
g Ta
len
t in
a D
ynam
ic E
nvi
ron
me
nt:
Five
Co
nve
rsat
ion
s to
Har
ne
ss t
he
Tal
en
t W
ave
C1
Th
e In
ner
D
ialo
gue
Emp
loye
e’s
Inte
rnal
C
on
vers
atio
n
C2
Sys
tem
ic D
ialo
gue
w
ith
Imm
edia
te
Stak
eho
lder
s
C3
Bet
wee
n t
he
Org
anis
atio
n a
nd
Em
plo
yee
Tale
nt
Man
age
me
nt
Stra
tegy
C4
Bet
wee
n
Soci
al N
etw
ork
s
C5
Bet
wee
n
HR
, Sen
ior
Man
ager
s an
d L
ine
Man
ager
s
Ret
en
tio
n
Dev
elo
pm
en
t R
ecr
uit
me
nt
Succ
ess
ion
Pla
nn
ing
7
INTRODUCTION
The overarching aim of this research is to provide a platform to disseminate the latest
thinking and evidence around talent management across the sector and to prompt
conversation and debate around this with Chief Executives (CX) and Heads of Organisational
Development (OD) and Human Resources (HR). The purpose of this report is three-fold; first,
provide an in-depth review of the strategies and processes of talent management, talent
development and succession management in the Local Government Sector. Second, identify
the key challenges in relation to talent management. Third, begin the conversation around
what good practice might look like in addressing those future challenges, to stimulate
further debate, action and change. We identify and build on good practice talent
management to date, and challenge the areas where there is little evidence of their
effectiveness. A starting point for this research project is the recognition that, in an
environment of shrinking numbers and reducing costs, new service delivery models are
needed. Therefore it is an important time to review the people approaches and the
processes that go with them, both in this sector and in other sectors.
Report Structure
The first chapter provides the policy and practice context, beginning with an overview of the
LGA’s role in relation to Local Government and then identifying the reasons why the LGA
chose to invest in this research project. The second chapter provides the research approach,
describing the primary data collection methods and profile of the individuals and
organisations that contributed to this piece of research. The third chapter presents the
results from the survey and the interviews. This chapter is divided into five macro themes;
the micro themes are embedded within. Within each theme we situate the findings within
some of the current theoretical and practice-led debates. The aim of this chapter is not to
present a comprehensive overview of the literature but instead, signpost some of the major
discussion points rooted in the topics. The fourth chapter provides outlines our
recommendations and suggestions some of ways in which local government can begin to
address the systemic, strategic and process issues identified in chapter three.
8
CONTEXT
The Local Government Association’s (LGA) 2013/14 top priorities for local government are:
reform of the finance systems to enable councils to have confidence their financing is
sustainable and fair; recognition of the importance of councils in contributing to economic
growth, jobs and prosperity; and supporting public service reform, delivering more effective
services for local people and holding other providers to account (LGA Business Plan,
2013/14: 7). The top priorities provide an indication of the challenges facing local
government and the increasing pressure to transformation service models, in large part,
triggered by the current spending review of public sector cuts of up to 30 per cent. Local
government’s funding is shrinking; conversely the demand for council services is rising. The
scale of the budget reductions and impact on staff numbers in local authorities is illustrated
by a number of HR practitioner interviewees.
County Council: “We’ve changed from about 11,200 and we are now about 8,200, we
have had to take out around £200 million. We have taken out over 30% in our middle and
senior manager roles.”
County Council: “We achieved £150million in savings in the last three to four years and
that is a similar figure, £189 million for the next three years. We’ve gone from about
11,000 down to 7,000 staff.”
City Council: “In 2011 we had 7,313 employees and as of the end of last month, so the
end of November 2013, we had 5,753. That is the scale of reduction. It is very
significant. (21% cut in headcount).”
City Council: “In 2009 we employed 21,000 at that point and to date it is 14,000 the
prediction within the next two to three years instead it was going to be 7,000.”
City Council: “Since 2011 and we’ve just achieved £70million in workforce savings and we
are just over £24million within the next 4 years.”
District Council: “When I first arrived in 2002 there were between 400 – 550 members of
staff, now were down to 130; we are going even smaller, probably under 100 by April of
next year.”
9
There is already significant evidence of changing models and practice. Just over a year ago,
the Municipal Journal stated that the overwhelming majority of local authorities have now
signed up to shared services initiatives to make combined savings worth £263m. Joint
working is just one of the ways in which local authorities will need to find innovative ways to
improve the efficiency and productivity of services and teams, particularly if the same
pattern of cuts be replicated in the next spending review. Radical reforms can only be
achieved by engaging the workforce at all levels in developing and improving their
performance and the performance of their organisation.
Local authorities recognise the need to find innovative ways to address the increasing
budget constraints and have brought it to the attention of the LGA through the annual
survey. Every year, the LGA asked its members to identify their top 10 priorities. In 2012,
local authorities repeatedly identified talent management as a top priority. This is not
surprising considering the significant downsizing of workforce headcount caused by overall
budget reductions and cost step changes triggered by the spending review. Many talented
people have left the sector, choosing to move into the private sector or third sector, taking
with them a high degree of tacit knowledge: operational know-how, insights about the
dimensions of the sector, region and locality, as well as business judgement (Hansen et al,
1999). The situation local authorities find themselves in is difficult: How do they downsize
without losing their intellectual capital? How do they identify knowledge and retain
knowledge? In most cases, local authorities have been in a state of crisis, needing to reduce
headcount whilst trying to retain critical roles and individuals. Local authorities have
grasped the need to develop their talent management strategy but few know how best to
address the issues they face.
Recent research and evidence has indicated that more flexible, dynamic systems that allow
for constant change are needed. But where do we start? It is undeniable that the word
‘talent’ is difficult. Questioning our assumptions about what talent is and, how we assist it in
becoming more mobile and flexible is fundamental in enabling a more dynamic and
responsive people, consumer and service focused organisation. This sounds perfectly
sensible but questioning our assumptions at the individual, group and organisational level
10
requires a high degree of self-awareness, reflectivity and honesty -which can be difficult.
The problems with talent are many and varied:
Talent often refers to the select few, less than 1% or even closer to 0.25% depending on
how ‘headcount’ is calculated. Can it really be the case that 99.75% - 99% of the
workforce don’t possess talent?
Many organisations do not know who their talent is. Judgements about individuals are
often arbitrary, inconsistent and based on hearsay (Sorcher and Brant, 2002).
When leaders look for potential, they can introduce gender and racial bias; talent
management programmes unconsciously reflect and promote traits shown by the
organisation’s mainly male leadership team (Warren, 2009).
Employees and organisations are generally not very honest in their discussions about
succession planning issues.
The language is inconsistent: talent planning, succession planning, workforce planning!
There is not a single or concise definition (Ashton and Morton, 2005). The terminology
means different things to different people; a lack of clarity and transparency can create
confusion and tension.
Talent management is often substituted for the term human resource management,
which can limit discussion to topics such as recruitment, leadership development,
succession planning etc (Mellahi and Collings, 2010).
Talent pools or pipelines narrow focus to projection and progression rather than
broader potential and wider movement (Lewis and Heckman, 2006).
The term talent and competitive advantage suggests that key positions and therefore
‘A-list performers’ have the potential to contribute competitive advantage (Huselid, at
al., 2005) representing an ‘exclusive club’.
Charts and tables don’t reflect the complexity of the interface between the organisation
and its employees.
Competency frameworks do not take sufficient account of the changing needs of jobs,
are not sufficiently flexible and are backward-looking rather than forward-looking
(Bolden and Gosling, 2006; Gravells and Wallace, 2011).
Key activities such as attraction, development and retention can interact in negative
ways (Delery, 1998). The importance of alignment and integration with strategy,
11
business planning and the organisation’s overall approach to people management is
critical (Ashton and Morton, 2005), but not always evident.
Knowing what to measure, how to measure and, more importantly how to approach
using data is often overlooked due to a lack of expertise (Kinley and Ben-Hur, (2013).
These issues are not exclusive to the Local Government sector. Indeed, in some areas the
sector may be ahead of the curve, because radical reductions in resources have stimulated
radical rethinking. A 2013 study of businesses around the world (Groysberg and Bell, 2013)
asked directors for their opinions on how well their organisations managed a range of
issues. The results suggest a deep level of ineffectiveness. Less than 12% of directors in
Europe strongly agreed that their organisations were effective at attracting and hiring top
talent, assessing talent, developing rewarding and retaining talent, firing people, leveraging
diversity, or aligning talent strategy with the business strategy.
The LGA’s interest in this work is three-fold: first, a call for a more meaningful discussion of
what we (the sector) mean by talent and how we define it; second, highlight the ways in
which local authorities can identify, develop and retain their talent, particularly in turbulent
times; third, a desire to help local authorities capture and share practice that is working
well.
The next chapter describes the methodology.
12
METHODOLOGY
We adopted a pragmatic approach, using mixed methods. Quantitative and qualitative data
collection tools and methods of analysis were combined to triangulate the results of the
research questions:
What are the challenges in talent management in the public sector and beyond?
How do organisations identify, develop and retain talent?
How effective are the methods used?
What works well and what does not?
We reviewed recent publications in a variety of journals to illuminate current understanding
around talent management and related topics. Primary evidence was gathered from two
sources. First, a survey was sent to all Public Sector People Managers’ Association (PPMA)
members (800+); 43 members responded (+5%). Second, telephone, Skype and face-to-face
interviews were carried out with 29 respondents from 26 UK and international organisations
representing the public and private sector, 6 of which were subject specialist consultants.
The survey consisted of 34 structured and unstructured questions, using comment boxes,
multiple choice and ratings scales to record the data. Key topics included: Challenges in
relation to talent and their importance; identification and development of talent including
succession planning; measurement and effectiveness of processes and systems; job security,
movement, changing roles and skills; diversity; social networks; communication and change;
and, the quality of conversations.
The interview respondents were drawn from the public and private sectors. In the public
sector, respondents consisted of 14 HR/OD Managers/Leaders in City or County Councils;
and, 3 representatives from Further Education and Higher Education Institutions. In the
private sector respondents included 4 HR leaders in aerospace and aviation sector; banking
and finance sector; manufacturing sector; minerals sectors; and 6 subject experts in
13
consultant roles. Over 26 hours of interviews were transcribed, resulting in over 300 pages
of interview notes.
The survey and interviews were analysed separately by the authors and then brought
together to provide a comparison and joint commentary. Over 100 codes were identified
through the analysis of the interview scripts; they were then grouped into 22 micro themes,
then compared and aligned to the survey data, resulting in 5 macro themes (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Data Analysis Process
Survey respondents were given the option to participate in a follow-up interview. Six survey
respondents also took part in the semi-structured interviews. Interview respondents were
provided with an interview schedule which outlined the aim and objectives of the research,
questions and consent. Survey and interview respondents were given the option of
anonymity.
The next chapter presents the results of the research, combining the two primary data
sources, illuminating particular aspects with quotations and case examples. Interviewee
commentary is anonymised to ensure confidentiality with the exception of specific case
study examples, where the identification of interviewees and organisations was agreed. We
also draw from previously published work in the area of talent management, providing an
overview of some of the contemporary debates relevant to the sector.
Primary Data
43 survey responses and 26 interview
transcripts
Analyse survey
(43 responses)
Analyse interview transcipts
(26 responses)
Identify codes
(115)
Cluster themes at macro and micro level
Macro themes (5) Micro themes (22)
Present secondary data, survey and interview data to
illustrate micro themes
14
RESULTS and DISCUSSION
Introduction
This chapter presents the analysis and evaluation of the quantitative and qualitative data,
situated within some of the current theoretical and practice-led debates, relevant to the
sector. The authors begin by outlining the most significant challenges and issues highlighted
by the survey respondents and interviewees. Following this, the authors present the results
of the thematic analysis, providing a detailed discussion of the macro themes and micro
themes. The commentary below presents the themes as they emerged from the transcript
analysis, using the ‘voice’ of the participants to demonstrate specific personal or
organisational case study examples, illuminating the approaches to talent management in
organisations that work well but also, the approaches and aspects that have potential to be
improved. The chapter concludes with a summary of the most significant barriers faced by
local authorities which form the basis of the recommendations that follow.
Challenges
The most significant challenges cited by survey respondents and interviewees in case study
organisations included:
facilitating the flexible movement of employees to different roles around the
organisation;
preparing people for changing roles and responsibilities;
maintaining staff engagement in the midst of job uncertainty;
ensuring the alignment between the organisational strategy and talent strategy; and
supporting changing structures, roles and responsibilities.
15
The most important issues cited by survey respondents and interviewees in case study
organisations included:
complexity and the scale of change;
development of talent;
enabling individuals to take ownership of their careers;
retaining talent; and
facilitating the quality of thinking and conversations within the organisation.
We consider these challenges and issues within the macro themes, giving specific examples
as highlighted by the interviewees in the case study organisations. The challenges and issues
are not necessarily exclusive to the public sector and local authorities. The results of the
thematic analysis of the interview transcripts can be seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Results of Thematic Analysis
No. Macro Theme Micro Themes
1 Talent Management Strategy Context; Integration; Alignment; Succession planning; Leadership; Innovation; Organisational Culture, Structure, Development and Change
2 Defining Talent Defining talent; Inclusive/ Exclusive, Segments/Groups
3 Talent Processes: Recruiting and Identifying Talent
Recruiting talent; Identifying talent; Equality and Diversity; Equality; Performance and Potential; Information management
4 Talent Processes: Developing and Retaining Talent
Developing talent; Aligned needs; Evaluating Value and Impact; Coaching and Mentoring
5 Facilitating Career Ownership and Accountability
Career management accountability; Ownership; Self-development
16
Talent management strategy
Iles et al (2010) search for journal articles with the key words ‘talent management’ in the
journal database British Business Premier between 1985 and 2006 showed a rapid increase
from 0 in 1990, to 230 in 2000 to 760 in 2006. A more recent study found that between
1990 and 2000, 177 peer-reviewed publications referred to talent management, by 2013,
there were 7,421 publications (Dries, 2013). Despite this growth in research, it seems that
we are no further forward; rather than clarifying the scope of talent management, its
different elements, or cause-and-effect relationships (Dries, 2013); research in this area
raises more questions than answers. A survey conducted by the Chartered Institute of
Personnel Development (CIPD) in 2006 found that “51% of HR professionals surveyed
undertook talent management activities, however only 20% of them operated within a
formal definition of talent management”. This is not surprising considering the breadth and
depth of perspectives on ‘what’ talent management is. Earlier this year, Ariss et al (2014:
173) suggested that there is “neither a uniform understanding of the term ‘talent
‘management’, nor of its aims and scope”.
We provide a range of perspectives. Johnson et al (2005: 6) claim that talent management
is a strategic process involving “understanding the strategic position of an organization,
making strategic choices for the future, and turning strategy into action.” This approach
takes a broad view, focusing on the process of developing a strategy, translating the strategy
and implementing it within the organisation. Baron and Armstrong (2007: 101) define talent
management as “a comprehensive and integrated set of activities which ensure that
organizations attracts, retains, motivates and develops the talented people it needs now and
in the future.” Here, there is a dual focus - the current and future needs of the organisation
– facilitated by bundles of activities. More recently, Armstrong (2011: 237) described the
key elements of the talent management process as “identifying, developing, recruiting,
retaining and deploying talented people”. Armstrong’s view, again suggests that there are
‘bundles’ of activities and which link together the people management processes.
17
Collings and Mellahi (2009: 311) suggest that talent management is yet to gain significant
‘mainstream acceptance’ and in order to do so, the theoretical foundations underpinning
talent management must be developed. Their definition of talent management is viewed as
“activities and processes that involve the systematic identification of positions which
differentially contribute to the organisation’s sustainable competitive advantage, the
development of a talent pool of high potential and high performing incumbents to fill these
roles and the development of a differentiated human resource architecture to facilitate
filling these positions with competent incumbents and to ensure their continued
commitment to the organisation – emphasises the identification of pivotal positions as the
point of departure for strategic management systems.” This definition emphasises the
relationship between activities and processes which contribute to superior organisational
performance; requiring the identification of crucial positions and the development of those
defined as having either high potential or high performing with the view to filling the those
positions.
Stuart-Kotze and Dunn (2008: 144) suggest that “effective talent management must take an
organization-wide approach and start at the top with the vision and values. Before any
attempt is made to design systems and processes, the organization needs to nail down what
it wants to become, where it wants to go, and what the enduring and essential values are
that will take it there. Talent is situation specific; if you don’t know where you’re going, you
certainly won’t know who can get you there.” This illustrates a number of important
elements: the importance of the strategic alignment of the organisation’s business goals and
objectives with the human resource and operational practices; the supporting
organisational structure and culture; the involvement of everyone in the organisation; and,
context specific nature of talent management. Several of the definitions raise the
importance of integrating talent management strategy and processes with the business
goals, responsive to the wider organisational context. A perspective that captures
‘alignment’ and ‘supply’ is by Duttagupta: “TM is the strategic management of the flow of
talent through an organization. Its purpose is to assure that a supply of talent is available to
align the right people with the right jobs at the right time based on strategic business
objectives” (2005: 2).
18
On the basis of their literature review Iles et al (2010: 181) identify three broad strands
through which talent management can be viewed:
1. “TM is not essentially different from HRM; both involve getting the right job at the
right time and managing the supply, demand and flow of people through the
organization; it involves a collection of typical HR activities such as recruitment,
selection, training and appraisal. TM may be relabeling or rebranding exercise,
replace the word ‘people’ by the word ‘talent’.”
2. “TM is integrated HRM with a selective focus; TM may use the same tools as HRM,
but the focus is on a relatively small segment of the workforce, defined as ‘talented’
by virtue of their current performance or future potential.”
3. “TM is organizationally focused competence development through managing flows
of talent through the organization; the focus here is on talent pipelines rather than
pools ... is more closely associated to success planning and HR planning, and focused
primarily on talent continuity.”
Our review of the talent management literature revealed inconsistency regarding the
definition and scope of strategic talent management. This was also the case in our
interviews in both public and private sector organisations. The survey and interview data
highlighted the divergence of views and practice in talent management. The term ‘talent
management strategy’ was not familiar to all participants in the sense that some
organisations do not have a ‘strategic’ approach to talent management. It might happen
incrementally, piecemeal or ad hoc with no overall guiding strategic plan which is aligned to
the wider business strategy and needs. Furthermore, there is a low level confidence either
in the talent management strategy or, in the organisation’s ability to create and implement
a talent management strategy. This is further illustrated by the survey data. The majority of
survey respondents (63%) stated that their organisation did not have a formal talent
management strategy. Of those that do, 56% felt that they personally had low or very low
confidence in the strategy (see Figure 3).
19
Figure 3: Level of confidence in the talent management strategy
Furthermore, 51% of survey respondents felt that their organisation’s workforce had low or
very confidence in the strategy; 23% were unable to comment on levels of staff confidence
(see Figure 4).
Figure 4: Staff levels of confidence in the talent management strategy
40%
16%
26%
14%
4% 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Very Low Low Sufficient High Very High
If yes, how much confidence do you have in the talent management strategy?
28%
23%
21%
5% 0
23%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Very Low Low Sufficient High Very High Don’t Know?
How confident are staff in the talent management strategy?
20
The majority of interviewees do recognise the importance of being strategic, and the
significance of the alignment and integration between the business and HR but few know
how to achieve it.
A local authority case study which illustrates the relationship between business needs and
talent management strategy is outlined below. The organisation has undergone significant
change over the last four years, downsizing and transforming the structure and culture to
deliver improved business outcomes with less.
Sunderland City Council - Moving to an Internal Jobs Market and Switch
In 2010, responding to the forthcoming significant reductions in funding for the organisation
and look to downsize and reshape the workforce, the organisation was tasked with coming
up with a way of doing that downsizing that avoided mass redundancies and cushioned
employees, the economy and the city from that impact but still allowed for organisational
improvement and innovation. The organsiation came up with a strategic approach using
they refer to as their internal jobs market. “Our internal jobs market plus something called
Switch, which is a highly sophisticated redeployment pool in essence and those are the tools
that we’ve used it from the back end of 2010 to March 2014 to downsize the organisation,
the workforce on a voluntary basis and to shift significant numbers of people around the
organisation to different roles and adopt a completely new approach to deployment of our
employees and recruitment of people in to roles. During all of that time we have had an
almost complete ban on external recruitment. So we had to come up with a way of whilst
reshaping the organisation and adopting a new operating model which meant moving
people around and redesigning jobs and we had to find a way of doing that that was
completely different to conventional deployment processes, redeployment processes and
enabled us to do something much more sophisticated.”
Candidates participating in the IJM are required to complete a web-based strengths
questionnaire, which assesses their ability and personality, building a candidate profile.
While participation is voluntary, employees have to complete the assessment in order to be
considered for a job in the new structure. The Sunderland Strengths Framework is used to
analyse all job vacancies and help managers identify the required strengths for each
21
position. Employee data, vacancy details and SHL assessment results are uploaded to
Match-Jobs, an automated matching tool designed and developed to compare both
variables to formulate a shortlist of suitable candidates for interview, prioritising those at
risk. The quantitative outcomes and qualitative impacts are significant and the 12 factors
that have influenced the success of the change demonstrate the importance of
collaboration and communication:
Union learning reps and building close working relationships with Trade Unions
Committed and focused leaders
Support for flexible working
Accessibility and equality
Communications champions, employee and manager briefings, regular manager e-
mail briefings
Shared commitment in reaching the destination
Automation and objectivity
Restructure and consultation briefings
We selected this case study for inclusion as it clearly illustrates the way in which the
changing environment, context and organisation can be a catalyst for significant change,
resulting in a more integrated approach to strategic talent management.
Understanding what the organisation will look like in the future and what how the
organisation will best serve the community was seen by at least four interviewees as the
cornerstone of the strategic process:
Interviewee “If you can’t do strategic HR or strategic business management in an
organisation that knows its future business in 15 years time then you are never going
to do it. I say, you know what you are going to be doing in ten years time. They say
well we don’t really because we don’t know what budget we are going to have. I say,
what the hell has that got to do with it? You know that there are certain core public
services you have to deliver. You know that you are going to have to educate kids in
ten years. So I struggle to understand how they can’t see or some of them, let’s say,
find it more difficult to see business in a long term context ... it is about ensuring that
22
all the stuff that you execute to respond to the budget cuts are done in a way that
enhances your ability to deliver the type of business that you’ve got left in five years
time.”
Interviewee “We established a definition of talent from an organisational point of
view which was then we used consistently in all our communications and all the
meetings that we had. We ensured we got the buy-in and saying this is what we
mean by talent or talent management and that was key. It was very much about, yes
the standard thing about the identification and the retention of key people etc. but I
think the part of the sentence which was really important and really swung it in
terms of getting a buy-in was recognising in order to achieve your business objectives
and putting that kind of linkage between talent and having the right people in the
right role at the right time. It was key to say in order to achieve your strategic
business objective it is necessary to have the right talent. So linking the commercial
or the business perspective ... it wasn’t difficult for me to be able to explain and to
rationalise the fact that without the right people, without people who are going to be
effective or committed or engaged and all those words, then you are not going to be
able to achieve the business objective.”
Interviewee “The challenge for the teams going through and responding to budget
cuts, is not about well OK get a team to execute that plan, it is about ensuring that all
of the stuff that you execute to respond to the budget cuts are done in a way that
enhances your ability to deliver the type of business that you’ve got left in five years
time. It is about doing the things that you need to do in a way that is cognisant of the
types of strategic things that you want to exist in your business in the future. “
Integration: A systemic approach
Ashton and Morton’s (2005) research shows that integration of the talent management
‘pieces’ within the talent management ‘system’ is essential if organisations want to avoid
disjointed, ad hoc, silo activities. Perhaps even more crucial is the relationship between
talent management, business strategy, business planning and the ‘organization’s approach
to people management’. There is a general acceptance that if talent management is
23
integrated it involves all stakeholders within the organisation, across all structures and is
embedded within the organisational culture. Ashton and Morton’s (2005: 31) ‘systemic
view’ of talent management is supported by five elements:
“1. Need – the business need derived from the business model and competitive
issues.
2. Data collection – the fundamental data and “intelligence” critical for good talent
decisions.
3. Planning – people/talent planning guided by data analysis.
4. Activities – the conversion of plans into integrated sets of activities.
5. Results – costs, measures and effectiveness criteria to judge the value and impacts
of TM.”
The talent management context and organisational climate surrounds the elements and
includes: organisational values, leadership, structure, policies and processes. Integration of
all strategies, processes and practices is a key issue. However, the term ‘systemic’ is not
widely understood. The assumptions that HR departments and managers make about talent
management derive from the mindset they apply to the issue. Talent management is a
complex adaptive system, or even complex evolving system. Such systems can’t be
controlled, and attempts to do so tend to deliver worse results than if they were left alone.
What does a systemic perspective look like in practice? A starting point, at least, is that it
recognises complexity and seeks connections. And one of the best ways to achieve both of
those characteristics is to question constantly both the context in which talent management
planning is take place, and the assumptions we make in trying to understand that context.
Interviewees recognise the systemic nature of talent management in the wider context
within which the organisation operates and the integrated, coherent response which
supports the greater need for a more flexible approach which can facilitate workforce
movement and support organisational change. That is not to say that it happens in practice,
as there was less evidence of this across the public sector.
24
Interviewee “If I talk about the systemic nature of talent management ... we need to
be clear about where the talent strategy fits in to the wider organisation strategic
plan and then thinking about talent management as a system in itself in terms of
attraction and development and retention of staff. Does it fit with the complexity
that we’ve got? Probably not. I think the world has moved on even in the last three
months and we are in a different space now than we were three months ago.”
Interviewee “A systemic response involves all of the moving parts. They won’t
describe the individual parts because actually the individual parts, in themselves,
aren’t hugely important or relevant. It is about how you pull all the leaders based on
an agreement that you are going to follow a particular route or a particular
approach.”
Interviewee “We used to talk about in the old days I used to do presentations on this,
oh is it just old wine in new bottles, is it just a re-branding that HR is so keen on? I
used to say absolutely it is not because the power here is in the integration. So when
I think about the systemic nature of talent management I use it as a by-line to go
back to integrating different processes to deal with a more coherent whole”.
Interviewee: “Our talent strategy will be to continually evolve to be able to respond
to the changes we are facing and I think that is partly the conversation we are having
with the organisation year on year. Some of it is about learning from what has
happened before so constantly that is the process about what the organisation needs
to go forward.”
Linked to the organisational needs is the talent management approach used to identify and
develop potential future leaders and mangers and/or roles. Succession planning is
considered next.
Succession planning
In the past decade or so, succession planning has become integrated into strategic talent
management, a broader process that recognises that leaders do not constitute the only
talent pool in an organisation. In essence, this attempts to create a stronger and more
25
strategic link between the development of the business and the development of the people
within it. Some definitions of succession planning include:
“A process by which one or more successors are identified for key posts (or groups of
similar key posts), and career moves and/or development activities are planned for
these successors… Succession planning sits inside a much wider set of resourcing and
development processes that we might call succession management. This
encompasses the management resourcing strategy, aggregate analysis of
demand/supply (HR planning and auditing), skills analysis, the job filling process, and
management development (including graduates and high fliers).” (Hirsh, 2000: 1)
“Succession planning is the means by which an organization prepares for and
replaces managers, executives and other key employees who leave their positions,
and is critically important to the organization’s continued and future success.”
(Wilkinson, :1)
“Succession planning and management is the process that helps ensure the stability
of tenure of personnel. It is perhaps best understood as any effort designed to ensure
the continued effective performance of an organization, division, department, or
work group by making provision for the development, replacement, and strategic
application of key people over time.” (Rothwell, 2000: 5−6)
“A dynamic process of aligning employee aspirations and talents with the constantly
evolving needs of the organization and of providing employees with the resources
and support they need to grow into new roles.” (Clutterbuck, 2012).
The Encyclopaedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology offers five critical elements of
the succession planning process. Critical questions emerging from these are:
What is the business strategy and what does that mean generally for leadership
qualities and talent pools?
How many people will we need in critical roles, with what experience and
capabilities and what will our selection criteria be?
What talented people do we have? At what stage of development are they in terms
of slotting into key leadership roles? What potential do they have to grow into bigger
26
roles? What kind of roles would give them growth opportunities and in what kind of
roles could they contribute most to the organization?
What plans do we have to develop individuals and talent pools, in line with the
evolving business need? (Note the word ‘evolving’. Even six months may be too long
to wait to review.)
Are the succession and development plans being implemented and are they
delivering results? (And what are our criteria for measuring whether it’s working?)
Research by the Institute of Employment Studies (IES) (Hirsh, 2000) indicates that “the most
common model for centralised, corporate succession planning is one that covers only the
most senior jobs in the organization (the top two or three tiers) plus short-term and longer-
term successors for these posts. The latter group are often manifest as a corporate fast
stream or high potential population who are being actively developed in mid-career through
job moves across business streams, functions or geographical boundaries.” However, says
the IES report: “Many large organizations also adopt a devolved model where the same
approach is applied to a much larger population (usually managerial and professional) but
this process is managed by devolved business divisions, functions, sites or countries. It has to
be said that few organizations successfully sustain the devolved model, usually because it is
not really seen as a high priority and not adequately facilitated by HR.”
Put another way, is succession planning about replacement, or about making the most
intelligent use possible of the talent within an organisation? According to the Aberdeen
Group report (Lombardi, 2010): “Succession can no longer be simple disaster contingency in
the event that a leadership role suddenly becomes open. If the competition changes, if the
economy changes, if consumer expectations change, the skills that helped to lead the
company before may no longer fit. It will be important to have a deep and diverse cadre of
talented leaders in order for the organization to endure.”
Over 70% of survey respondents identified their organisation as having a particular
approach to succession planning, 30% identified a structured approach and 44% an informal
approach (see Figure 5).
27
Figure 5: Approaches to succession planning
Only 9% of respondents felt their organisation’s succession planning is either effective or
very effective. The majority felt that there are issues around effectiveness, inconsistency
and the need for improvement. A significant amount of respondents (43%) stated that their
organisations do not measure the effectiveness of succession planning.
There was no consensus amongst the interviewees around the approach to succession
planning, either formal, informal or neither. The majority of interviewees recognised the
importance of having open and honest conversations which enable people to think about
the performance and potential of their team:
“Myself and the HR business partner for a particular area sat down for two hours with
each to those leaders going through the performance and the potential dimensions.
We have a guideline as to what performance looks like and we’ve built a tool of what
potential loos like and we slugged in each to their senior level people against this tool
and then had a discussion about it. IT was very detailed and we challenged them
when we thought they were being overly soft or overly hash or where it wasn’t data
led or evidenced and it was brilliant.”
“What currently works is sitting down and having detailed, thoughtful, planned
conversations with leaders in the organisation and about people because that helps
13, 30%
19, 44%
11, 26%
Do you have?
A structured approach tosuccession planning
An informal approach tosuccession planning
Neither
28
to make time, going back to the capacity issue, it helps to forge time to help them do
the work that actually a lot of people have got the desire to do.”
Interviewees recognise that workforce trends are changing and there is a greater need
facilitate opportunities which provide for both individual and business and needs. Sharing
of professional roles across regions is becoming more widespread, as are short term
contracts, sabbaticals and career breaks and people being willing to move jobs for less
money and/or status. Workforce changes require the flexible movement of people around
the organisation.
Figure 6: Organisational success in enabling workforce movement
Only 47.5% of survey respondents felt that their organisation has been successful in moving
employees and deploying them in different roles and jobs (see Figure 6). Furthermore, only
35% of respondents felt that the workforce is open/very open to changing their roles (see
Figure 7).
12.5%
40%
30%
17.5%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Not successful Variable Successful Very Successful
How successful has your organisation been in moving employees and deploying them in different jobs and roles?
29
Figure 7: Employees willingness to change roles
Interviewees recognise the imperative for workforce flexibility and the need greater
movement across all areas of the organisation. Different generations are marked by
different characteristics and needs.
Interviewee “Certainly young people that we have spoken to have very different
expectations, they don’t expect to come out of university or college and work
towards buying their own house within a short period of time. They are very
committed to doing work but equally balanced with what they want to achieve in
their life and aspirations and some of the things that were normal are no longer
normal. There has been a shift with regards to families, people are not expected to
have families before they are 30 anymore, have ten years of a career doing exactly
what they want without worrying too much about having to meet the mortgage and
feed the family. It is a lot of time now for people to become quite established in what
they want to do and move around two or three times if they want to which not an
opportunity open to them, 20 years ago, it was not what people did.”
Aligning the needs of the workforce with the needs of the organisation is one of the most
significant challenges. Aligning the interests of employee and employer involves creating a
16%
39%
28%
7% 5% 5%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Not open Variable Open Very Open Don't know N/A
How open are employees across your workforce to changing their roles?
30
dialogue around how employees and employers can best invest in each other. Shared
scenario planning can provide a pragmatic framework for building alignment. At its
simplest, alignment is about shared goals and shared values. They are congruent, mutually
supportive and mutually transparent. Shared goals begin with a shared purpose. To fulfil the
purpose, organisations create goals that effectively relate to ‘how’.
A local authority case study which illustrates a strategic approach to facilitating flexible
movement of the workforce throughout the organisation is illustrated below. Similarly to
the previous case study, the organisation has undergone significant change over the last
four years, downsizing and transforming the structure and culture to enable people to
undertake new roles and different ways of working.
Case Study - Manchester City Council ‘M People’
“We started on the journey back in 2009 developing ‘M People’ which were a very different
way of developing talent and employing skills around the organisation. It was about
creating flexibility; it was very much identifying the skills that quite often are hidden with
individuals that they may have had previously outside of work. It was also about identifying
peoples’ aspirations so that people were not tied to doing what they’ve always done and
making it legitimate to have a conversation about what you might like to do instead of the
conversation about the role that you are currently in. It was also about the shape of the
organisation having to change so that we could manage the overall reduction in numbers
and supporting people to be able to undertake new roles and different ways of working.
One of the things we wanted to do was to make it an incentive based approach so that
during the time of change we motivated people to continue to have higher levels of
enthusiasm to tackle things that were going to be very different from what they’d done
previously and we totally and fundamentally took apart, if you like, all of our ways that we
operated and we built them about M People. It was about flexibility, movement and
development but incentive to be able to galvanise people’s motivation. That is very much
focused on people choosing to move around the organisation because it meant their
aspirations what they would like to learn and any future careers they might be interested in.
31
They also needed to take with it the change we need to make through organisational
change.
I think that has been quite key and been successful. People have the opportunity to say at
any point “I’m ready for the next change” and we start to look for the new roles in the
council or skills that they want to learn. So it is an ongoing process not just something that is
happening to you if your service is changing. It really legitimised individual conversations
with people about what they wanted and we legitimised people being able to say they didn't
work for us or they didn't want to work in that role without there being a judgement.
We have a big programme called Support for Change which is based on a behavioural
approach to how you manage yourself through change. It was about putting the
responsibility on the individual to perform and manage their career and where they wanted
to be and then how we mapped that, if we could, what the organisation needed but it
enabled a mature conversation. So we took an approach about trying to get people to be
responsible for their own personal journeys, connect that to what the organisation needs as
far as is practicable but give the ownership to the individual to make it happen and where
did we point them to and what did we do for them to help them to actually do it themselves
and that has been a huge turn round in terms of talent management. It is about how do you
get people to manage their own talent, be responsible for their own CPD and how do we
capitalise on it.”
We selected this case study for inclusion as it clearly illustrates the way in which a cultural
shift towards career self-management opens up conversations about values, aspirations and
the possibilities internal and external to the organisation.
Leadership
Despite succession planning broadening in scope, in terms of the employees within which
are included within the succession plan, the CIPD (2013) annual Leaning and Talent
Development survey shows that across all sectors, only three groups of people are most
likely to included in talent management activities: high-potential, senior managers and
graduates. Across all sectors, the focus of leadership development activities is around:
32
“improving the skills of leaders to think in a more strategic and future-focused way; enabling
the achievement of the organisation’s strategic goals (45%), developing high-potential
individuals valued by the organisation (49% in the private sector, compared with 33% in the
public sector); producing a common standard of behaviour and ethics for those in leadership
roles (36%)” (CIPD, 2013: 22). Despite the evidence that shows organisations are targeting
talent management activities at particular employee groups, the report highlights significant
skills deficits in the public sector, in areas such as leading and managing change (56%);
performance management skills (55%); and, coaching, mentoring and developing staff
(40%).
Interviewees recognise that the nature of leadership roles is changing, as are the
competences and behaviours required. The move towards transferrable skills, generic
competencies and developing individuals’ ability to lead is widespread.
Interviewee “The talent identification development management, however you wish
to describe it, doesn't exist in a vacuum. The problem is that I believe a significant
element, a significant proportion of the blockers to effective talent management and
development within local government lie not actually in the process but in the
capabilities and perspectives of people at senior leadership level with local
government and the historic stability that has existed in that area.”
Interviewee “In senior leadership roles what we are seeing is a shift from roles is
you’ve got a senior person in each of our blocks of services not necessarily being the
most senior professional in that area but we are moving more towards someone who
will have got that generic leadership particularly across senior leadership roles
because unless do that we are not going to be able to manage more with less. So
you see much more chief operating officer type roles starting to emerge but they
don't necessarily all need to be the most highest paid professional from that
particular area.
Interviewee “I think there is a chance to have clear pathways ... traditional, linear,
vertical career pathways; I don't think they will exist in the future because the senior
roles will not necessarily be professional roles. So it will be around having worked
33
and been exposed to, many parts in the public sector, not just in councils but across
the range of the organisation. We already see people moving across the sector and
having those transferable skills to do so and that has to be recognised. I also think
that we find career breaks, sabbaticals, people having looked at careers and a very
different relationship with work than has been seen previously.”
Equality and Diversity
It is relatively rare to see succession planning and diversity management closely integrated.
Succession planning processes can undermine diversity objectives if they do not take
account of critical influences of race and gender on career trajectories. Furthermore, if
succession planning is not open and transparent it can raise questions about equality; ‘is
everyone treated the same?’
Research by McKinsey shows little difference between men and women in terms of their
ambition to progress in organisations, both at entry and middle management levels. Barsh
and Yee, (2011) say: “for evidence of the problem, look no further than the blocked, leaky
corporate-talent pipeline: women account for roughly 53 per cent of entry-level professional
employees in the largest US industrial corporations, our research shows”. But according to
Catalyst, a leading advocacy group for women, they hold only 37 per cent of middle-
management positions, 28 per cent of vice-president and senior-managerial roles, and 14
per cent of seats on executive committees.
David Thomas, an academic at Harvard, has compared career progression amongst black
and white professionals and managers (Thomas, 2001). He finds that promising white
professionals tend to enter fast tracks early in their careers, whereas high-potential
minorities typically take off after they have reached middle management. He found that
both white and black managers benefited from having a mentor at key points in their
careers, but that there were significant differences in the kind of mentoring they received.
There are serious implications here for both individuals and organisations. Women and
minorities aiming for the board may need consciously to establish and work to different
strategies than their white male counterparts. Coaches and mentors working with these
34
individuals need to be aware of the need for different strategies and to help the coachee
understand the issue from both their own perspective and that of the existing majority
directors. And boards need to institute procedures that confront and overcome the
institutionalised discrimination that occurs from evaluating behaviour differently in people
of different gender or racial backgrounds in the context of appointments and succession
planning. Indeed, it is recommended that all appointment committees regularly assess their
procedures through a diversity audit.
If line managers are responsible for recommending who should join the talent pool, another
raft of issues emerges, relating to implicit bias. When supervisors perceive someone else as
significantly different from themselves, they are more likely to see their performance as
poor, more likely to have a relationship that involves conflict and, in some circumstances, is
abusive (Bennett et al, 2011). If the succession planning system is to be fair, it must contain
mechanisms for recognising and counteracting such bias.
There are pockets of progress in relation to diversity; however gender balance is still an
issue. The ratio of women and black and ethnic minority people into senior positions,
compared with white males is still an issue in some organisations. One interviewee reflected
on his experience in the public sector.
“A significantly higher proportion of BME staff are single parents, all women’s
careers take a dent when they take maternity leave. In practice if you take anything
more than six or nine months you do come back at a lower level even if, nominally,
you’re where you were and that may apply in all sorts of ways. In the case of other
staff other people have passed you while you’ve been out. So discrimination against
women, part-timers, BME women in particular get a double whammy. One of the
things you notice in the health service is that to compensate for discrimination on the
basis of talent BME people in particular do a lot more courses. So if you do interviews
you will see that BME applicants, for anything other than basic posts, are significantly
more qualified in terms of qualifications than white people. It is very noticeable. It is
an attempt to compensate but it didn't work because they are still not part of the
bloody networks. So I think that is a real problem.”
35
Only 28% of survey respondents had a high/very high degree of confidence in their
organisations’ ability to achieve appropriate levels of diversity in senior positions (see figure
8).
Figure 8: Diversity in senior organisational positions
There are a number of ways in which organisations are trying proactively support groups of
individuals to progress into senior roles - primarily women - through developmental
interventions such as mentoring and coaching. One interviewee cited gender balance as the
most significant challenge in her organisation and despite a considerable improvement over
the last four to five years there is still work to do: “in 2009, 7% of the top 100 were women.
Now we are about 15/16% which is fantastic. The problem is two-fold. First, when people go
on to the main positions they tend to spend quite some time because they are almost top of
their roles and the natural turnover is not high. Second, they are massive jobs. So if, as a
woman, you have a family and you are trying to balance everything it be a real struggle for
women.” To support women, the organisation has developed a mentoring programme
which would accelerate women with high potential to be able to operate at a senior level.
Since developing the programme, nearly 30% of participants have been promoted to the
next work level. A number of the successes are attributed to the sponsorship of mentors,
someone acting as an advocate or champion. Male mentors have supported the
7%
21%
46%
14% 12%
0
5
10
15
20
25
Very Low Low Adequate High Very High
How successful has your organisation been in achieving appropriate levels of diversity within the top four levels of management /
leadership?
36
programme, some driven by their desire to want to understand more fully the barriers
women face and understand how to better support them, given that they have wives and
daughters that might be in a similar position either now or in the future. Based on the
success of the programme, the organisation is considering scaling up the programme
globally so that all employees might have the opportunity to be mentored.
37
Defining talent
Like so many terms used in management and HR, talent can mean very different things to
different people. The Oxford English Dictionary defines talent as: “A special natural ability or
aptitude, usually for something expressed or implied; a natural capacity for success in some
department of mental or physical ability.” Someone who is talented is “Endowed with talent
or talents… gifted, clever, accomplished”.
When we talk about the talent in an organisation, however, the concept becomes a lot
messier. The recent special issue of The Journal of World Business (2014) demonstrates that
there is a significant degree of divergence with regard to what constitutes ‘talent’ and
underscores the importance of a joint consensus between “line managers, HR mangers, and
top mangers, all of whom might have different perspectives” (Ariss et al, 2014: 174).
Gallardo-Gallardo et al (2013: 291) report at least seventeen different definitions of talent,
found in the academic human resource management literature. They highlight discussions
addressing questions such as: “does talent refer to people (subject) or the characteristics of
people (object)? Is talent more about performance, potential, competence or commitment?
Is talent a natural ability or does it relate more to mastery through practice? Is it better to
take an inclusive or exclusive approach to talent management.” Ashton and Morton (2005)
present an inclusive approach to talent management: “a strategic and holistic approach to
both HR and business planning or a new route to organizational effectiveness. This improves
the performance and the potential of people – the talent – who can make a measurable
difference to the organization now and in future. And it aspires to yield enhanced
performance among all levels in the workforce, thus allowing everyone to reach his/her
potential, no matter what that might be.”
The words ‘performance’ and ‘potential’ are not unusual; many of the corporate definitions
of talent revolve around a person performing well in their current role and having potential
to grow into more senior roles. Yet, individual performance is often highly dependent on
other people and on context. And the notion of upward progress is also suspect. If
consultancy InfoHRM is correct in its prediction that 50−70 per cent of the workforce will
never be promoted again and 80 per cent will have no more than one promotion that raises
the question: ‘If we can’t provide promotions, what exactly do we mean by a career?’ The
38
consultancy’s advice is to build many more lateral careers and to measure the career path
ratio (the number of promotions in your organisation divided by number of transfers). In
most organisations, people only move for promotion, but they recommend four transfers
for every one promotion.
On these figures, standard assumptions about who is talented leave us with only the 20 per
cent of the workforce seen as having potential to move more than one rung up the ladder.
These become the ‘leadership pipeline’. Only those who are perceived likely to have more
than one promotion are seen as talent, then the pool narrows at each level of the hierarchy.
An alternative definition of talent might be: ‘A superior performing employee who has
potential to contribute significantly more by developing his or her skills, knowledge and
experience and who is motivated to do so.’ Or abandoning the idea of progression, an
alternative definition might be: ‘A superior performing employee, whose substantial
experience would be difficult to replace, and who contributes significantly to the
development of other talented individuals.’ The more people an organisation has who are
perceived and perceive themselves as talented, the greater the energy that can be directed
towards achieving shared objectives; and the higher the attractiveness of the organisation
to talented people.
This is the area that has a divergence of views and approaches. One interviewee explained
why there is no consensus in the HR profession or across sectors: “my hypothesis would be,
that the reason that companies have a different description of what talent is, is because the
description of talent is actually very context specific.” The interviewee described two
scenarios to illustrate this perspective (we have paraphrased the commentary). First, in an
IT outsourcing organisation, the organisation is driven by quarterly results and lives quarter
by quarter. It is a very contract specific organisation, whereby teams of employees will be
working on very big accounts which will last for six to nine months. Employees will then
transition into different projects, working on different account. The organisation looks at
the competencies needed for a specific project for a specific time period and appoints
according to the competencies required to successfully deliver the project. In an
organisation which manufacturers products to large-scale and long-term contracts spanning
25 years plus, the talent focus is around the development of capability over generations and
39
capability retention with a strong focus on apprentices and graduates, people in the early
stages of their careers.
There was no consensus across the interviewees around the definition of talent but
interviewees were able to identify their approach or ‘groups’ of talents specific to their
organisation. Groups of talent included ranged from new entrants to senior leaders.
“I think talent is leveraging and recognising the abilities and skills and the behaviours
of everybody irrespective of what role they are in and looking at their contribution
and looking at what more they could do for the company and for themselves.”
“We typically look at talent, in our new world in three different ways. Top talent is
about the senior leadership group and succession planning and development for all in
there. Two, is mass mobility across the organisation and three, is early career. So that
is entry points where that is interns, apprentice schemes, graduates schemes ... part
rumour says that there are 36 different early careers programmes in the organisation
at the moment.”
An interviewee explained some of the difficulties with narrow definitions of talent and
suggested an alternative view.
“A lot of organisations who define talent very narrowly in terms of the potential to
become leaders. We take a much broader view of talent than that and say there are
different types of talent, all of which are important and critical for your organisation
of which leadership potential is only one. Leadership potential probably doesn't
embrace more than 1% of your entire population and there are a lot more important
and valuable people in the organisation than that.
On the other extreme there are some organisations like some government
departments I know who say, well everybody has got talent. Management shouldn’t
discriminate and talent management is for everybody. Well to me that is not helpful
because that is really just saying we are going to look after and develop everybody -
well you would do that anyway.
40
So somewhere in between is a definition of talent. We define it as people who
possess critical skills or critical potential which is directly linked to the value the
organisation provides for one or more stakeholders. So that embraces probably 50%,
60% of an organisation and it certainly includes everybody dealing with customers.
I think it is much more inclusive but it also says talent management has some
different strands which you are going to look at differently with different groups of
people. It is not a ‘one size fits all’ thing.”
Several interviewees discussed the importance of clarity; regardless of the definition of
talent, clarity is crucial so that we understand exactly what is happening: who, what, how
and when.
“What is your definition of good talent management? There is a challenge there
because the question, for example, ‘do you identify high potentials?’ Is one that a) in
a lot of organisations will produce a ‘no’ answer because they identify people for
development and fast tracking or whatever even if they do that based on
performance rather than potential. We know that if you use performance as the only
measure you are likely to have a 50% failure rate at the next level up. So that then
goes to the point when we say we identify high potentials what do we mean? So we
are dealing with here, this is the issue about when you use the phraseology. I think
that is one of the problems that you will find as well in that when you ask the
question, do you identify high potentials, do you identify talent, do you develop
leadership, etc. you potentially will get ‘yes’ answers to the questions but the thing
that they are answering ‘yes’ about between a local government organisation that is
just tinkering with this and one that is taking this seriously, despite the fact that they
are the same, it is when you dig down using the question, ‘so how do you develop
your high potentials?’ I think that is the level of granularity that you need to get
down to because that is the point at which you can quickly recognise who is doing
what.”
41
Recruiting and identifying talent
In many local authorities that participated in this study, external recruitment is either frozen
or limited to critical positions; the emphasis is firmly on internal movement and retention.
Where organisations are recruiting externally, there has been an increased emphasis on
social media sites such as LinkedIn which might provide a better ‘fit’ between the individual
and the organisation: “we are moving from this every reactive way of recruiting to a more
proactive way of recruiting and using some different tools such as LinkedIn. So it is quite
interestingly to see a more tailored approach rather than just a job description and a set of
CV’s to screen.” For most organisations that participated in this research project, this
approach is not widespread due to the internal organisational focus. More widely, the last
year has seen a rise in online recruitment methods and the use of social media for
resourcing (CIPD, 2013). Continual re-design of the corporate website and the use of social
networking sites such as LinkedIn are more prevalent across all sectors. Despite this
increase, few organisations (19%) that participated in the CIPD annual Resourcing and
Talent Planning survey have a dedicated media strategy (CIPD, 2013: 45), of those do, few
organisations do not know how to maximise it (35%) and, 54% of organisations do not have
someone in the resourcing team trained in using social media for resourcing.
Moving to the identification of talent; talent management systems are built upon the
assumption that talent can be identified with relative ease and accuracy. This assumption is
questionable for a number of reasons. First, in practice, talent is often emergent. It
sometimes takes time to become obvious to the talent holder and to observers. Someone
may need to be placed in a stretching situation, which stimulates them to exercise a talent,
before they recognise it as such. Second, talent involves aptitude and application. Gladwell
(2008) makes a strong case that people we regard as exceptionally talented have: (1) been
in the right place at the right time; and (2) put in many thousands of hours of practice.
People of equal potential who have not been given the opportunity to gain the practice
hours tend to be seen as less talented. Third, perception of talent is prone to enormous
bias. Some of the most common sources of bias include: gender bias, physical characteristic
bias and success bias, illustrated by come of comments by interviewees.
42
“There’s loads of research that shows that people tend to choose on the basis of; will
they fit in, are they one of us, despite the evidence that diversity of talent and of
ethnicity and gender are much better for innovation in teams. So the research is
contrary to what the appointment and development procedures say. So it is a real
problem and because it’s a real problem what you have is you have a lot of very
angry staff who don't feel their talent is recognised. So turnover is higher. ”
“Talent pools - What that pool would look like is the pool would look like the people
you nominate. That is what they would look like inevitably. It’s like Grammar
Schools. It says to everybody else we don't value you. You are stuck where you are.
What about the people in those areas perhaps that level that didn't get nominated.
Do it by lottery. All the people who want to do it, they would be no worse than the
current system. Who wants to do it? Stick them in a thing, pull them out, see what
happens. I do not believe it would be any worse.”
Studies of talent management and succession by Chicago Change Partners (CCP) (Bishop,
2009) point to several related problems. First, the inadequate distinction between
moderately talented and really talented. It’s hard for a manager to admit that they don’t
have many talented people reporting to them – it makes them look and feel inferior. So
appraisal systems tend to provide an inaccurate picture, which can lead top management
and HR into a dangerous complacency about the depth and quality of the talent pipeline.
CCP advises training managers on how to recognise and assess talent, and in particular on
how to recognise learning ability in others. Second, lacking a collective blueprint of the
values and behavioural elements required for successful emerging leaders results in leaders
making talent decisions based upon differing views of what success looks like.
Evidence suggests that it is sensible to be wary of line manager assessment of leadership
potential, it’s also clear that some managers do have a talent for talent spotting. Some
possibilities identified by Clutterbuck in his work, The Talent Wave (2012) are that they:
create opportunities for employees to seize challenges that will demonstrate current
and latent talents;
43
take time to listen to people, simply because they are interested in them and their
jobs;
have a perspective of talent that emphasizes diversity and the unexpected, rather
than fitting a particular mould; and
see and value other people more in terms of their strengths than their weaknesses.
Could organisations make more effective use of their talent spotters, by recognising this as a
critical role and by supporting them in exercising their talent-spotting skills more widely?
For example, such people tend also to make effective mentors and leadership sponsors for
action learning sets – roles that open up significant opportunities to encounter and observe
potential talent. Or perhaps use them as a counterweight to the assessment centres.
Does HR provide a safer pair of hands for assessing talent than line managers? Are they any
more likely to come up with the right answer? Again, there doesn’t appear to be a simple
answer. What is clear is that HR typically talks about its role in terms of management rather
than leadership; and of process control rather than visionary engagement. Certainly, HR
often sees its role in talent development and succession planning as one of moderating
arbitrary behaviour by line managers. But linear systems tend to impose an arbitrariness of
their own. So just how credible are the approaches HR applies to establish who is and who is
not worthy of being in the talent pool?
The linear systems approach: competencies and grids
The two basic tools used in standard talent identification systems are competency
frameworks and the nine-box grid, promoted within the book The Leadership Pipeline
(Charan et al, 2001). Both competencies and the grid appear to impose a level of control and
predictability on talent identification, talent management and succession planning. The
theory behind leadership competency frameworks is that it is possible to define generic
competencies of effective leaders, to assess employees against these competencies and
hence to predict how effective people will be in leadership roles, depending on the number
of boxes they tick in the assessment process. There is almost no credible evidence that this
44
linear approach works. Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe (2009: 14) illustrate the point
graphically in a report for the CIPD.
“Competency frameworks alone are not sufficient for assessing the full range of leadership
behaviours that are required for effective leadership and organizational success. Indeed, we
argue that believing that possessing the competencies is sufficient for leadership is rather
like believing that by equipping someone with a ‘painting-by-numbers’ kit, they can produce
a Monet… most competency frameworks are singularly characterized by a lack of empirical
evidence of their concurrent or predictive validity.”
Where HR so often goes wrong is to use these frameworks as primary inputs in decision-
making about individuals, when the demands of leadership and the capabilities of
individuals are far more varied and complex than any mechanistic framework can
encompass.
What is a competence? Hawkins makes a useful distinction between competence and
capability, both of which he says are about know-how: “Competencies can be learned in the
classroom, but capabilities can only be learned live and on the job. The danger [of over-
emphasising competencies] is that one can acquire a very large toolkit of skills, without
developing the capability of knowing when to use each skill and in what way” (Hawkins,
2011: 155). Other critics of competencies frameworks include Buckingham (2001), who
proposes approaches that focus primarily on using the strengths an individual has rather
than trying to change their innate weaknesses; Bolden and Gosling (2006) and Gravells and
Wallace (2011). Among the concerns that these authors raise about leadership
competencies are:
They focus on what can be described and measured, which is not the same as what
has most impact. (How do you measure authenticity, for example?)
They are essentially reductionist, breaking down competencies into components, so
they miss the larger picture.
They are insufficiently flexible to take into account widely differing requirements of
leaders in different situations.
People who demonstrate excellence in the same role don’t necessarily demonstrate
the same set of competencies.
45
Trying to make people fit the competency framework by concentrating on improving
the skills where they are weakest might seem an obvious step, but there is little
evidence that it leads to more leaders or better leaders. (Although ignoring
weaknesses doesn’t seem a particularly smart strategy, either!)
Competency frameworks are based on qualities which have been associated with
success so far, but that means they are backward-looking, when talent management
demands they should be forward-looking.
Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe (2009) emphasise the importance of distinguishing
between the skills of leadership (which can by and large be learned given sufficient
application and intelligence) and the qualities and values of effective leadership. The latter
will always be situational. A fundamental mistake made in designing and applying
competency frameworks to specific roles is that the role itself is fixed. But as context
changes, so does what constitutes an effective mix of values and qualities. For example, the
leadership qualities required in the rapid growth phase of a sector are not necessarily the
same as those in an industry that is well into maturing (Ahrens, 1999).
The arguments for competency frameworks are that they promote clarity, consistency and
professionalism. They also represent a middle path between the nature versus nurture
perspectives of how leaders are created. Yet the words ‘leadership’ and ‘competence’ are to
some extent incompatible. Tom Peters once pointed out at a conference in London that
having leaders who are merely competent may not be enough to meet the challenges of
complex organizations and complex environments. Competence implies at best steadiness
and reliability; at worst, mediocrity. In the framework of Warren Bennis’s (2010) distinction
between leadership and management, competence sits better with management than it
does with leadership, which – in spite of thousands of studies and books – still remains
largely contextual, individual, intangible and, to a considerable extent, mysterious. As a
result, leadership competency frameworks inevitably take a ‘pick and choose’ approach to
the characteristics and qualities on which they focus.
The theory behind the nine-box grid (see Figure 9) is that you can establish with a
reasonable degree of accuracy where an employee lies in terms of their current
46
performance and their potential for promotion; and that clustering them together in boxes
allows the organisation (or more specifically, HR) to devise different strategies for dealing
with each cluster. The argument in The Leadership Pipeline (Charan et al, 2001) is that
having nine boxes to put people into is better than just four. What the book doesn’t
question is why you would want to put people into boxes at all, nor whether these
snapshots are actually predictive of leadership capability, other than from the negative
perspective of convincing people who have been placed in the less desirable boxes to lower
any aspirations they might have had.
Figure 9: Nine-Box Grid
Performance
Potential
Possible misfit Potential star Consistent star
Developing Core contributor Rising star
Attention! Solid performer Strong performer
The nine-box grid ranks people on their performance and potential. Those high in both are
perceived to be talent ready or close to ready for promotion; various other strategies are
recommended for other positions on the grid, which is a fundamental underpinning of the
leadership pipeline. The basis of the grid is that people can be assessed accurately on two
defining attributes of talent: performance and potential. Performance is what you achieve
from what you do; potential is what you might achieve, with further experience and
opportunity to develop.
As a workforce planning tool, its purpose may be to help HR and top management gain an
overview of the extent of the talent available and the health of the supply of people for
more senior roles. As a talent management tool, it may be used to decide the future of
individuals: how ready they are for promotion, and what investment the organisation
intends to make in their development. In this workforce planning context, there is clear
47
value in a framework that causes managers to think objectively and strategically about the
talent beneath them. As a broad talent management tool, there is also value in HR being
able to identify broad areas of weakness across the organisation, or an undersupply of
talent. Using the grid to assess the diversity of talent can also be beneficial.
At the heart of the matter concerning the grid’s utility is: How confident can we be that we
can assess performance and potential accurately enough to be predictive of future
leadership success? Is performance really measurable?
Those interviewees that identified the nine box grid within their organisation were sceptical
about the utility and value of the nine box grid:
“I’m sort of being forced down a system because it is cheap and easy and it is
recognised that I don’t want to be forced down and so part of the reason I can use
the nine box grid ... so it is kind of cheap and easy and it stops me having to get off
the hamster wheel and really use by brain to invest something that is going to be
more suitable.”
“We’ve got our nine box all mapped out but actually when it comes to practice those
people in the top right of the nine box grid are not necessarily the ones getting
promoted.”
“I found myself introducing the nine box model and I’ve talked to myself, what the
bloody hell are you doing. You hated all this stuff ... it is because I can’t see another
way of making things that actually happen organically tangible.”
“Here you are, here’s you succession plan, here is the performance grid of all your
leaders in the organisation, so it is done but it is not done. That is so HR I’m afraid.”
Measuring performance
Assuming performance is about meeting specific and measurable goals or outcomes,
immediate issues arise. Do goals capture the essence of the job role? Most jobs, particularly
at senior level, are multifaceted and multidimensional. Measuring whether the individual
achieves, say, specific sales targets or cost reduction in their department is relatively simple,
but it tells you very little about them as a manager or leader.
48
How predictive performance in one role is of performance in the next. If the employee is
being groomed for a specific role, if that role is relatively fixed and if there are sufficient
numbers of such roles to compare with, it may be possible to establish a pattern which will
inform succession decisions.
A systemic view sees performance as the outcome of both the individual’s capabilities and
the context in which they operate. Changing the environment may encourage talented
people to apply themselves more and in original ways, which will be of far more value than
dragooning them into a ‘pipeline’. At the simplest level, a manager who had been dropped
from the high-flyer pool because he was judged not to be a sufficiently strategic thinker
negotiated one day a week at home to work without interruption. Six months later, his
devastating analysis of the business’s information technology (IT) strategy led to a total
rethink of this aspect of the business. Two things had changed: he had gained the time to
reflect; and he had been helped in using reflective space by occasional conversations with a
mentor, who enabled him to tap into skills that were already there but had been suppressed
by the working environment.
Measuring potential
Similarly, potential is not as easy to assess as might be assumed. A dictionary definition of
potential is: ‘capable of coming into being; latent’ (Oxford English Dictionary). Potential
derives from potency – or strength – so one way of defining it is: ‘the ability to achieve or
contribute more by building upon personal strengths or aptitudes, while managing relevant
weaknesses’. In complex adaptive systems, potential is a tendency to move towards certain
types of attractor. In short, potential can mean different things according to the perspective
you adopt. A practical definition of potential from a talent management perspective might
be: “the capability of an individual to build upon existing strengths, knowledge and
experience to perform effectively at higher levels of responsibility, within an appropriate
environment” (Clutterbuck, 2012).
Interviewees recognise some of the difficulties associated with measuring and
acknowledging potential.
49
“Organisations are still not transparent and even though people are seen as having
potential, high potential in some cases, yet they are not told because it is either
raising expectations or there is a feeling of if you tell people then that is going to
lead to all sorts of other questions and issues.”
“The key challenges ... for many public sector organisations ... is the willingness to
acknowledge diversity and different between people and their ability and their
potential. The willingness to make judgements and the ability to be honest with
people.”
Issues that arise in evaluating potential from the perspective of succession planning include:
Context. The ability to realise potential is heavily dependent on factors which may or may
not be the control of the employee. Even if an organisation can accurately identify an
individual’s potential, these data are pretty useless unless they can also define the
conditions where that potential is most and least likely to be released.
Potential is often confused with competency. Competence is what someone can do;
potential is what they may be able to do, by applying and developing competencies.
Competencies come in many sizes and styles. Is the competency set with which potential is
associated in this evaluation specific to the role? Is it generic to a certain level of
management? Built around meta-competencies? And what evidence is there to support
these conclusions?
Who judges potential? Line managers are not generally reliable as sources for evaluating the
potential of direct reports. Assessment centre data may be valid, but it is an expensive way
to build evidence and its shelf-life can be limited.
The role of coaches and mentors increasingly includes helping the individual create and
negotiate with the organisation a development plan that is both more imaginative and more
sustainable. In reflective space it is possible to question both one’s own and other people’s
perceptions, to envisage a range of parallel futures, and to work to personal growth
strategies that are simultaneously focused and highly flexible. In this way, it is not necessary
to wait until the next formal performance or development review to react to changing
opportunities – either the individual or the organization can take the initiative.
50
There are a variety of ways in which organisations identify talent; there is some debate
around the effectiveness of the methods. Methods include nomination, assessment,
psychological testing, nine-box grid. Some of the methods are prone to subjectivity and
unconscious bias; how closely does the demographic profile talent pool represent those that
nominated? Skills and aspirations can be hidden, beyond view, which raises the question
around transparency.
Performance appraisals
Performance appraisal was described by Deming as follows: “It nourishes short-term
performance, annihilates long-term planning, builds fear, demolishes teamwork, nourishes
rivalry and politics.” Organisations are moving away from the formalised annual review
process, the most recent case in the press is the change of practice in Adobe. In 2012,
Adobe made the decision to abandon them, moving instead to a “lighter-weight” approach
involving frequent check-ins between manager and direct reports. The organisation needed
to move away from traditional bureaucratic approaches which were not appropriate in the
context of the pace of change needed within the organisation, sector and wider
environment. There is no prescribed format for these conversations; there are no forms to
fill in. They simply reaffirm what manager and direct report expect from each other, give
and receive mutual feedback, and discuss how the employee can make progress with their
personal development plan. Adobe managers now have almost complete authority to
allocate bonuses based on how well direct reports have achieved their agreed objectives
(which may be learning objectives). All 2,000 managers were trained in how to conduct
these conversations, in part using scenarios of difficult situations to help them develop the
skills to have open dialogue.
A "pulse survey”, sent to a random selection of employees, tests how well managers set
expectations, give and receive feedback and help people achieve their personal
development goals. Adobe calculated that the old system cost them 80,000 hours of time
annually and destroyed productivity because it was a “soul-less and soul-crushing exercise”.
Now, 78% of employees report that their manager is open to feedback from them.
Voluntary attrition among employees has dropped 30% since performance appraisals were
51
dropped; involuntary attrition (firing poor performers) has increased 50%, as managers have
tough conversations they had previously avoided.
Survey respondents were not convinced that their organisation has been successful in
identifying talent; less than 85% any significant level of confidence (see Figure 10).
Figure 10: Organisation's success in identifying talent
Organisations can get ‘locked-in’ to linear, historical processes which do not address the
needs of the changing environment and organisation.
“I think historically because we haven't been assessing potential what you’ve got and
what history has show is that you’ve got people in roles that they shouldn’t be in
because they haven't been assessed for their potential, they’ve just been assessed on
their performance.
“Whilst the organisation has very much been focusing on a performance culture for
the past four years, actually we’re really looking at from a talent perspective and
growing our pipeline, who are those people that can do those bigger, more complex
roles in the future and do they exist internally or do they exist externally. So it is
becoming smarter about that.”
9%
35%
42%
14%
0 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Very Poor Poor Adequate Good Very Good
How successful do you think your organisation has been in identifying talent?
52
“The development link in to that is OK so that is great, we’ve got this new model of
potential, we now know how to assess potential on their rigour and consistency etc.
but what do you do with these people because if you just identify people and this is
what has happened in the past, people have been labelled as high potential and then
they just sit on a list for years and nothing happens to them and actually there has
never been that correlation between what type of talent are you and our
development programmes.”
The survey showed that organisations use a variety of methods to identify talent (see Figure
11). The highest proportion relied on Line manager recommendation or nomination and
competency frameworks. Other examples given were assessment centres, 360 degree
appraisal, nine-box grid and peer recommendation.
Figure 11: Method used to identify talent
There was evidence that some organisations have moved away from traditional approaches,
responding to the changing needs of the environment and in particularly the need to widen
their search for ‘talent’.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Self selection and application
Peer Recommendation
No Talent Management Strategy
Nine-box grid
Line Manager recommendation
Leadership and Development Strategy
Competency framwork
Assessment centres
Appraisal and performance management
360 degree appraisal
Which of the following do you use to identify talent?
53
One interviewee talked about the move away from traditional annualised review processes
to a ‘vacancy led’ system. The annualised promotions process looks to promote people into
roles, based on the assumption that if an employee has served three years in a role then it is
there turn to be promoted. Moving to a vacancy-led process system, results in vacancies
being advertised internally, which employees can then openly apply for. Through the
selection process an internal candidate may be appointed, if the individual is from a work
level below, he/she is promoted into the position. The opportunities for ‘middle talent’
(70,000 employees) are now much greater; the organisation recognises the transferrable
skills within the ‘middle talent’ population.
Very few organisations evaluate or measure these processes to assess how well they work
in practice (see Figure 12).
Figure 12: Evaluation and/or measurement processes
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Does your organisation evaluate and/or measure the effectiveness of each process?
Yes
No
54
In the interviews, evidence around the effectiveness of any method used to identify talent
was lacking. One interviewee commented:
“I think at times services have nominated people for the talent pool who actually
have not proved to be as talented as you perhaps would want them to be and that
has shown up in a number of ways. Sometimes we’ve seen a bit of drop out, they are
just not engaged in the activities of talent pool. Sometimes they’ve gone in to a
Development Programme and have really not coped with the level of work because it
is quite a demanding schedule on top of the day job and we’ve had a bit of drop out
... I think sometimes they have to get their quota in to the talent pool and they are
not really challenging themselves about whether those people really do fit the
definition.”
“So what had happened over a number of years was pockets of brilliant work in
terms of leadership and development programmes, in terms of looking at certain
career paths but where it left a lot to be desired and it was quite poor in many
respects was the whole thing of identifying talent and it was too subjective and there
wasn't a proper professional objective approach to that. Then once the talent had
been identified, more of a professional approach to diagnosing the strength and
development needs of the talent.”
55
Developing and retaining talent
Having defined and identified ‘talent’, what can the organisation do to develop the talent to
prepare people to adapt to the changes in the Local Government sector and continually
develop themselves and those around them? We do not wish to re-visit the definitions of
talent, however it is important to recognise that the decision to invest in talent is influenced
by budget and resources constraints, therefore the question of ‘who’ is developed is an
important one. When the organisation has addressed the questions of ‘why’ and ‘who’,
those responsible for talent development can then begin the discussions around ‘how’.
Garavan et al (2012) suggest that our knowledge base is weak in relation to talent
development and that very little has been published in this area, particularly in the global
context. There are a number of reasons for this. First, published research tends to focus on
specific initiatives or interventions, rather than the strategic role of talent development in
relation to the broader business and talent perspective; and second, research focuses on
specific aspects of talent development, rather than the holistic view of talent development.
Therefore, making sense of this area is challenging. Iles et al (2010) further suggest that
there is no real consensus concerning ‘what’ talent may fall within the scope of the talent
development process, suggesting four possible scenarios:
Inclusive approach – focuses on developing each potential employee.
Inclusive approach – focuses on the development of social capital within the
organisation.
Exclusive approach – focused on the development of specific elite individuals.
Exclusive approach – focuses on key positions, roles and develops talent to fulfil
these roles.
Garavan et al (2012: 6) define talent development focusing on “the planning, selection and
implementation of developmental strategies for the entire talent pool to ensure that the
organisation has both the current and future supply of talent to meet strategic objectives
and, that developmental activities are aligned with organisational talent management
processes.” Definitions or descriptions of talent development emphasise leadership talent
development and therefore focus on exclusive models, rather than a broader more inclusive
56
approach. The Leitch Review of Skills (Leitch 2006) suggests that developing leaders’ and
managers’ skills can lead to an improvement in business performance. “The business case
for investment in employee development is built on the need to sustain organisational
performance and adapt to a dynamic environment” Rees and French (2011). Gold et al
(2010) explain that the development of leaders and managers is tough to make sense of,
given that a search on Google returned “21 million hits for ‘management development’ and
42 million for ‘leadership development’.” The degree to which leadership and management
(those that tend to be regarded as ‘talent’) development has grown as a topic adds to the
perplexity. Questions around diversity and equality are often raised in the context of talent
development: ‘who receives talent development; why; how and when?’ Harris and Foster’s
(2010: 427) study of two UK public sector organisations - the Legal Services Commission and
a large unitary City Council – revealed several interrelated and overlapping themes:
1. “the alignment of talent management with other HR policies,
2. processes for selecting talent,
3. the impact of resource constraints; and
4. delivering performance targets.”
Line managers did not understand how talent management interventions were aligned to
other HR policies, particularly in relation to meeting diversity and equality requirements.
Issues concerning under representation of certain groups in talent programmes exist where
processes around self-selection and/or applications. Women are a group that might ‘opt
out’ of talent programmes for a variety of reasons, one of which is the balance between
work and home. Line managers and employees regard openness and transparency as the
most important influences on perceptions of diversity and equality.
The most recent CIPD (2013) annual Learning and Development survey, which reports on
trends in learning and development in the HR community, provides a useful insight into
what are regarded as the most effective practices in this area. Participants ranked on-the-
job training (56%), in-house development programmes (48%) and coaching by line managers
(39%) as the most effective. On-the-job training effectiveness is an upward trend which has
continued over a three year period (from 30% in 2010 to 56% in 2013).
57
In a large-scale managerial survey of 692 managers from a range of organisational
hierarchical levels sectors, McCauley et al (1994) defined 10 dimensions of developmental
quality in relation to on-the-job learning.
1. Unfamiliar responsibilities – eg switching from line to staff, or changing
employers − make managers think about what they do and how they do it.
2. Developing new directions – eg initiating a new strategy or creating a new
department.
3. Inherited problems – addressing problems left by a predecessor.
4. Problems with employees – eg engaging with and developing the competences
of direct reports, who may be resistant to change.
5. High stakes – eg high visibility, especially to senior management.
6. Scale and scope – eg responsibility for large budgets, a substantial number of
people, and/or diversity of functions.
7. Influencing without authority – having to work through peers and more senior
managers to get things done.
8. Handling external authority – eg dealing with suppliers and other independents,
again through influence.
9. Managing work group diversity – eg managing and working with a range of
disciplines, who need to collaborate.
10. Working across cultures – eg preventing intercultural conflict and using cultural
difference to stimulate creativity.
The results suggest that on-the-job training can motivate employees and provide
opportunities for development, however indicators of stress can be common and a lack of
support from colleagues and wider networks can prove a barrier to learning. Where a
manager is asked to take on an unfamiliar project, the issue of peer support is even more
important. In general interviewees agree that the majority of developmental experiences
come from the job itself: “For me this comes to the 70/20/10 of development that 70% of
your development comes from experience, 20% from exposure and 10% from education. So
the 70% of experiences, you get those experiences, you learn through projects, secondments,
stretched projects, various things that you can do and that’s how we should help people
develop is by giving them those opportunities.”
58
The CIPD (2013) found that the trend is declining in relation to coaching by line managers,
from 51% in 2010 to 39% in 2013; job rotation, secondment and shadowing, from 30% in
2010 to 13% in 2013. Off-the-job instructor-led training was also common across the
community (54%), alongside in-house development programmes (57%). There is then a
marked gap; across the remaining talent development practices, e-learning methods (31%),
coaching by line managers (29%) and off-the-job instructor-led training, yielded similar
results.
The most common organisational change expected to impact on learning and talent
development over the next two years is greater integration between coaching,
organisational development and performance management (reported by 45% of
organisations). The figure was slightly higher in the public sector at 48%. Integration of
talent development activities was a consistent theme in all sectors, with a slight variance in
the public sector to the average: integration with the business strategy (average 26% vs
public sector 25%), performance management 26% and organisational development
(average 17% vs public sector 18%).
Our survey respondents identified a number of ways in which their organisation develops
talent including: learning on the job; e-learning; stretching roles; using projects; coaching
and mentoring. In some cases there is still a general regard for training as “going on
courses” which is restrictive. Some respondents noted the need to develop employees’
independence and resilience but also recognised that nurturing talent is difficult – people
have different needs and the organisation has different needs. The training budget is under
continual pressure so maintaining investment but being clear about the value of that
investment is important.
Our survey respondents cited at least 12 different ways their organisation develops talent.
The most widely used are personal development planning; line manager coaching, coaching
outside the reporting structure, mentoring, supporting staff in their own career planning,
stretching projects and organisational investment in development activities (see Figure 13).
59
Figure 13: Methods used to develop talent
The shift towards ‘self-sufficient manager’ and career self-management is becoming more
prominent in both the public and private sector. However, this shift will require a higher
degree of career self-management and the challenge might be enable employees to
navigate their way. Organisations can’t assume employees have the capability to do this,
they need to provide employees with the tools, skills and capability to manage their own
careers.
The authors selected two cases studies which illustrate how organisations at a local level
and wider geographical area are developing employees.
Case Study - Hertfordshire County Council, The Leap Programme
The LEAP programme was offered to all high performing managers at Foundation and
Middle management levels, in addition to those operating at a strategic level (three
4 5
7 7
19
22
28 28 30
32 34
36 38
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Which of the following do you use to develop talent?
60
organisational levels). This included those identified in the Talent Pool, with the potential to
develop their leadership skills. Face-to-face training was combined with self-directed and
online learning, reflection and coaching. LEAP also offered pre-programme analysis in the
form of 360 reviews and MBTI questionnaires to help delegates create positive, constructive
plans to enhance all of their relationships. LEAP looked directly to Council For The Future for
complex organisational problems which the delegates would then analyse before identifying
financial and efficiency savings and then presenting a solution to the senior management
team. The four workshops were one-day interactive forums tackling key issues relating to
both foundation and middle managers. Topics included ‘Strategic Leadership’, ‘Employee
Engagement’ and ‘Leading Change’. Post-programme support in the form of one-to-one
coaching sessions and a second 360 review (10 months after the programme). Each cohort
at each level has a senior manager sponsor and the Chief Executive has been involved. This has
made a huge difference in terms of visibility of senior managers and also of the participants.
It has shown them too that the organisation is committed to the programme and to talent
development. The team also tracks where people in the talent pool and the LEAP
programmes progress. The talent pool approach to identifying people with potential and
succession planning also play a key role in identifying those that the organisation needs to
develop for the future – these people may or may not undertake the LEAP programme as it
depends on their individual development plan. “With the role of local government becoming
more complex the sector needs talented people at all levels but especially in leadership roles.
It is also increasingly difficult to recruit our approach to talent and succession has meant
that we have people ready to take on Chief Executive, Director and Assistant Director roles in
the last couple, of years. Unlike many Councils we have no vacancies or interims at this level,
and only a handful at the head of service tier below. This means we are able to concentrate
on driving out savings and transform services knowing that we have talented and innovative
individuals leading large change programmes.”
This case study illustrates how the organisation is seeking to align the needs of the
employees and the organisation, with a developmental programme which is based on
current and future business cases scenarios, enabling employees to develop key
competencies.
61
Case Study - Public Sector People Managers’ Association (PPMA) Rising Stars
“The aim of Rising Stars is to nurture talent, help future leaders develop a strong
professional network and raise their profile among potential employers. The PPMA is
focussed on developing resilience, engagement, partnership working, innovation and
gravitas. The programme includes a masterclass in communication and creating personal
impact. A total of 17 stars participated in the first year.”
“Engagement and communication skills are critical for HR managers having to translate
hard-nosed business decisions into new ways working for staff, and often into job losses. The
new HR stars may well find themselves helping managers, who have never had to cope with
such major changes, talk with staff early and openly about what
faces them: “You need to engage with the manager and sell them the benefits of doing that
and taking that leap of faith.” Hay (2014)
“This year we’ve taken that – not only are we running the Rising Stars but we’ve just
launched this week Apprentice of the Year 2014. So the Rising Stars from last year will be
used as the judges for this particular event and it is looking at apprenticeships broadly across
the public sector.”
This cases study illustrates how the organisation is supporting particular ‘groups’ of
employees to develop key skills which will support them in their current and future role,
whilst also addressing the needs of the business.
Effectiveness of talent development methods
Our survey respondents were asked their view of the most effective talent development
methods are stretching projects (70%), coaching outside the reporting structure (67%) and
investment in general development activities (58%). The least effective are development
centres (74%), career planning (77%) and job rotation (79%). Only 44% of responded felt
that line manager coaching is more than adequate in developing talent, and only 37% of
respondents felt that personal development planning is more than adequate in developing
talent (see Figure 14). In most organisations less than half measure the effectiveness of each
development activity.
62
Interviewees were generally much more positive in their responses around the range of
staff development approaches adopted and their effectiveness.
“We’ve introduced a wide range of coaching. Which offers the space to support any
discussions in terms of the issues people are grappling with whether they be in
business or whether it be having some sort of an impact on them personally.”
“We have established a programme where quarterly we bring all our Deputy Director
leaders together. We have at least 2-3 events quarterly for the large cohort. We
bring them together quarterly and part of that is not just about giving information
around the political agenda but to present an opportunity for networking with your
peers. The feedback suggests that this has been fundamental for sharing with each
other when they are grappling or just knowing that actually you are not in it alone.
So our quarterly meetings have been fundamental in supporting the larger group to
remain resilient in that wider context.”
Figure 14: Effectiveness of talent development methods
0 10 20 30 40 50
Coaching outside the reporting…
Investment in general…
Mentoring
Line manager coaching
Stretching projects
Personal Development Planning
Support staff in their own career…
Action learning sets
Job shadowing
Development Centres
Career Planning
How effective do you think they are?
Poor/Very Poor
Adequate
Good/Very Good
63
There is a multitude of ways to evaluate the effectiveness of talent development methods.
Deciding on the most suitable evaluative approach, as appropriate for each method prior to
the implementation is essential in order to challenge our theoretical assumptions and
principles about what works in practice and what will best address the issues relating to
outcomes and impact. The Kirkpatrick four level model (1994) is still widely used today
(CIPD, 2013), in order to gauge reaction, learning, behaviour and results. However, the
extent to which it is used in full is questionable. At the first level, Kirkpatrick (1994: 21)
refers to the “level of customer satisfaction”, in other words, the reaction of those that
participate in the activity. The second stage evaluates the extent to which participants
change their attitudes, improve knowledge, and/or increase skills as a result of attending
the talent development ‘programme’. The third stage evaluates the extent to which the
behaviour has changed as a result of the talent development ‘programme’. The final layer
considers the results of the talent development ‘programme’, which is often concerned with
HR and business performance metrics such as reduced absence and increased revenue. The
model is not without its critics (Passmore and Velez, 2012) and since it was first introduced,
consultants and academics have been adapting the model and creating a variety of
alternative approaches (Kaufman and Keller, 1994; Bates, 2004; Guerci et al, 2010).
Passmore and Velez (2012) identify ten ‘popular’ evaluation models and their criteria, then
offering their own model of evaluation. There is no commentary around how popular the
models are, and to what extent organisations use them in practice. When selecting a
particularly approach/model we would question:
How effective is the method of evaluation in assessing the real value and impact of
the talent development activity?
How frequently do organisations review their evaluation methods and adapt them to
the needs of each talent development activity?
The CIPD (2013) annual Learning and Development survey does shed some light on this
issue, and asks respondents to report on the methods used to measure the effectiveness of
learning and development activities, and the frequency of application. Methods include:
“general HR metrics such as absence, sickness, retention;
business metrics such as profitability, revenue, market growth;
64
return on investment after the intervention has been delivered;
limited stages of the Kirkpatrick model to plan and evaluate;
Kirkpatrick model to fully evaluate from reaction level up to business impact;
development data such as psychometrics, 360;
integrated learning system to collate focused metrics around issues such as talent
and performance.” (CIPD, 2013: 33)
The CIPD survey shows that there is no consistency around the methods used to measure
the effectiveness of learning and talent development activities across all organisations and
sectors. The Kirkpatrick model was used by over 50% of organisations surveyed, although
the extent to which it is used and frequency is variable. Perhaps the most worrying statistic
is the degree to which organisations adopt an integrated approach in their evaluation of
talent development activities, with only 14% ‘always’ or ‘frequently’ using an integrated
approach.
Figure 15: Measurement of talent development approaches
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Do you measure the effectiveness of these approaches?
No
Yes
65
Retaining talent
The CIPD Resourcing and Talent Planning annual survey (2013: 44) identified the difficulties
organisations will have recruiting talent in the years ahead and that “the public sector in
particular has seen dramatic increases in the proportion reporting difficulties retaining
managers and professionals/specialists. Ongoing budget cuts in this sector, frozen or limited
pay increases and the additional stress of widespread reforms mean the public sector’s
retention challenges are unlikely to diminish.” The costs of losing talent are often unknown
and few organisations assess the real costs of replacing a key person. The Manager’ Mentors
Inc, recently came up with a list of eight factors to consider and calculate for cost of
replacement of key personnel.
1. HR recruiter time – coordinate interviews, screen candidates.
2. Search firm consulting fee.
3. Interviewing time (# interviews X # interviews X hours per interview).
4. Lost productivity of interviewers due to recruiting activities.
5. Hiring bonus, plus salary differential if a new hire commands greater salary.
6. Lost productivity while position is not filled.
7. Lost productivity due to training and start up time.
8. Lost productivity of workers in the group speculating why the co-worker left.
The direct costs associated with losing employees can exceed 100% of the annual
compensation for the position (Cascio, 2006), when we add in the non-direct costs such as
work disruption, loss of tacit or strategic knowledge and mentors (Allen et al, 2010) the
costs are significantly more. At a recent US international mentoring conference Margo
Murray suggested that organisations might spend time identifying those positions that may
be vacated within the next 2 – 5 years and consider the impact of losing key people. The
worksheet was developed out of the research for a doctoral dissertation on the cost of
replacement of high tech employees, which revealed that replacing a first engineer who
leaves the organisation after one year costs $577,000. Retention is a ‘hot topic’ in the US as
Kerrigan (2012) states that “governments remain largely unprepared for the mass exodus of
baby boomers leaving the workforce within the next decade.”
66
Facilitating Career Ownership and Accountability
Garafano and Sales (2005) identified nearly ten years ago that changes in competition and
technology have resulting in large scale restructuring or downsizing which have had a direct
impact on ‘traditional’ career contracts and a shift in responsibility for learning from the
organisation to the individual. The result is that employees now need to take greater
personal responsibility to ensure their skills are current and marketable. The shift towards
self-directed career development requires ongoing commitment to the continuous
developmental process, however the factors inhibiting sustained or repeated development
from both an employee and organisational perspective are many and varied, including,
amongst others: “personal characteristics, environmental conditions, the appraisal of prior
development outcomes” (Garafano and Sales, 2005: 299). When asked about the quality of
conversations between line managers and staff about careers and personal development in
their organisation, only 9% of survey respondents had a high/very high degree of confidence
in the quality of the conversations (see figure 16).
Figure 16: Quality of career conversations
Interviewees recognise the value of good quality conversations and the growing need to
support line managers to support their teams to develop greater individual career
ownership. This is particularly the case where organisational structures and systems are
12%
35%
44%
7% 2% 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Very Low Low Adequate High Very High
Overall, how high do you think the quality of conversation between line managers and staff about careers and personal development, in
your organisation?
67
changing which necessitates the good quality career conversations and facilitates
movement and flexibility.
As previously mentioned, one interviewee talked about the move away from traditional
annualised review processes to a ‘vacancy-led’ system. The cultural shift needed to
effectively transition from one approach to another is not to be under-estimated: “If we are
taking the annualised process away and saying, there you go, you now have complete
ownership of your career, you want to be able to have a good quality conversation with
somebody as to, so how do I go about making this happen. Suddenly people want to have
good quality career conversations and that is gonna take a while for us to get to. We need to
up-skill the line mangers so that they can have a good quality conversation with people, as
with any large organisations in pockets it happens really well but it is not consistent. ...
70,000 people moving to this, I own my career. I can look at the jobs board, I can have a
quality conversation with my line manager about my career and aspirations and he/she can
help me find the next opportunity.”
Another interview commented:
“It’s all about the mindset and the behaviours and pushing it back down to the line
manager to just have conversations with people about their career and where they
are going and really give the employee the ownership of their career.
So rather than ‘doing to’ and feeling it’s being ‘done to me,’ it is giving a little bit
more ownership of making their own successes and opportunities. So what we tried
to do is the ‘why’ is really all about connecting it to the business so people get it, they
really understand why you should have this mindset.
It is all about giving them the ‘what.’ What do you need to do when and trying to
keep quite light on that side because I think where companies get it wrong
sometimes is if it is too process-y. You’ve got to tick this box, do that box and it kind
of the talent piece gets lost and sucked up into the whole performance piece which is
very metro sized and very measured and there has to be a process to it in terms of
the fairness etc.
68
So what we try to do is to start shifting away from lessen the process side of things
and moving more to a talent mindset that is on all the time. So rather than telling
people at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year you have to have
talent reviews, they then wait and store up those conversations for those two
moments in a year, they are actually having these conversations continually and
really then you start to think about using mentoring and coaching and things like
that to really focus back to the simplicity which is about having a conversation. It is
about the employee feeling they can take ownership.”
Issues raised by participants around the cultural difficulties included the aversion to risk,
focus on bureaucratic structure, systems and cultures, lack of transparency and fragmented
conversations. One interviewee reflected on the cultural ‘groups’ in local government.
“In local government there are three groups. There is the group that recognises that
there is a need for change and wants to do it and is enthusiastic about it. There is a
group of people who recognises that change is likely to happen but will keep their
head down and won't proactively support it because it is too frightening. Then there
is another group of people who, for their own ends, recognise that inevitably change
will mean that they may have less people working for them, their empire will be
reduced and slimmed down and therefore proactively resist any change. Now
interestingly most of the latter group I have seen are at senior middle management
and senior management level. Most of the group that are enthusiastic about
change, interestingly, are the ones at junior management level that I have seen. To
some degree younger generation recognise that there is a need for change and are
not psychologically wedded to the status quo after years of service.”
Another interviewee commented:
Interviewee: “The degree to which a) the senior people in the organisation get it and
support it and the degree to which the rest of the organisation is prepared to accept
it that is the key to success. I don't believe the key to success is actually the technical
components.”
69
There are mixed views around the current challenges that create barriers to change such as
risk aversion and the management of risk. Both are regarded as barriers to a culture of
innovation and innovative practice. Few survey respondents (34%) had confidence in their
organisation’s ability to communicate messages around the changing context for careers on
the sector and changing expectations.
Figure 17: Communicating change messages
In the wider context, the way in which organisations learn and learn from one another was
raised by a number of participants. Suggestions to facilitate organisational learning included
the need for greater emphasis on action learning; peer reviews; learning sets; and quality
assurance. The role of the LGA was questioned: what role does the LGA have in relation to
quality assurance, peer review and organisational learning; where and how is it positioned
to support in this area.
7%
30%
15%
24%
10% 7% 7%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
How effective is your organisation in communicating messages around the changing context for careers in the sector and changing
expectations?
70
Conclusions
While many organisations in many sectors face talent management challenges, few face
quite such drastic requirements for change as Local Government. While Local Government
can learn a great deal from other sectors’ experience, it is rapidly becoming a source of
experiment and original thinking/ practice for other sectors as demonstrated by the specific
case study examples.
The most significant challenges cited by survey respondents and interviewees related to
either the alignment of the business strategy with the talent strategy, development of
people, and their responsiveness to change. Three of the most important issues cited by
respondents were around the development of talent and driving workforce capability,
facilitating individuals to take ownership of their careers, and assisting them with the quality
of their thinking and conversations with the organisation.
The findings are consistent with the literature and surveyed conducted by professional
bodies such as the CIPD. Strategic talent management is not firmly grasped by all; less so is
the term systemic talent management, implying a holistic approach to talent where
integration and alignment are common terms and practices. The clarity by which
organisations talent is defined is questionable, the practices to identify and develop talent
are problematic and the effectiveness of methods used is far from understood.
Interviewees recognise that there is much to do and, as a community are absolutely
committed to the development of their workforce and business transformation. The
greatest barrier is knowing what to do and how to do it. The case studies illustrate the
extent to which cultural and structural change can be achieved, integrating and aligning the
needs of the local authority with the changing needs of the workforce.
Everyone has a role in becoming more strategic, the employee, line manager, leader, HR
community and the LGA. There is a role for the LGA in supporting local authorities to help
identify their needs and facilitate ways in which the sector can address those needs. The
next section outlines our recommendations, which apply to all stakeholders.
71
RECOMMENDATIONS
The aim of this research is to report on the strategies and processes of talent management,
talent development and succession management in the Local Government Sector – the key
challenges and what good practice might look like in addressing those future challenges.
We structure our recommendations in line with the five core themes that emerged from the
research and suggest critical questions to ask in relation to each.
Talent management strategy
Defining Talent
Talent processes: Recruiting and identifying talent
Talent processes: Developing and retaining talent
Facilitating Career Ownership and Accountability
We then ask questions for the HR community, leaders and line managers engaged in
strategic talent management, to stimulate debate and form the basis of action.
72
Talent management strategy
Creating a systemic talent strategy begins with gathering information and using it to
determine critical gaps and how best to fill them. From our workshops and interviews within
the sector and with other sectors, we can define a five-step process for systemic talent
strategy:
1. Strategic context: The mission of the organisation and the changing environment
(external and internal), with which it interacts
2. Strategy and policy creation: Defining how the organisation will address the
significant challenges arising from the mission and environment
3. Strategic themes: Major components of the talent strategy
4. The systemic mindset: Applying complex, adaptive thinking to the strategic themes –
in particular, controlling less and enabling more. And replacing or supplementing
linear processes with the five critical conversations that help talent emerge and
progress of its own accord
5. Making it work: The practicalities of implementation
Strategic context
What are the priorities of our business strategy?
What core values underlie our business strategy?
What larger systems is this business a part of, or strongly influenced by?
In what ways do they exert real or potential influence?
What are the core capabilities we need to deliver the business strategy?
How strongly do we have each of those capabilities?
What’s the gap?
What kind of culture do we want to create?
73
Examples of practical steps
Engage people at all levels in identifying the links between strategic business
capability and the skills, knowledge and aptitudes that are needed to support it. For
example, constant, rapid innovation (a core strategic capability for most of our
interviewees) requires people with intrapreneurial skills / aptitudes.
Strategy and policy creation
How can we move from a top down talent strategy creation process to one that is
both top down and bottom up?
How can we ensure that talented people at all levels contributes to strategy creation
and implementation?
How can we ensure that everyone who contributes to the strategy has sufficient
understanding of the strategic context?
How can we define talent in a way that truly supports the business’ strategic
objectives and values?
Examples of practical steps
Create forums for dialogue about strategy, across functional and hierarchical
boundaries.
De-couple strategy creation from hierarchy as much as possible – it’s too important
to leave to a leadership elite!
Strategic themes
Strategic themes are anything that has a bearing on effective talent management. We deal
with a range of these themes, which emerged from our research, in the following pages.
74
The systemic mindset
How do we create greater understanding across the organisation of how systemic
talent management works?
How do we help people become more comfortable with uncertainty about their job
roles and careers?
How can we establish a valid, evidence-based approach to measuring the impact of
talent management activities?
How can HR redefine its role from controlling to enabling?
How can we support employees in becoming more self-aware and taking greater
accountability for their careers and self-development? (Conversation 1)
How can we support employees and line managers in having timely and honest
developmental conversations? (Conversation 2)
How can we ensure that we understand the aspirations of our talented people and
use these to shape both talent and business strategy? (Conversation 3)
How can we encourage distributed leadership and active communities of interest
within our intranet? (Conversation 4)
How can we support line managers in developing the skills to develop others and in
understanding how to align their roles as developers of people with the business and
people strategies? (Conversation 5)
Examples of practical steps
Make talent management a more transparent process.
Avoid rigid judgements about who is and isn’t talented – build in processes to
challenge such judgements.
Train managers and employees to have better developmental conversations.
Create forums where talented people can gain a better understanding of business
strategy and its implications for them; and where the organisation can identify
strategic opportunities to use their energies and interests more productively.
Look for opportunities to distribute leadership responsibilities more widely.
75
Making it work
Can we adapt the existing processes, such as competency frameworks, performance
appraisals and nine box grids, so that they are used less for making questionable
judgements about people and more for stimulating effective developmental
conversations and personal development planning? (That is, can we make a gradual
shift to systemic talent management?)
Are we making sufficient use of informal learning approaches, such as coaching and
mentoring?
Do we have robust on-line resources to help people with managing their careers and
personal development? Do these encourage them to think about their careers and
self-development in linear ways or systemic ways?
How can we engage talented people at all levels in helping to shape and implement
our strategy for talent?
How can we motivate line managers to want to let their best talent progress, when
this involves moving away from their team?
Examples of practical steps
Regularly review and evaluate all people management policies and procedures
against the criteria of:
o Do they actually work?
o Cam we make them more effective by taking a more systemic perspective?
o Alternatively, do we need them at all?
What tools can Practitioners use?
Business-workforce dialogue is a tool which has been developed by a working group of the PPMA.
Ashton and Morton’s (2005) ‘systemic view’ and model, supported by five key elements.
The five critical elements of the succession planning process as outlined in the Encyclopaedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
76
Defining, recruiting and identifying talent
Among the key questions to address are:
How broad do we want to make our definition of talent?
How can we remove as much as possible the influence of biases and stereotypes on
perceptions of talent?
How can we move from trying to predict who is talented to making it easier for
people to show their talent?
What processes can we put in place that would enable talent to emerge of its own
accord? (And what barriers could we remove, that currently prevent this
happening?)
How do we recognise talent from other cultures and other generations?
How can we recognise people with the energy to make things happen?
Recruitment and induction
How can we ensure we hire people, who will thrive in an environment of constant
change and role evolution?
How can our induction processes prepare people for role flexibility?
Identifying talent
How can we ensure we hire people, who will thrive in an environment of constant
change and role evolution?
How can our induction processes prepare people for role flexibility?
Performance management
How can we make performance feedback relevant, accurate, meaningful and
motivational?
How can we shift the emphasis of performance management from externally
motivated to intrinsically motivated?
77
How can we measure performance, when it is so often contingent on circumstance
and context?
Diversity
How can we identify and neutralise hidden (systemic) barriers to advancement for
people from diverse backgrounds?
How can we ensure that we have sufficient diversity of strengths and experience to
meet new or radically changed job roles?
Examples of practical steps
Engage employees in identifying the barriers that prevent diversity.
Make sure that talent management is genuinely a leadership role and responsibility,
rather than HR’s.
Measure “bench strength” not in how many people could step into each key role,
but in the diversity of potential successors.
What tools can Practitioners use?
Internal Jobs Market Approach and Methodology – Sunderland City Council
The Talent Wave (2012) identification of talent – what opportunities exist and are utilised in the organisation to identify talent?
Charan et al (2001) competency frameworks and nine-box grids – to what extent are they utilised in the organisation and how effective are they in identifying talent?
78
Developing and retaining talent
Among the key questions to address are:
Development
How can we move away from generic to personalised development?
How can we create multiple career paths, so that linear career paths are no longer
the norm?
How can we help people build strong personal development networks?
How can we help people to build both depth and breadth in their career portfolios?
How can we ensure that middle managers don’t lose their “human” characteristics
when they move into executive roles?
How can we give as many people as possible access to the opportunities to develop
leadership skills?
How can we help people find ways to compensate for their weaknesses and make
better use of their strengths?
How can we recognise where people’s energy lies?
How can we make people more accountable for their own development and their
own career management?
Can we make talent development a partnership between HR, line managers and the
talented employees themselves?
How can we make sure that we don’t weed out aptitudes, such a strategic thinking,
before people get to the senior levels, where they will be needed?
Integration
How can we align employee aspirations with organisational aspirations?
How can we align employee values with organisational values?
Information systems
How can we ensure our IT systems:
o Promote career and developmental conversations?
79
o Give employees and the organisation the information they need to align
individual and business aspirations and plans?
Role evolution
How can we measure the changes in what is required from job roles?
How can we support managers when their strengths no longer align with the
evolving needs of their job role?
How can we ensure that potential role vacancies become opportunities for
rethinking the role?
What is our processing for assessing regularly which roles are genuinely “key roles”
or “potential key roles”?
Retaining talent
How can we ensure people look first within our organisation for their next job?
How can we recognise the signs, when an employee is likely to be thinking of moving
on, so we can intervene positively?
How can we ensure a strong and positive psychological contract between employers
and employees?
How can we gather and use information about why people leave and why they stay?
Succession planning
How can we move away from inflexible pools and pipelines, to create more dynamic
succession planning?
How can we open up vacancies to a wider range of talent, irrespective of their
current grade?
How can we focus more on how the needs of a role are likely to evolve, and less on
who could fill the role as it is now?
What processes would allow us to review and potentially reshape roles whenever
they become vacant?
How can we make horizontal moves as acceptable as vertical promotions?
80
What is our attitude towards people, who make mistakes? (How can we make sure
learning from mistakes is rewarded?)
How can we create more opportunities for people to demonstrate what they can do
in more senior roles, before they take on those responsibilities fully?
How can we open up vacancies to people, who will transform them, rather than fulfil
them?
Job descriptions
Do we need job descriptions at all? Or simply clearly defined role outputs?
How can we ensure job descriptions don’t prevent necessary flexibility?
Examples of practical steps
Place greater emphasis on projects and cross-functional teams.
On these teams, give talent development goals equal priority with task goals.
What tools can Practitioners use?
Utilise Iles et al (2010) four scenarios to consider ‘what’ talent falls within the scope of
the talent development process.
Map the organisational approach across the McCauley et al (1994) 10 dimensions of developmental quality in relation to on-the-job learning to assess the degree to which on-the-job training provides a developmental opportunity. Consider the ‘LEAP’ Programme example – Hertfordshire County Council, helping employees to:
Develop strategic leadership skills, aligning the needs of the organisation with the
needs of the employees.
81
Facilitating career ownership and accountability
The most significant challenge presented by the participants is the lack of quality of thinking
and conversations that take place within the workplace and beyond, enabling stakeholders
to think about their individual needs within the context of the organisation and the
alignment of the those needs with the organisational needs.
What is needed within the context of this research and based on the views of the
participants is the need to have critical conversations; dialogues with the power to create
radical movements in understanding, supporting the shift that is needed in the mindset for
talent management and the ability to cope with the increasing complexity and change in the
sector.
Clutterbuck (2012) developed four types of critical conversations, all of which are relevant
to this research. Based on this research project, the authors have added a fifth conversation,
which reflects the pivotal role Line Managers have as people managers within the
organisation (see figure 18). To support these conversations, we pose a series of practical
approaches.
What tools can Practitioners use?
The Talent Wave Workshop for Employees, helping employees to:
Reflect upon their own careers so far
Understand their motivations, strengths and potential
Develop the skills to be more proactive and more effective in managing both their personal development and their career direction
Support for Change Approach, a behavioural change approach implemented at Manchester City Council to enable:
The individual to perform and manage their career
The organisation to facilitate mature conversations with individuals
82
Figure 18: Five types of critical conversation for talent management
Conversation Process Support Required Critical Issues
Internal dialogue of employee
Self-reflection Connection with personal values Creation of sense of personal direction and momentum Express of aspirations Identification of roadblocks
Self-development training Coaching/ mentoring
Level of self-awareness Level of ambition
Systemic dialogue with immediate stakeholders
Reflective conversations with the work team Reflective conversations within the family
Time and space for reflective dialogue
Psychological safety
Employee/organisational dialogue
Macro-conversations (with employees generally) Micro-conversations (with employees individually)
Career forums Formal annual or bi-annual development/career management conversations
Psychological safety Changing business strategy/priorities Business agility vs employee agility
Social networking dialogue
Conversations within the profession or organisation Conversations with peers in other professions The organisation and the individual have separate conversations with the external word
Encouragement to make wider, more creative links with the external world
Organisational boundaries Loyalty Redefinition of employee engagement Linking the organisation’s and individual employee’s dialogues with the outside world
HR, Senior
Management &
Line Manager
dialogue
Conversations to encourage and support line managers in their roles as developers of talent. Ensuring line managers are fully aware of and supportive of talent management strategy
Training in how to hold developmental conversations Regular information on changes in business and talent strategy
Overcoming line managers’ reluctance to lose talented direct reports
83
Conversation 1: the inner dialogue
What kind of conversations do people need to have within themselves (internally) to
be well equipped to navigate careers in a complex, adaptive system?
How can organisations help them to have these conversations?
A coherent strategy for raising the quality of the internal career conversations would include
training, monitoring and practical support. Some existing processes may already provide
aspects of this strategy, such as coaching and mentoring.
How the organisation can help
There are at least three practical things that the organisation can do to promote the inner
dialogue:
Provide feedback and other opportunities for increased self-understanding.
Help people acquire the reflective and analytical skills required to become more self-
aware and manage their own career planning.
Encourage and support mentoring to enhance the depth, breadth and quality of the
inner conversation.
Conversation 2: systemic dialogue with immediate stakeholders
How can employees and their line managers have open, honest and informed
conversations about issues such as potential, performance and careers?
How can employees build and maintain networks of career support and personal
growth more widely amongst their immediate team and other stakeholders?
Performance and developmental conversations should be a continuous, evolving and
dynamic process. For the line manager wanting to create more effective career and
developmental conversations with direct reports, the following might be helpful.
Align developmental conversations with what is happening for the employee, so that
the focus is on current, live issues.
Be attentive to the employee’s transition points: demonstrate interest in their
evolving perceptions about their roles and their career progress.
84
Look at your own role with a view to what you could delegate and would be a
developmental opportunity for direct reports.
Within the immediate team, employees can enhance their self-development and career
management by asking themselves questions, such as:
Who in this team has expertise and experience I can learn from?
Who in the team can I share networks with, to our mutual benefit?
What would make my team colleagues ambassadors for my career ambitions?
What could I ask my manager to delegate to me, which would help them and give
me a learning opportunity?
Conversation 3: between the organisation and the employees
What do employees want to know from the company for their own career planning?
What do organisations’ need to know about employees’ career aspirations?
The higher the quality of the broad conversation between the organisation and the
employees, it can be argued, the more likely the employee’s career plan and strategy will
focus on opportunities within their existing organisation. Employees might be interested in
exploring:
Where does the business plan predict expansion and/or the creation of new roles?
What skills and knowledge will become more important and more valuable in the
future? What resources are likely to be available within the organisation and
elsewhere to support us in developing these?
What kind of track record will be valued in the future?
What constitutes a reasonable time period in a particular job?
What constitutes ‘talent’ in this organisation? What can individual employees do to
increase their chances of role movement?
In equal measure, organisations will need to ask questions in order to identify employees’
career aspirations.
Which employees are genuinely ambitious to take on greater responsibilities?
85
What kind of roles do they want to move into?
What kind of learning do they want or need to acquire, and what is their preferred
method of learning?
How do they view their psychological contract with the company?
What barriers do employees perceive we place in front of people in terms of their
career planning?
Addressing these issues through an ongoing broad dialogue with employees – through focus
groups, intranet discussions and other media – also allows the company to initiate dialogue
around potential solutions.
Conversation 4: between social networks
If proactive network management has wider job and career benefits, there is a case
for employers to support employees by providing skills training in network
management, access to wider people resources, and technology platforms that
support networking.
For the individual employee, social networks have in many cases become an important part
of defining their identity, in both their professional and outside-of-work lives. In general,
most social networking is unfocused, in terms of both what people give to their networks
and the rewards they look to from them. Employers can support their employees in the
following ways.
Promote communities of interest around specific job roles, technical specialisms or
other areas of perceived commonality, such as gender, nationality or disability.
Assign employees the task of developing networks that will provide access to
potential recruits, to market or technological information, or some other valuable
resource.
Help employees add value to existing social networks by, for example, facilitating the
wider dissemination of responses to individual requests for information, or by
creating topic bulletins that network members will want to circulate to other
networks, of which they are a part.
86
Conversation 5: between HR, senior managers and line managers
What do organisations’ need to do to encourage and support line managers in their
role as developers of talent?
There are several aspects and challenges. The first challenge is the line managers’
awareness and support of the talent management strategy. The second challenge is the line
managers’ ability to hold developmental conversations with their team. The third relates to
line managers reluctance to lose talented direct reports. HR, senior managers and line
managers may want to consider the following:
How, when and where is the talent management strategy discussed within and
beyond the wider team?
What conversations around changes in the business and talent management
strategy are happening, at what level, how, when and where?
What support is in place to support line managers to have developmental
conversations with their team, and how effective is the support?
What plans do line managers have in place to facilitate the movement of their team
around the organisation?
87
Recommendations for individuals and team
Recommendations for HR
Examine what it would mean to shift from a controlling to an enabling culture in HR
Challenge all assumptions about the nature of talent and how genuinely useful talent
management processes are. (For example, do people advance because they get
more developmental opportunities and notice from above, or because they are
genuinely talented?)
Re-contract with top management about how to establish a systemic approach to
talent management and about their role in delivering the talent strategy
Invest time in understanding what the business will look like 1 – 5 years from now
and work with the leadership team to build the necessary capability
Consider the value of annualised talent processes and their relevance in today’s
environment
Challenge the belief that equality and diversity policies really work in practice – how
do you address bias
88
Recommendations for leaders
Understand that leadership is having the right conversations, with the right people,
at the right time – and especially developmental conversations
Challenge HR to enable more than control
Understand how to make a shift away from process to a talent mindset that is alive
to talent all the time
Challenge your assumptions about talent, terminology and processes - performance
and potential?
Go beyond the surface and really understand if your talent strategy is working in
practice
Embrace distributed leadership
Be a role model for living with uncertainty
Recommendations for line managers
Create an environment of psychological safety
Encourage everyone in your team to take responsibility for both their own learning
and each other’s (you included)
Invest time in coaching and mentoring others continuously, devoting time to having
authentic developmental conversations
Facilitate the movement of your team and enable them to gain the most value from
‘on-the-job’ development
Take risks and facilitate stretching projects for your team
Provide your team with tools, skills and capability to manage their own careers
89
REFERENCES
Adobe Case Study. Accessed at: https://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/tag/performance-
review [Accessed on 19.March 2014]
Ahrens, T (1999) High Growth Compabies: Driving the Tiger, 2nd edn, Aldershot: Gower
Allen, DG, Bryant, PC, and Vardaman, JM (2010) Retaining talent: replacing misconceptions
with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24, 48-64
Ariss, AA, Cascio, WF, and Paauwe, J (2014) Talent management: Current theories and
future research directions, Journal of World Business, 49, 173-179
Armstrong, M (2011) Handbook of Strategic Human Resource Management, 5th edition,
London: Kogan Page
Ashton, C, and Morton, L (2005) Managing talent for competitive advantage. Strategic HR
Review, 4 (5): 28-31.
Bajdo, L, and Dickson, MW (2001) Perceptions of organizational culture and women’s
advancement in organizations: a cross-cultural examination. Sex Roles, 45: 399–414
Barsh, J and Yee, L (2011) McKinsey Quarterly, Sept [online]
Bates, R (2004) A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the
principle of beneficence, Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 341-47
Beckhard, R (1969) Organization Development: Strategies and Models. Reading, Mass:
Addison-Wesley
Beckhard, R, and Pritchard, W (1992) Changing the Essence: The Art of Creating and Leading
Fundamental Change in Organisations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass
Beer, M (1980) Organization Change and Development: A Systems View. Santa Monica,
California: Goodyear Publishing
Bennis, W and Thomas, RJ (2002) Geels and Geezers, Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Bishop, CH (2009) The Seven Deadly Sins of Talent Management, occasional paper
Bramston, P (2008) Investigating the Issue of Stress in the Workplace in the 21st Century,
Thesis submitted to the University of Bristol as a part requirement for the Doctor of
Education programme
Burke, W (1982) Organization Development, Principles and Practices. Boston: Mass Little
Brown
90
Burns, T and Stalker, M (1961) The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock
Publications
Burt, RS (2000) The network structure of social capital, in Research in Organizational
Behavior, ed BM Shaw and RI Sutton, pp 345−423, Oxford: Elsevier Science
Campbell, J (1949) The Hero with a Thousand Faces, New York: Pantheon Press
Cascio, WF (2006) Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits (7th
ed.) Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin/McGraw-Hill
Casper, S and Murray, F (2005) Careers and clusters: analyzing the career network dynamic
of biotechnology clusters, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22 (1–2),
51−74
Charan, R, Drotter, S and Noel, J (2001) The Leadership Pipeline: How to build the leadership
powered company, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2013) Learning and Talent Development,
Annual Survey Report, London: CIPD
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2013) Resourcing and Talent Planning,
Annual Survey Report, London: CIPD
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2006) Talent management:
Understanding dimensions, London: CIPD
Clutterbuck, D (2003) Managing Work−Life Balance, CIPD, Wimbledon
Clutterbuck, D (2007) Coaching the Team at Work, Nicholas Brealy, London
Clutterbuck, D and Hussain, Z (2009) Virtual Coach, Virtual Mentor, London: Nicholas Brealy
Clutterbuck, D (2010) Development at the Top: Who really cares? Consortium paper/report
of survey, Ashridge, Career Innovation, Clutterbuck Associates, The Talent Foundation
Clutterbuck, D (2012) The Talent Wave, London: Kogan Page
Collings, DG and Mellahi, K (2009) Strategic talent management: A review and research
agenda. Human Resource Management Review. 19, 304-13
Collins, J and Porras, J (1994) Built To Last, New York: Harper Business
Collins, J and Porras, J (1996) Building your company’s vision, Harvard Business Review, 74
(5), 65–77
Cummings, TG and Worley, CG (2001) Organization Development and Change. 7th ed. Ohio:
Southern-Western College Publishing.
91
Delery, J (1998) Issues of fit in strategic human resource management. Human Resource
Management Review, 8: 289-310
Dewar, R and Werbel, J (1979) Universalistic and contingency predictions of employee
satisfaction and conflict. Academy Science Quarterly, 24 (3), 426-48
Dragoni, L, Tesluk, PE, Russell, JEA and In-Sue, OH (2010) Understanding managerial
development: integrating developmental assignments, learning orientation, and access to
developmental opportunities in predicting managerial competencies, Academy of
Management Journal, 24 (2), pp 731−43
Dries, N (2013) The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda,
Human Resource Management Review, 23, 272-85
Duttagupta, R (2005) Identifying and managing your assets: Talent management, London:
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Dweck, CS (1986) Motivational processes affecting learning, American Psychologist, 41,
1040−48
Dweck, CS and Leggett, EL (1988) A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality,
Psychological Review, 95, 256−73
Ermann, D (1987) Corporate and Governmental Deviance: Problems of organizational
behavior in contemporary society, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ferrar, P (2006) The Paradox of Manager as Coach: Does being a manager inhibit effective
coaching? Thesis submitted to Oxford Brookes University
Fisher, R (2010) Generation F, New Scientist, 10 July, pp 39−41
Forret, ML and Dougherty, TW (2004) Networking behaviours and career outcomes:
differences for men and women, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25 (3), 419−37
French, WL and Bell, CH (1995) Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions
for Organization Improvement. 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall International Inc
Gallardo-Gallardo, E, Dries, N and Gonzalex-Cruz, TF (2013) What is the meaning of ‘talent’
in the world of work, Human Resource Management Review. 23, 290-300
Garavano, CM and Sales, E (2005) What influences continuous employee development
decisions, Human Resource Management Review, 15, 281-304
George, B (2011) Why leaders lose their way, HBR Blog Network, June 8
92
Gillespie, MA, Denison, DR, Haaland, S, Smerek, R and Neale, WS (2008) Linking
organizational culture and customer satisfaction: results from two companies in different
industries, European Journal Work Organisations Psychology, 17, 112–32
Gladwell, M (2008) Outliers, Allen Lane, London
Goldsmith, M (2007) What Got You Here Won’t Get You There, New York: Hyperion
Granovetter, MS (1973) The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6),
1360−80
Gratton, L and Ghoshal, S (2002) Improving the quality of conversations, Organizational
Dynamics, 31 (3), 209−23
Griffin, RW and Moorhead, G (2010) Organizational Behavior, 9th edition, Mason: South-
Western Cengage Learning
Guerci, M, Bartezzaghi, E, and Solari, L (2010) Training evaluation in Italian corporate
universities: a stakeholders-based analysis, International Journal of Training and
Development, 14 (4), 291-308
Harris, L and Foster, C (2010) Aligning talent management with approaches to equality and
diversity, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29, (5), 422-435
Hartnell, CA, Yi Ou, A and Kinicki, A (2011) Organizational culture and organizational
effectiveness: a meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework's theoretical
suppositions, Journal of Applied Psychology 96 (4): 677
Heinen, JS and O’Neill, C (2004) Managing talent to maximise performance. Employment
Relations Today, 31(2): 67-82
Hirsh, W (2000) Succession Planning Demystified, IES Report 372
Ibarra, H (1999) Provisional selves: experimenting with image and identity in professional
application, Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 764−91
Ibarra, H and Lineback, K (2005) What’s your story? Harvard Business Review, 83 (1), 64−73
Iles, P, Chaui, X and Preece, D (2010) Talent Management and HRM in Multinational
companies in Beijing: Definitions, differences and drivers, Journal of World Business, 45,
179-89
Johnson, G, Scholes, K and Whittington, R (2005) Explaining Corporate Strategy, 7th edition,
Harlow: FT Prentice Hall
Kaufman, R and Keller, J (1994) Levels of Evaluation: Beyond Kirkpatrick, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 5 (4), 371-80
93
Kelley, R and Caplan, J (2009) How Bell Labs creates star performers, Harvard Business
Review
Kinley, N and Ben-Hur, S (2013) Talent Intelligence, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Kirkpatrick, DL (1994) Evaluating Training Programmes, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers
Kotrba, LM, Gillespie, MA, Schmidt, AM, Smerek, RE, Ritchie, SA and Denison, DR (2012) Do
consistent corporate cultures have better business performance? Exploring the interaction
effects. Human Relations, 65: 241–62
Lewis, RE and Heckman, RJ (2006) Talent management: A critical review. Human Resource
Management Review. 16: 139-54
Lombardi, M (2010) Succession Planning: Sustainable leadership for the future, Aberdeen
Group report, Boston
McCauley, CD, Ruderman, MN, Ohlott, PJ and Morrow, J.E (1994) Assessing the
development components of managerial jobs, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 544−60
Mellahi, K and Collings, DG (2010) The barriers to effective global talent: The example of
corporate elites in MNEs, Journal of World Business, 45, 143-49
McCauley, CD, Ruderman, MN, Ohlott, PJ and Morrow, JE (1994) Assessing the
Developmental Components of Managerial Jobs, Journal of Applied Psychology. 79, (4), 544-
60
MMHA People Helping People to Learn www.mentors-mmha.com
Passmore, J and Velez, MJ (2012) SOAP-M: A training evaluation model for HR, Industrial
and Commercial Training, 44 (6), 315-26
Rothwell, W (2000) 2005)] Effective Succession Planning, Ensuring leadership continuity and
building talent from within, 2nd edn, AMACOM, New York (3rd edn 2005)
Rothwell, W (2003) Competency-based succession planning: do I fit in? The individual’s role
in succession planning, Career Planning and Adult Development Journal, 18 (4), 120−35
Schneider, B, Ehrhart, MG, and Macey, WH (2013) Organizational climate and culture,
Annual review of psychology 64: 361-88
Schwartz, B (2004) The Paradox of Choice − Why More Is Less, New York: Harper Perennial
Simon, H (1993) Satisficing, in The McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of Economics, 2nd edn, ed D
Greenwald, pp 881−86, McGraw-Hill, New York
94
Sorcher, M and Brant, J (2002) Are you picking the right leaders? Harvard Business Review,
Feb pp 122-129
Souerwine, A (1985) What to do with the plateaued manager, Issues, PA Management
Consultants Journal, 3, 32−33
Sproull, L and Kiesler, S (1986) Reducing social context clues: electronic mail in
organizational communication, Management Science, 32 (11), 1492−1512
Steele, CC and Francis-Smythe, J (2007) Career anchors – an empirical investigation,
Proceedings of the British Psychological Society’s 2007 Occupational Psychology Conference,
Bristol, England
Stevens, G, Burley, J and Divine, R (1999) Creativity + Business discipline = Higher profits
faster from new product development, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16 (5),
455−68
Stuart-Kotze, R and Dunn, C. (2008) Who are our best people? How to find, measure and
manage your top talent, Harlow: FT Prentice Hall
Tarique, I and Schuler, R.S (2010) Global talent management: Literature review, integrative
framework and suggestions for further research. Journal of World Business. 45: 122-133
Thomas, DA (2001) The truth about mentoring minorities: race matters, Harvard Business
Review, 79 (4), 98-107, 168
Tutu, D (1999) No Future Without Forgiveness, Image, Cape Town
Watts, D (2003) Six Degrees: The Science of A Connected Age, New York: Norton
Winter, J and Jackson, C (2009) The Conversation Gap: Using dialogue to build trust and
inspire performance, Career Innovations, Oxford
Yarkoni, T (2010) Personality in 100,000 words: a large-scale analysis of personality and
word use among bloggers, Journal of Research in Personality, 44 (3), 363−73
95
CONTRIBUTORS
The project team would like to thank the following organisations and individuals for their
invaluable contribution:
Andrew Mayo Learning, Professor Andrew Mayo
BAE Systems, Alex Lewis
Birmingham City Council, Catherine Griffiths
Danny Kalman Consulting, Danny Kalman
East of England Association, Michelle Kirk
East Sussex County Council, Leatham Green
Good Growth Limited, Professor Chris Bones
Hertfordshire County Council, Louise Tibbert and Sam Holliday
Institute of Employment Studies, Wendy Hirsh
Kent County Council, Nigel Fairburn
Manchester City Council, Sharon Kemp and Caroline Powell
Middlesex University, Roger Kline
Nottingham City Council, Sarah Newton
Norfolk County Council
North Dorset District Council, Bobbie Bragg
Performance Improvement Solutions, Chris Roebuck
Plymouth University, Vikki Mathews
Rio Tinto, Fiona Whitworth
Rooks Heath College, Imran Vahora
Suffolk County Council
Sunderland City Council, John Rawling and Katherine Younger
Scottish Government
Unilever, Katherine Ray
Warwickshire County Council, Sue Evans
