Does Your Talent Strategy Swim With or Against the Current?

Members of my network have recently reached out to test their ideas regarding ‘what’s next’ for their talent strategy. A few report that leadership teams are having regular roundtable discussions not just mandated annual reviews, or that the days of manually updating spreadsheets of talent data are over, given the implementation of new HR information systems. Some have suggested that their organisation’s diversity & inclusion agenda has morphed the talent discussion from what and where it was five years ago, and that they are comfortable with the number of women on succession plans, if not the number occupying seats at the executive table. Others have reflected on the value of ensuring both leadership and technical specialist career pathways are in place to safeguard the organisation’s core competence and competitive advantage. Regardless of the specific focus of these conversations, all have converged around the same questions, “where do I take our talent strategy next and how do I ensure that it has impact?”

While the starting point for evolving your talent strategy will always be the business strategy, in terms of its impact, the value of securing buy-in from senior leaders cannot be underestimated. While this is easier said than done, a critical yet often overlooked step is to first understand their underlying assumptions about talent. In her article The Psychology of Talent Management, Nicky Dries suggests that there are five sets of assumptions that underpin the practice of talent management. These assumptions reflect philosophical tensions that operate as a continuum anchored by two opposing extremes: ‘what’ versus ‘who’, ‘inclusive’ versus ‘exclusive’, ‘innate’ versus ‘acquired’, ‘motivation’ versus ‘ability’ and ‘transferable’ versus ‘context-dependent’. By identifying where senior leaders sit in relation to these tensions you can be intentional with the selection and design of talent management practices that either reinforce or challenge the current talent paradigm. In other words, you can make informed decisions to swim with or against the current of the prevailing talent mindset within your organisation.

What versus Who

The first tension relates to ‘what’ or ‘who’ talent management should focus on. Talk to senior leaders about whether they believe talent is best described as specific skills and capabilities to successfully execute the business strategy (a ‘what’ focus) or a global trait of a person (a ‘who’ focus). Where the focus is on ‘what’ specific skills and capabilities constitute talent, typical practices might include the development of competency frameworks mapped to specific learning interventions or an emphasis on knowledge management to ensure that key information and expertise is retained within the organisation. On the other hand, where senior leaders focus on ‘who’ is talent, common practices relate to the identification and fast-tracking of high potential employees, including psychometric testing, succession planning and career management.

Inclusive versus Exclusive

An important philosophical debate to understand senior leaders’ position on is whether they believe all employees are talented but in different ways (an inclusive approach) or that some people (generally 1-10% of the employee population) are inherently more talented and thus more valuable, at least within an organisational context, than others (an exclusive approach). An inclusive philosophy of talent management is often best served by strengths-based approaches to employee development whereas an exclusive philosophical standpoint is generally activated through workforce differentiation, that is, investing disproportionate resources (such as monetary and non-monetary rewards, training budgets and promotion opportunities) in individuals where disproportionate returns (such as productivity and profit) are expected. The concept of workforce differentiation is at the heart of well-documented talent strategies such as putting “A players” in “A positions”.

Innate versus Acquired

The extent to which senior leaders believe that talent is innate (it’s something you’re more or less born with) or acquired (it can be taught, learned, developed) has significant implications for your talent management practices. Those with a bias towards innate perspectives of talent tend to believe that individuals are either talented or not, and that this is unlikely to change over time (a leopard doesn’t change its spots, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks). For leaders with this view, practices that focus on the acquisition (e.g. head hunting) and retention (tailored packages and incentives) of talent are likely to appeal. In contrast, for those senior leaders who believe that talent is largely acquired, their focus is more likely to be on development, emphasising education, training and experience as important.

Motivation versus Ability

Another key question to pose to senior leaders is whether they see talent as being more about motivation (input) or ability (output). If the answer is motivation, senior leaders are likely to be more comfortable sponsoring talent management practices that adequately consider an individual’s work orientation (do they see work as a job, career or calling?), motivation (for example, are they primarily looking for more responsibility, money or flexibility?) and career aspirations (where do they see themselves in 5 years?). On the flipside, where the answer is that talent is largely the product of ability, senior leaders are likely to use the terms talent and ‘top performer’ interchangeably, with a preference for talent management practices that are closely linked to performance management (rewarding results tied to explicit KPIs for example). 

Transferable vs Context-Dependent

A final assumption to quiz senior leaders on is the extent to which they see talent as being conditional on the environment. For example, do they believe that individuals demonstrate their talent regardless of the environment or context (‘cream always rises to the top’) or do they think interactions between individuals and their environment determine whether talent is realised? Where leaders believe talent is transportable they are likely to support ‘parachuting’ in external candidates with impressive track records and talent development practices such as job rotations and cross-functional moves. In contrast, if senior leaders believe that talent is context-dependent they are likely to emphasise the importance of setting individuals up for success in new roles, through practices like onboarding, mentoring and 90-day planning. They are also likely to favour internal candidates who already ‘get’ the organisation.   

In thinking about these five sets of assumptions it is important to appreciate that no single perspective of talent is objectively better than the other. The different approaches mentioned here are all equally viable and can subsist in a myriad of configurations, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. To this end, talent management is a matter of best fit, not best practice. The initiatives and practices that ultimately comprise your strategy need to align with the organisation’s direction and objectives, organisational capacity, key business practices and operational rhythms, as well the maturity of people processes and practices generally. You also need to decide whether this alignment extends to the organisation’s culture and prevailing talent mindset. To swim with the current is to invest in talent management practices that align with the assumptions about talent senior leaders and organisational decision-makers hold, and to swim against it is to actively challenge these. For example, where evidence of a growth mindset exists, investing in a coaching program for leaders to support them in developing their teams is likely to pay off, given that they already believe that talent is something that can be cultivated. However, if a fixed mindset predominates and talent is seen as innate and the domain of a select few, this investment risks being squandered, given that busy leaders won't carve out time to coach, believing that the time spent won’t amount to much. To swim against the current in this instance would require a broader cultural intervention to have any cut through. Understanding senior leaders' underlying assumptions about talent in this instance would at least allow you to make this decision with eyes wide open, swimming goggles optional.