The third part of RQ1 related to the roles participants expected the individual, the line manager and the organization to play in talent management and career development. It also included the way the HR participants viewed their own contribution, particularly in terms of ‘employee champion’ (Farndale et al., 2010).
All of the phase one participants were asked to share their view on what they thought the role of the individual and the organization should be in terms of career and talent. The intended role of the individual and the organization varied considerably between the participants. When asked to put a figure on it, the numbers ranged from 80% organizationally driven / 20% individually driven to 100% individually driven. Many of the participants described a desire to shift the balance of accountability, encouraging and supporting individuals to drive things more themselves, with less reliance on the organization. A key part of this was seen as making the roles clearer so that people understood ‘the deal’ in terms of what they could do to drive their own career. This intended transition of
107
accountability illustrates one way in which organizations were responding to the ‘new career environment’ by expecting individuals to take more responsibility and the organization to take less (Lips-Wiersma & Hall, 2007).
The intended roles described by the HR participants for the individual and the organization are summarised in Table 5.2 below. Each of the main points was described by at least ten of the participants. The points in italics were mentioned by between five and ten participants but were not considered to be major themes. The organizational role tended to be driven by the HR (or equivalent) function although in some organizations, the processes were seen as part of ongoing business management. In these cases, line managers were more directly involved and activities were integrated with more general management practices as found in the organizational career management case study of Lips-Wiersma & Hall (2007).
Intended role of the individual
• Take ownership for their career • Seek feedback from others • Be honest about their aspirations
• Proactively work on their development plan • Seek involvement in wider business activities • Be curious and open to all forms of learning • Be willing to work harder, putting in more effort • Build a network across the organization
Intended role of the organization
• Deliver quality processes to support ongoing talent supply • Provide opportunities for growth and development • Give feedback on current performance
• Facilitate conversations about moves
• Clarify expectations of managers in terms of developing their people • Clarify expectations with employees
• Provide tools and resources to support individual accountability for career
• Give financial recognition for people seen as high potential • Provide clarity on career pathways
• Provide clear view of the future direction and skills needs of the organization
Table 5.2: Intended role of the individual and the organization, HR participants
The intended role of the individual echoes published research on career self-management. For example, seeking feedback and being honest about aspirations (Hirsh, 2008) and ongoing learning and seeking new experiences as part of developing career agility (Inkson et al., 2015). The inclusion of networking by some of the participants also supports studies on career self-management (e.g.
108
Sturges et al., 2002). There was some recognition that networking was easier for some than for others. For example, Steve described some of the cultural differences in career capital (Iellatchitch et al., 2003) in his organization;
‘There’s a cultural overlay to this [networking]. If you’re Anglo Saxon with access to the UK to meet the right people it is easier.’
Steve
The consistent emphasis on the individual’s ownership of their career seemed to contradict the practices which, as described above largely focused attention on the organization’s processes and actions. This contradiction was recognised by some, for example:
‘We tell people they need to plan and take ownership [of their career], but they see that the organization takes control – it’s a bit dysfunctional’.
Suzanne ‘The language of the organization is that you drive your own development - but the experience is that the organization drives it and manages it for you through patronage – there is a mismatch between what’s spoken and the reality’
Richard The lack of existing support for individual career planning was reinforced by Caroline’s observations as a career counsellor.
‘Mostly people are left to their own devices in terms of career – no one talks with them about their career development.’
Caroline There was also some recognition of the ‘virtuous circle’ of career self-help and career management help (Sturges et al., 2002), with a number of people, for example Nicky, commenting that people with clear goals would ‘find a way [to develop their career] by investing time and effort in their own development’. The role for the individual was considered appropriate for all employees, not just those captured within the organization’s definition of ‘talent’. This further emphasizes the overlap between organizational career development and organizational talent management.
Within the intended organization’s role, most participants felt that they were doing well at providing opportunities for growth and development (either through formal development programmes or informal on-the-job learning). They were aware that feedback on performance was mixed, often depending on the ability of the line manager, but with some more formal assessment for employees considered as high potential. However, they mostly described being poor at fulfilling the
109
other elements of their role. For example, there were limited proactive conversations about moves and opportunities. Similarly, there were few examples of clarifying expectations with employees, and this was mostly done though written documentation rather than more engaging mechanisms and there was an understanding that this made it difficult for employees to understand the ‘career deal’ (Herriot & Pemberton, 1995). A number of participants were also working to increase the clarity of career pathways, which according to Cambell & Smith (2014) would be of value to individuals. The list of the organization’s role has clear similarities with the work of Sturges et al. (2002). Indeed, despite different language, all of the formal practices of the Sturges et al. (2002) list are included. However, there was no mention of the informal practices such as the provision of impartial career advice or being introduced to people to help the career. Furthermore, making the comparison to the Hirsh (2008) information on organizational career management, none of the participants referenced career workshops and only one had trained internal career coaches.
There was a general frustration with line managers not being seen to be playing their part in delivering the talent management processes. This often manifested as the need to frequently chase for action, Lisa illustrated this;
‘It’s difficult. It took blood sweat and tears to get quality career plans for 30 people’. Lisa Furthermore, 16 of the 23 participants cited poor line manager skills as one of the barriers to better talent management. This was considered to be a problem of time as well as skills, confidence, understanding or commitment. For example, Nicky identified managers feeling uncomfortable not having an answer;
‘Line managers can struggle when they haven’t got opportunities to offer. They see it in a narrow way… they lack confidence in what to say – thinking they have to have the solution, to be able to sort it out.’
Nicky However, although many recognized that line managers were integral to the success of the process, few had provided significant support to help managers understand and perform their role. The support provided to line managers tended to be written documentation and briefing sessions. There was some interest in doing more, but a concern that managers did not see the value and were therefore not motivated to engage in these activities. In talking about the line manager role there was some reference to the potential conflict of rewards for line managers between keeping and developing people (Ready & Congor, 2007). For example, Suzanne said;
110
‘If line managers think that developing talent for the organization is not their role, or that it is actually detrimental to them – this mindset needs to be addressed first’.
Suzanne However, there seemed little consideration of a potential conflict of career and talent goals between the organization and the individual (Silzer & Dowell, 2010).
The discussion on roles encouraged some participants to think beyond the typical talent management processes and practices. For example, the mixed messages regarding individual accountability and organizational action only seemed to occurr to some participants during the research conversation. Some reflected on being frustrated at playing the ‘HR push’ role identified in the early analysis. This could be equated to the ‘guardian of the process’ role described by Farndale et al. (2010). Aaron, an HR consultant, described HR focusing on processes because ‘there’s a fear that if it’s not formalised it won’t happen’. Some participants were keen to move into other roles, in particular where they could become ‘champion of the culture’ Farndale et al. (2010). However, most believed that the processes needed to be in place first. For example, Hermione stated;
‘this year our focus is on getting the process in… the next 2 – 3 years will be about enabling the conversation to be good quality and to provide solutions where possible’
Hermione For the organizations with less focus on formal practices the approach was very different. They were keen to develop an appropriate culture which they hoped would mean that they did not need the processes. Three organizations took this approach and positioned themselves as ‘champion of the culture’. For example, Jessica described her organization’s approach as informal rather than formal, with a culture of empowerment, openness and self-development. Ian described his approach to talent management;
‘I gave it some thought and it came down to talent management being all about the conversations people need to have/should be having about talent. So really the approach needs to be all about how to get the conversation working, rather than focusing on policy/procedure/ or task and finish groups etc’.
Ian Overall, the HR participants described their role in talent management as work in progress. None were satisfied with their current approach and all were very open about the challenges they experienced. However, there was little discussion of how they evaluated the impact of their talent management approaches. The measures that were described tended to be based on compliance with process, especially the completion of a succession plan to show that the organization had people ready
111
for moves. Additional measures were a reduction in regretted leavers and an improvement in survey results to any questions relating to career. Evaluation was generally seen as something to be worked on. For example, Peter described an interest in analytics and ‘putting a $ value on human capital’ but had only just started working on this. Meanwhile, Sue was aware that measurable results were needed;
‘there are still no results yet and we need to show a win. So far it’s been a leap of faith’ Sue
As the interviews progressed a few of the HR participants reflected that they were becoming more aware of the challenges of genuinely meeting individual needs within an approach built on prioritising organizational goals. For example, Hermione reflected that the approach was currently ‘very much business based’ as there was no mechanism for supporting individuals, but that this would be needed in the future. Similarly, Julie, who had described a purely business driven approach to talent management saw ‘understanding what people’s needs and requirements are’ as an important part of the organization’s role. This indicated that some thinking on talent management was developed as a product of the social interaction of the interview, a social constructionist view, (e.g. Burr, 2003). These participants started to recognise the contradiction that by disregarding individual needs they could negatively impact on engagement (as suggested by Birkenshaw et al, 2014) and thereby paradoxically inhibit achievement of the organizational goals they were seeking to achieve. However, they were not confident that this was currently achievable for their organizations. For example, Sindy cited a fear held by senior managers that encouraging people to talk openly about their career aspirations would increase expectations and dissatisfaction with current career, thereby increasing the likelihood of someone leaving. These concerns support theview of Inkson et al (2015) that the
‘individualization of career raises major problems for organizations with a ‘resources’ approach to career as they grapple with the problem of building an organization based on careers that they are not able to ‘manage’’
Inkson et al (2015: 343) This expressed desire to find a ‘mutually beneficial relationship between the organization and the talent’ (Campbell & Smith, 2010: 23) was further evidenced when describing career conversations. However, as shall be discussed, whilst some were aware of a paradox between this and their approach to talent management, many were not.
112
From the above discussion, the HR perspective to the roles element of RQ1 can be summarized. It can be seen that most of the HR participants described the individual as having significant and increasing accountability for managing their own career. They recognised the important role that line managers played in supporting individuals, but few provided specific help to the line managers. Indeed, there was widespread criticism of the way in which this was being delivered. The HR participants were also largely critical of the overall organizational contribution, recognising that more could be done to provide feedback, clarify the career deal and engage in conversations about future opportunities. The focus was largely on the formal mechanisms and processes of roles, with little reference to the contribution of informal approaches. The HR contribution was positioned as ‘guardian of the process’ rather than ‘employee champion’ (Farndale et al., 2010).