AND DEPLOYMENT STRATEGY OF THE ORGANIZATION TALENT REVIEW TALENT ATTRACTION
Mission and Values Organization Culture Employee Value Proposition
Understanding Needs of Talent TALENT IDENTIFICATION Strategy Critical Positions Talent Definition TALENT DEVELOPMENT
Organizational Needs Formal and Informal Training Job-related Challenges Exposure Performance Support and Coaching RETENTION Engagement (Intrinsic) Rewards Support and Acknowledgement
Career Planning
Figure 7 Talent management framework
Talent attraction, identification, development, and retention are all activities in which talents and their needs are in focus, all of the areas also taking the organization’s view into consideration, especially its strategy and objectives. The above-presented activities, i.e. attraction, development, and retention, are also components of ‘talent management’, which, in turn, is a process. On the other hand, recruitment and deployment, i.e. the right person in the right position at the right time, can be considered an outcome. Finally, talent review is a decision, or rather a series of decisions. (Lewis & Heckman, 2006) Strategy is also illustrated as a decision in this framework. It forms the basis for all talent management actions and decisions, and should inform talent management and be informed by it, as presented in Figure 8 (p. 89).
Agreeing with Lewis & Heckman (2006) about the confusion in the usage of key terms25 in talent management research and practice, I wanted to
illustrate the differences between the process, outcomes, and decisions by using different shapes in the framework in Figure 7 (p. 87). Decisions, i.e. strategy and talent review, are illustrated by rectangles; recruitment and deployment, i.e. the outcome, by a triangle; and talent management activities by an oval shape. Finally, the only process, talent management, is illustrated in the middle by a hexagon. The interdependency of the components is illustrated by arrows, which also indicate how the process, decisions, and outcomes feed one another.
The components of the framework have been discussed at length in previous Sections.
Furthermore, the illustration of the talent management framework in Figure 7 is connected to what e.g. Tansley et al. (2006) present as different levels of maturity of organizational talent management. The depiction of the levels from the least mature to the most mature is introduced in Figure 8 on the following page. The levels differ particularly in terms of the strategy-talent management linkage. At the most mature level, strategy is, as presented in the proposed framework in Figure 7 (p. 87), informed by talent management, which in turn feeds information about talent trends, changes in demographics, value structures and macro trends that impact them to strategy. The framework for talent management in Figure 7 can be argued to include strategic objectives of the organization firmly in the talent management strategy and process, and vice versa. Also the second highest level includes the strategic linkage; talent management is linked to the strategy-making process, but does not feed information to the strategy itself as it is expected to do at the highest level.
The first two levels, which could be called immature levels, can arguably be found in organizations where talent is not necessarily recognized as a source of competitive advantage, which lack a segmentation of workforce, and talent strategy or talent management processes are not in use. The second level may involve some areas of the organization or some managers employing talent management activities, such as succession planning for their employees. This is then expanded to some segments of the organization more systematically in level three type organizations, which could involve appointing and developing successors for management team members. Level three type talent management activities can also be found in HQ subsidiary types of settings or HQ field operations in the humanitarian aid context, which is discussed in further detail in Chapters 7 and 8.
25 “[…] the terms in the TM debate – which centers on the effective management of employee talent – are not clear and confuse outcomes with processes with decision alternatives. (Lewis & Heckman, 2006, p. 140).
Talent Management Maturity Level No talent management strategies, policies or formally developed practices. Where talent is managed, it is informal/ incidental. Isolated/ tactical/local "pockets" of talent management activities. No overall strategy or plans for talent management. Integrated and coordinated talent management activities for a particular segment of the organization. Talent management strategy designed to deliver corporate and HR management strategies. Formal talent management initiatives linked horizontally to HR management and vertically to corporate strategy- making processes. Talent management strategy informs and is informed by corporate strategy. Individual and pooled talent understood and taken into
consideration in the strategic process.
Figure 8 Levels of maturity of organizational talent management
(Source; Talent Management, Understanding the Dimensions, CIPD. Tansley, Stewart, Harris et al. (2006), p. 6).
Additionally, in the development of the definition of ‘talent’, I have used the simplified ‘formula’ by Ulrich and Smallwood (2012):
Talent = Competence x Contribution x Commitment
As has been discussed in earlier chapters, the complementary nature of this formula is pivotal; in this equation, the three terms are multiplicative, not additive. According to Ulrich and Smallwood (2012), this means that if any of the three components are missing, the others will not replace it. A low score in competence will not turn into talent no matter how committed and contributing the employee is. The terms ‘competence’ and ‘commitment’ were defined and discussed in the earlier Sections of this Chapter.
In the framework for defining talent presented in Figure 9 (p. 90), the formula has been expanded to include the time aspect; the present and the future. This is essentially based on my argument that the future always represents considerable challenges for current organizational competencies and often inflexible extant competency frameworks and models. As argued above, assessing potential is vital in the 21st century’s
Volatile Uncertain Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA) environment (e.g. Férnandez-Aráoz, 2014).