Talent Management Semantics July 26th, 2010

Sean Conrad

A few recent blog posts have got me thinking lately about the language around talent management. This started a couple weeks ago with a post from Paul Hebert. He looked at the use of the word management versus the term supervision, with the point being that what we really want our managers to do, as the front line on talent management programs, is supervise.

The interesting thing? The root of supervise is all about “vision” – overseeing, watching. The root of manage is about controlling, training.

Hebert astutely points out that while we say manage, what we really expect is supervision, and how somewhere along the way, manage became higher up on the “food chain” than supervise, and that we need to encourage supervision because that will drive performance.

The same day I read Paul’s post, Kris Dunn had one on “command” and how important it is to performance:

Command is what makes you believe someone is in control, is great at what they do and has the ability to influence people, environments and events around them. It’s like style; you know it when you see it.

Command is the secret sauce that gives you confidence that someone is going to get it done. Period.

Kris notes that command is critical to strong performance, but that it is highly subjective. Both Paul and Kris provide some great insight in their posts, but both serve to point out that within the talent management game we are stuck within a certain lexicon, and that as employees, managers and HR pros we need to take the time to better define the skills and qualities that drive performance success.

Am I advocating for terms that don’t make sense, or try to make things something they are not? No. Talent management, succession planning, pay for performance are all apt and accepted terms, so throwing them out doesn’t make sense. But supervision and command are both powerful and denote the importance of what we truly need to have a high performance workforce. Maybe it is time to reassess the subtle language of talent management and pull in those terms that empower managers and employees, and take the time to help everyone understand what they really mean.

Leadership Survey: Examining Innovation & Job Satisfaction July 22nd, 2010

Heather McCulligh

Last week, Roslyn Courtney, an award-winning expert on leadership, business change and talent management, announced the results of her survey on leadership and careers in a business world that is radically changing. Courtney surveyed 320 leaders and managers and conducted in-depth interviews. The survey looked at the use of talent, innovation and more, with some interesting results.

When it comes to innovation, only 50% of the respondents believe their company’s leadership team is launching new strategies for growth or developing innovative ways of doing business. Even fewer - only 45% - believe that their leadership team provides sufficient resources to promote growth and innovation. From a talent management point of view, this finding is significant in two ways. First, strong performers with vision and high potential are unlikely to stay in these types of organizations as they will grow frustrated and may not have the opportunities to grow in their careers, leading to a critical retention issue. Another red flag here is that if only about half of the organizations are investing in growth and innovation, I am willing to bet that investing in people is not a key priority either.

Another key finding in the survey was that only 54% are satisfied with their jobs, and only 36% say there will be sufficient opportunities to advance in their current companies. Only 43% believe they are well-paid for their contributions. These leaders are the backbone of the company’s future success, and this level of job satisfaction can be viewed as a threat to stability. It would be interesting to do a correlation between the respondents that are not satisfied or lacking opportunities, and those who do not see their companies as innovative. Time and time again, the link between strong talent management and corporate performance has been established with reputable firms like Bersin, Hackett Group and HCI weighing in.

The survey also looked at the impact of Gen Y on the workplace.

Older generations are very skeptical about the contribution and values of Gen Y, the youngest entrants to the workplace. Only 23% say that Gen Y makes their business better, 17% say Gen Y workers share the values of senior leaders, 54% believe that Gen Y has unrealistic aspirations. Only 20% say that Gen Y puts the organization’s priorities ahead of their own.

While these particular findings may sound familiar, the fact that these numbers are so low is a bit alarming. Much lip service has been given to Gen Y in the workplace and there are definitely some differences between the generations, but these results signal a fundamental disconnect within many organizations, a sign that they need to continue to work hard on their talent management programs. Creating an environment where everyone is pulling in the same direction and achieving corporate goals can help address these types of issues by illustrating the value of everyone’s contribution and the clear role they have to play in the organization’s success.

Tags: employee satisfaction, Generation Y, leadership, talent management