1. TALENT MANAGEMENT
REDEFINED
PATRICK HAUENSTEIN, PH.D.
PRESIDENT, OMNI LEADERSHIP
The Right Person
In The Right Position
At The Right Time...
Every Time
OMNI LEADERSHIP
620 Mendelssohn Avenue North Suite 156 Golden Valley, MN 55427
952.426.6100 www.omnilx.com
2. TALENT MANAGEMENT REDEFINED
Patrick Hauenstein, Ph.D.
President, OMNI Leadership
The Historical Definition of Talent Management
The term Talent Management was first coined in an often cited 1997 article by McKinsey which
focused on the emerging “war for talent”. Popularized in the 2000’s, various pundits have offered
a definition. Dr. John Sullivan, a popular expert on the subject, suggested in a 2004 Electronic
Recruiter Exchange article that four key factors distinguish Talent Management from traditional
HR approaches:
1. An integrated approach within HR
2. Integrating people processes into standard business processes
3. Shifting responsibility to managers
4. Measuring Success with productivity
This definition has changed very little in the past decade as evidenced by the various references
cited over the course of the second half of the decade:
Trends in Human Capital Management: The Emerging Talent Management Imperative…
Knowledge Infusion White Paper July, 2006
“The process of managing the supply and capabilities of the workforce to meet the
demand for talent throughout the organization to achieve optimal business
performance and in direct alignment with organizational goals.”
The Official ASTD Blog May 8, 2009
“A holistic approach to optimizing human capital, which enables an organization to
drive short and long term results by building culture, engagement, capability, and
capacity through integrated talent acquisition, development, and deployment processes
that are aligned to business goals.”
It became clear that a central theme of talent management definitions was a focus on integrated
core processes. Talent management was being seen as synonymous with integrating core HR
talent processes.
New Talent Management Networks (NTMN) annual talent management report cited in
HBR Answer Exchange 5/24/2010
“…companies define talent management largely as consisting of succession planning,
high potential identification and development, assessment and feedback, and career
planning/development.”
3. Technology Support and Reinforcement of the Definition
The advent of Software as a Service (SaaS) drove an inflection point in the growth of the
Talent Management technology market. The market wanted easy and fast access to technology
that would help them move toward this exciting concept of integrated Talent Management.
Guided by the accepted definition, with it’s central focus on talent processes, technology
vendors developed integrated automated processes focused on talent acquisition, performance
management, development, and succession. The technology vendors focused on automating the
core talent management processes that were seen as being at the core of Talent Management.
The market philosophy of the technology vendors is illustrated in the graphic below:
Core Talent Processes:
Performance Mgmt.
Business Strategy Hi Po Identification Business Results
Development
Succession
Talent Acquisition
This model positions automated processes at the center of Talent Management, sandwiched
between bookends of business strategy and business results. The basic message is to align your
core talent processes to the talent needs of your business strategy in order to drive business
results.
While these solution platforms have contributed substantial efficiency gains through process
automation, there is reason to question whether they have also made contributions to increasing
talent management effectiveness.
Additional Components Needed for Effective Talent Management
1. Talent Measurements – The basics of a Talent System of Record
You cannot manage what you cannot measure. In order to improve Talent Management
effectiveness, you need to establish a system of record for talent assets that includes proven and
reliable talent measurements related to successful performance. Sadly, the concentration on
process automation has neglected generating the talent measurements needed for effective talent
decision-making.
4. The data deficiencies of talent management solutions have been noted by industry analysts:
“The big problem with HCM (Human Capital Management) applications is the data.
Companies do not have the content or data to understand who their best people are
and why” (ThinkEquity 2008 Industry Report).
The graphic below suggests the types of talent measurements that are needed to establish a talent
system of record that supports effective Talent Management. In order to generate this record,
a broad range of fully integrated assessment and evaluation tools are needed in the Talent
Management solution.
Data That
OPTIMIZING HUMAN BUSINESS INFORMATION
Predicts Leader Performance
Success Measurements
Competency Experience
Measurements Measurements
Talent
Key
Measurements Interview
Accomplishments Ratings
The Basics of a Talent
System of Record
Cognitive Ability Career Preferences
& Motivation
Measurements
Measurements
Personality
Measurements
2. Analytics – Decision Support Reporting for Managers
Once a talent system of record has been generated, it is critical to leverage those measurements
through thoughtfully designed analytics that drive and inform the talent decisions made by
managers. Effective Talent Management requires going beyond automated processes to
presenting line managers with reliable information in a format that supports evidence-based
decision-making. On demand reporting should help managers answer the four basic talent
decisions that need to be made for any pivotal talent pool:
Who are my top performers both in terms of results achieved and how those
results were achieved?
Where do I focus individual and group development efforts to maximize ROI?
Which of my top performers also possess high advancement potential and where
should I focus career development efforts?
Which of the high performing high potentials are ready now for a higher level
of responsibility?
5. Analytics are used to manipulate and leverage the core measurements needed to answer these
questions. As an example, consider the identification of individuals with advancement potential.
Many talent management solutions simply provide the ability in their automated processes to
capture subjective judgments of advancement potential from managers or others. An analytics
report would leverage and integrate core measurements to provide a more accurate estimate of
potential. This approach is illustrated in the integration model below:
In this model, personality measurements, cognitive ability measurements, competency
measurements, and experience measurements are combined with advancement interests to
produce an accurate measurement of potential.
3. A Common Language for Defining Success - Fully leveraged and integrated
competency models, experience models, trait models, and motivation/preference
models
Competency models are at the heart of an integrated talent management solution. They provide a
common language used across core talent processes and describe the behaviors associated for
success for any given position in the organization.
An effective talent management solution should be able to support and drive custom competency
models as well as offer rich native competency content for all levels of positions within an
organization. An effective competency model would have the following key content components:
Competency Label
Definition
Key Behaviors
Performance Standards
Interview Questions
Development Guides
6. While competencies are a key component of an integrated talent management strategy, success
profiles for positions need to be more comprehensive than just competencies. A common
language is also needed for defining experience requirements, key traits, motivations, and
technical/functional requirements. A common language allows companies to create position
profiles which can then be scientifically compared to the talent system of record to quantify the
degree of match between a given individual and a specific position as illustrated in the example
below:
MATCH REPORT
Match Report on: 9/1/2010
Talent: #3778 - Susan Kadecky
Position: #1082 - CIO
Match Details Percentage
Overall Percentage Match 71%
Background Elements 100%
Position Characteristics 78%
Experiences 36%
Competencies 80%
Personality 77%
Cognitive Test Percentage
Numeric 89%
Abstract 96%
Talent Management Redefined
John Sullivan’s original suggested key factors for characterizing and defining talent management
were accurate but deficient to fully differentiate strategic talent management from traditional HR
practices. We have suggested three areas that should be integrated into the original list. We
suggest that Talent Management should be redefined in the following manner:
1. An integrated approach within HR based on a common language for defining and
profiling success (e.g., competencies, experiences, behavioral predispositions, work
preferences, etc.)
2. Integrating people processes into standard business processes
3. Establishing a talent system of record containing key talent measurements
4. Shifting responsibility to managers and equipping them with comprehensive decision
support reporting capabilities to make key talent decisions
5. Measuring Success with productivity
These modifications incorporate the three key additions of talent measurements, reporting
analytics and rich underlying content needed to complete the components of effective Talent
Management.
7. We hope that technology vendors will likewise align their solutions to this redefinition of Talent
Technology vendors need to migrate from efficiency plays to actually driving Talent Management
effectiveness. The market model for technology based Talent Management solutions should be
amended as follows:
Core Talent Processes:
Performance Mgmt.
Business Strategy Hi Po Identification Business Results
Development
Succession
Talent Acquisition
The Foundations of Talent Management: Talent Measurements,
Analytics, Common Language for Defining Success
Without the addition of these key foundational components, it is legitimate to ask
technology vendors, “Where is the beef?”
