Talent_Management_-_Expert_Solutions

Talent Management: Expert Solutions

“Coming together
is a beginning.
Keeping together
is progress.
Working together
is success.”
Henry Ford

3
www.synermetric.com@synermetricsynermetric ltd
Table of Contents
Introduction
Dakotah Fitzhugh
From the CEO
John Dutton
The Big Picture of talent management
Michael Tingsager
Navigating the complicated and the complex with style
Dr Kenneth R Brousseau
The new ABCs of sales
Ian Kershaw
Potential for what?
Joseph H Kalkman
The gaming imperative for pre-employment screening assessments
Dr Tom Janz
Developing new leaders
Ruth Gibson
Dynamically aligning management of talent with market changes
Pravir Malik
Sales recruitment
Andrew Dugdale
Business success? Grow your own talent!
Nicole Dominique Le Maire
4
5
8
11
20
23
28
35
37
41
46

4
From the CEO
Our first Talent Management eBook, published in December 2014, received a great
response. Six months later we have produced volume two, and we hope you enjoy it
as much as the first.
We continue to expand our product portfolio and business associations. This volume
brings together eight experts from our growing network across the globe. Some you
may be familiar with, and others will be fresh new faces and perspectives. Each has
contributed an article on a talent management topic for which they have particular
passion and expertise.
We hope you enjoy reading these articles. Included below are a few suggestions on
how to make the most of the content.
We encourage you to:
• Start with the article that sparks your interest the most –
No need to begin on the first page
• Share it with friends, colleagues, strangers –
Start a conversation and spread knowledge among your peers
• Engage with the authors –
Add to our dialogue by contributing your views on our blog, LinkedIn, and Twitter
John Dutton
CEO and Chairman, Synermetric Ltd

5
Introduction
When we published our first eBook last December, we asked readers to respond to a
short survey about talent management challenges for 2015. A huge thank you again to
everyone who participated; as a reminder, the responses of over 200 HR professionals
are collected in Research Insights: Talent Management, which you can download on
our website.
We found several common themes amongst the challenges outlined in our readers’
open-ended comments, which we have attempted to address on our blog and in this
publication. We are continuing the conversation in our Synermetric Community on
LinkedIn, so please share your thoughts on these topics there as well.
Sourcing top talent
What if the people you’re hiring aren’t actually the right ones for the job? How do
you determine who the ‘right ones’ are? It may be that you’re looking in the wrong
places. In his article, ‘The new ABCs of sales’ (page 20), Ian Kershaw describes how
redefining one company’s idea of who they were looking for resulted in a broad field
of successful hires.
For his part, Dr Tom Janz suggests that the issue may be the reach of your recruiting
process. If tedious trials and irrelevant assessments are turning potential employees
away before you even see them, you could be missing out on your best talent. His
article ‘The gaming imperative for pre-employment screening assessments’ (page
28) describes how gamifying screening processes can drastically improve the size
and quality of your candidate pool.
Retaining talent with limited resources
We all seem to be perpetually short of those two precious business resources: time
and money. Understandably, the pressure to budget tightly and achieve results quickly
often weighs on recruiters. However, this is not a good place to cut corners. Our last
eBook featured an article by Dexter Davies Smith outlining the costs of recruiting the
wrong candidate. (You can also read his series in full on our blog.)
This time around, Andrew Dugdale broke down an enlightening study revealing the
casual attitudes many organisations apply to recruiting their sales executives, and
how rarely those attitudes pay off (‘Sales recruitment’, page 41). The bottom line:
investing in your recruitment process is worth all the resources you can spare, and
designing a process that identifies candidates that truly provide what you need will
save you time, effort, and disappointment down the line.

6
Similarly, you can’t afford to lose the talent you have, and it’s far more affordable to
develop your workforce than it is to replace them. As Nicole Dominique Le Maire
points out in ‘Business success? Grow your own talent!’ (page 46), maintaining a
powerful talent pool requires consistent engagement. Spare some time to refine your
organisational processes now, and you will end up saving those precious resources in
the long run.
Adapting approaches for diverse generations in the workforce
The ongoing transition of the millennial generation into the workplace has prompted
much analysis as businesses attempt to understand and adopt strategies to effectively
manage employees across generations. As a part of our HR Tech Europe interview
series in conjunction with HRIS World, we talked with NGA HR about their recent
survey of UK businesses, focusing on the expectations and motivations of a diverse
workforce, which you can find on our blog.
Just as a new generation of workers brings new challenges to their employers, an
aging workforce presents issues in the form of succession planning. Do you know
who will step up when your top performers retire? By identifying and developing the
potential of promising employees now, you can be prepared for handovers looming in
the future. Joseph H Kalkman addresses how to scout out future leaders in his article,
‘Potential for what?’ (page 23).
Developing leadership
How can you create and nurture new leaders? How can you help current leaders stay
on top of their game? Most of the articles in this book address leadership in some way,
but to get down to specifics our own Ruth Gibson has laid out a guide for nurturing
leadership in her article, ‘Developing new leaders’ (page 35).
In addition, Dr Kenneth R Brousseau has contributed an in-depth article on
understanding the differences between managing complicated and complex systems,
both on organisational and individual levels. How can companies and their leaders
adjust to changing models of business and complex situations? How can you help
your top leaders adjust to new positions requiring different approaches? You’ll want to
read ‘Navigating the complicated and the complex with style’ (page 11) to find out.
For another approach, Michael Tingsager brings leadership and talent management
together in his article, ‘The Big Picture of talent management’ (page 8), which
encourages a more expansive view of who leaders are and what they do.
Finally, Pravir Malik has provided an overview of his research into how organisational
leadership can align talent management strategies with the behaviour of their
markets. ‘Dynamically aligning management of talent with market changes’ (page
37) explains his method of harnessing organisational “DNA” to create an interlinked
system of individuals, organisations, and the markets in which they operate.
Managing coaching processes
Several respondents mentioned coaching as a part of their toolkit, and expressed

7
desire for a system to manage their coaching process. We’ll take a closer look at
coaching processes in future publications, but for now we recommend taking a look
at the capabilities of dashboards or web portals to keep your coaching programmes
organised. Creating an online structure by which participants can schedule meetings,
keeptrackoftheirprogress,communicatewithmanagers,andaccessresourcelibraries
can encourage involvement and improve the effectiveness of your programme. If
coaching is an important part of your development strategy, it’s certainly worth a look.
You can read more about dashboards and web portals on our website, or contact us
and ask for Ruth, our resident expert.
As always, we are immensely grateful to our ever-widening network of HR
professionals, consultants, psychologists, researchers, and technologists. Exploring
the spaces between science, technology, and humanity continues to be a fascinating
and rewarding experience, and we appreciate all of the people who enrich this space,
yourselves most of all.
Dakotah Fitzhugh
Marketing Technologist, Synermetric Ltd

8
The Big Picture of
talent management
Talent management has been a challenge or priority on the agenda of all HR and L&D
teams in recent years. Everyone talks about the importance of getting the right talent
on board to gain competitive advantage. It seems that organisations all over the world
understand that there is need for focus and investment if you want to win the war for
talent.
A fresh report from Deloitte1
addresses the top challenges within talent management
and the top areas organisations are concerned about:
• 86% of UK organisations say leadership is one of their biggest challenges, with
only 8% ranking their leadership pipeline as ‘excellent’.
• The difference between the reported importance of leadership and how ready
organisations feel they are to succeed in this area has risen to 35, the widest gap
of any HR issue in the report.
• Taking a medium- to long-term view, businesses are falling short in developing
young leaders, as only 6% of companies said they have “excellent” programmes
in place for younger staff.
Throughout the financial crisis, organisations have made large investments in talent
management processes and technology to make sure that they have enough of
the right talent now, but neglected to plan for the future. Have these investments
given businesses a secure talent pipeline in a VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, and
ambiguous) business environment? Or have they created a rigid and costly framework
that make it hard to remain agile and adapt to changing circumstances, in the business,
sector, and labour markets?
Are processes and systems the answer?
The classic life cycle of talent management, joining together several HR practices
united by a set of ‘talent’ competencies, attributes, and behaviours, still works. There
is no need to reinvent the wheel. But in the face of many commercial challenges
including economic pressures, predicted skills shortages at a national level, and
increasing competitive pressure, this set of HR practices, however well-conceived, is
no longer enough.
According to Deloitte’s research findings on leadership pipeline and capability
Michael Tingsager
Have these investments given businesses a secure talent
pipeline? Or have they created a rigid and costly framework?

9
challenges, the ability of leadership to bring these talent management practices to
life, applying their judgement and people development skills, will become even more
crucial for businesses. Furthermore, the performance of the ‘talented few’ cannot
be enough to sustain business performance in a VUCA environment. Leadership
therefore need not only to bring talent management practices to life, but to ensure
they keep them aligned with overall business goals, and engage the wider organisation
in achieving these.
To put it a different way, talent management can’t only be about the smooth
execution of processes and systems. It has to be about everyone in the business—
leaders, managers, and employees—being on the same page and understanding the
organisation’s goals, challenges, and opportunities, as well as experiencing people
practices that help them to contribute.
What are the roles of HR and L&D functions in this? Rather than being the ‘keepers of
the keys’ on yet more processes, following up on completion rates and compliance,
they have to understand the power of creating great experiences for employees
through people practices, and helping leadership to create a sense of purpose by
linking these practices to organisational goals.
Is this casting the talent management net very wide? Yes, it is. But in addition to core
talent management practices targeting the talented few, it acknowledges that the
individual talents of all employees, when focused on the right things and the same
direction, are vital in achieving business goals. With more direct engagement in this
broader, more inclusive approach to talent management, employees will feel more
valued and also engaged in developing themselves, others, and the organisation.
It sounds simple, but it’s hard for leaders to do of their own initiative and under their own
steam. In fact, this could lead to teams pulling in different directions, to the detriment
of company performance. So it’s time for HR and L&D teams to turn the tables in how
they engage leaders, managers, and employees in talent management, going well
beyond obliging them to execute on processes.
This is very much in line with our philosophy: the Big Picture. We believe in letting
people at all levels of the business solve challenges and opportunities together, and
getting them on the same page. This may not instantly feel like a natural and easy
process for everyone involved, as cynicism, skill gaps, low trust, and low confidence in
leadership can all be potential barriers. We therefore aim to create engaging materials
and methodologies which enhance the capability of organisations and consultants to
facilitate great conversations and planning. This helps HR and L&D teams and leaders
alike to enable people with different experiences of the business to quickly engage
around business challenges, create a shared understanding of business goals and
priorities, and find solutions that will enhance the performance of each team and the
individuals in it.
Talent management can’t only be about the smooth execution
of processes and systems. It has to be about everyone in the
business being on the same page.

10
About the author
Conclusion
There’s no blueprint for a gold-standard approach to talent management. Each
organisation must find its own best fit for meeting current and future needs, delivering
its strategy, and bringing its values to life. People no longer look for a career but an
experience, which organisations can achieve through true engagement with a broader
and more inclusive approach to talent management, aligning HR and L&D practices
with business goals, and enhancing the performance and individual voice talents of
all employees.
References
1. Bersin, J., Agarwal, D., Pelster, B., & Schwartz, J. (Eds.). (2015). Global Human
Capital Trends 2015. Deloitte University Press. Retrieved from http://
d2mtr37y39tpbu.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/DUP_
GlobalHumanCapitalTrends2015.pdf
Michael Tingsager has a background as a leader and interim management consultant in SME and
global corporate companies. He runs his own consultancy business and is Sage Chief of the Big
Picture Academy.
Mr Tingsager is an expert in operations and people with focus on leadership development,
strategy, OD, change management and talent management. He is an advantage MBTI and Big
Picture practitioner.

11
Navigating the complicated
and the complex with style
Dr Kenneth R Brousseau
Failure to recognize the difference between the merely complicated and the truly
complex can bring an enterprise to its knees. Too often, the telltale differentiating cues
remain hidden in plain sight by pattern-bound ways of thinking much better suited to
the past than to the present and future.
Complex systems are coming to dominate most aspects of the world around us,
both in terms of business products and operations. Aligning styles of thinking with the
specifications of those systems is fundamental to their successful handling.
Complicated systems vs complex systems
Complicated systems and complex systems are similar in that both are likely to consist
of numerous parts that must ultimately fit together in coherent ways. Both can be
difficult to handle, and both require a good deal of thinking. However, the similarities
tend to end there.
Complicated systems are comparatively more stable and less subject to change.
Things can be anticipated in advance. Once a product or task has been handled
successfully, the same procedure or method can be applied to similar products or
tasks with a good deal of confidence that similar results will be achieved.
The system may consist of many parts, and the ways to handle those parts may require
a great deal of training and experience to master. That mastery usually requires being
trained and experienced in a specialized body of knowledge and skills.
For example, civil engineers know
the parameters that need to be
detailed when designing a bridge.
Bridges can be very complicated
structures; however, we have
been designing and building
bridges formanycenturies and the
fundamental principles of bridge
design are well documented.
Predictability is inherently a
feature of a complicated system.
That is, the end goal or desired
outcome is known, even if the
path to achieve that goal may be long and might contain numerous decision points.
However, the length of the path and the decision points are known in advance, and
Figure 1: Suspension bridge design example

12
the criteria for turning one way versus another at the decision points are known. With
sufficient training and experience, plus appropriate attention to detail, the correct turns
can be identified with confidence. Things proceed linearly, from A to B to C, according
to one or more established sets of rules or algorithms. Consequently, the handling of
complicated systems can be mastered and the correct rules and procedures can be
codified.
Referring again to bridge design, many factors have to be taken into account in the
design of a long suspension bridge: the extremes of weather, currents, and winds,
and the weight of materials are examples of the many parameters involved. However,
most of these parameters can be estimated accurately from historical records, known
properties of materials, and from technical specifications. Once they are known,
experienced engineers can put together a detailed blueprint for the bridge.
Then comes the complicated task of building the bridge. As in all large construction
projects, many groups of specialists and skilled workers will be needed. Each group
has its specialized job to perform. Integration and coordination during the construction
are essential; however, the individual group of specialists need not worry about such
matters. They do their individual jobs and the general contractor overseeing the
construction assures that the sequencing and integration of
parts goes forward according to an established plan.
Complex systems are quite different, and a key differentiator
is uncertainty. Things are not nearly as predictable. In a
complex system, uncertainty may arise from two different
system features: change and multiple interdependencies
among the parts. The parts tend to change or evolve, as do
the relationships among the parts.Anyone part of the system
might be influenced by multiple other parts and, in turn,
might influence a number of other parts. Linearity vanishes;
things cannot be programmed in advance to proceed in a
straight sequence from A to B to C. Consequently, the design
and configuration of parts might need to be negotiated in real
time based on the dynamic state of the system and the multi-
directional interdependencies.
For instance, in an automated weather prediction system there are
many mutually interacting variables that determine predictions: atmospheric pressures
at the surface and aloft, air mass positions and movements, and ocean currents, to
name a few. Changes in any can influence any of the others, moment by moment,
as per the classic “butterfly effect.” Such systems are far more accurate now than
in the past, aided as they are by global satellite tracking systems. Nonetheless, their
accuracy remains relative and far from absolute.
As a rule, methods that proved successful for dealing with a particular complex
system cannot be counted on to work the same way for handling a similar system
in the future. This is because similarity is inevitably a relative quantity in the realm of
complex systems. No two systems will be exactly alike, and in fact if they were exactly
alike, they would not be truly complex systems.
Figure 2:
Schema depicting a complex system

13
The complicated past
The Industrial Revolution sparked a huge leap forward in the design and construction
of massive and elaborate machines and products. Roads, ships, automobiles,
aircraft, spacecraft, computing systems, factories, and buildings of huge proportions
demonstratethis.TheriseofscientificmanagementasconceivedbyFrederickW.Taylor
in the early Twentieth Century and as implemented in mass production operations
worldwide is perhaps the ultimate expression of rules for handling complicated
systems. According to the dictates of scientific management, everything is specified
and programmed in advance, right down to the exact moment-by-moment sequence
of motions made by workers in those operations.
Not surprisingly, in the business world, that complicated past continues to influence
operations today. Organizations are set up like elaborate, complicated machines
to produce work. Units based on function, product or geography are designed
so that each can perform its specialized role, leading ultimately to the output of
standardized products and services. Employees within each unit are assigned specific
“Key Performance Indicators” (KPIs) on which they are exhorted to concentrate their
attention and energies. The idea is that if we all just focus on doing our jobs, the right
stuff will get produced in the end.
The complex present and future
Change is a hallmark characteristic of complex systems, not complicated systems, and
in the new millennium, things are changing and the pace of change is accelerating.
Moreover, it is now commonplace for a business’ operations to span the globe.
Consequently, the communication requirements within an enterprise must address
asynchronous time zones and cross many national, cultural, and market boundaries.
In many instances, the demand for new and innovative products and services means
that an enterprise must keep moving faster and faster. Companies must stay abreast
of swiftly evolving market trends, while dealing with competitive threats that seem to
appear instantly, seemingly out of nowhere.
New technologies can spring up overnight that can change the entire shape of what
once was a stable and longstanding market. Think of Kodak, Xerox, and Motorola,
former titans of industry whose business models were rendered almost obsolete right
in front of them. One could argue that they had become pattern-bound by their past
successes in much less complex times, even though their products were built upon
highly complicated technologies. At the moment, fast-moving startup firms such as
Uber and AirBnB are radically altering parts of the local transportation and hospitality
industries while current occupants of those industry segments struggle to compete
using traditional practices and procedures. Few enterprises can rest on their laurels
and survive.
Silo mindset from the past
Nonetheless, perhaps reflective of past complicated systems and the mindsets
engendered by them, many products are designed and produced within different units
that each have their have own standard procedures and highly specific performance

14
objectives. That is, each unit has its own set of performance objectives – its own KPIs.
Often those KPIs are so specific and narrowly focused within each unit that the various
units become silos of internal focus. The need for integration becomes eclipsed or is
treated as “someone else’s job.”
When the work is merely complicated, relegating integration to third parties or
individuals higher in a chain of command might work just fine. But where the work is
truly complex, a hierarchy simply cannot anticipate and adequately manage integration
challenges, many of which can only be identified and handled on a real-time basis.
Mixed systems: complicated and complex
Even the most complex projects today will involve pockets of highly complicated
work. Producing a smartphone requires the efforts of numerous specialists: device
engineers, firmware architects and programmers, and materials and packaging
specialists, to name a few. In other words, most systems are hybrid combinations of
the complicated and the complex.
In complicated and complex hybrid systems, integration is the chief challenge.
Assuring that the varied parts of a system perform their specialized functions and
work together can be a formidable task. One of the biggest challenges arises from the
fact that highly complicated work requires a different mindset, or way of thinking, than
is needed to handle highly complex work.
Yet, in many cases, the mindset best suited to handling complicated work is tasked
with the handling of complex work. In order to address the particular challenges of
a given system, rather than relying mainly, or only, on standardized management
procedures, it is essential to think in a way that mirrors the qualities of the system.
Fortunately, styles of thinking can easily be mapped to system qualities.
Styles of thinking
Just as systems can be described as complicated or complex, so can styles of
thinking. Briefly, complicated and complex styles of thinking both fall into a category
that my colleagues and I call “maximizing,” or analytic, as distinct from “satisficing,” or
action-oriented. Maximizing refers to the tendency to maximize intake of information
and analysis of that information when thinking or deciding. Satisficing refers to the
tendency to take into account a minimal number of facts or items of information when
thinking and deciding – i.e., one is quickly satisfied that a workable solution can be
identified by just a few facts.
In both categories, maximizing and satisficing alike, styles further differ in the extent
that they focus in a structured way on achieving a specific, pre-established goal or
outcome as opposed to being responsive to multiple objectives or outcomes that
themselves can shift and change as a situation evolves. In our terms, some styles are
uni-focused, while others are multi-focused. See Table 1.
In dealing with systems, our experience shows that all styles are needed, but
not necessarily in equal measure. The less analytic, more action-oriented styles,
Decisive and Flexible, are useful for dealing with immediate operational issues that

15
arise: assuring that things are
moving forward and that short-
term operational problems are
addressed and decisions are
made. However, in the realm
of complicated and complex
systems, the more thinking
oriented, maximizing styles have
a special role. Complicated and
complex systems can both be
demanding in that a lot of thinking
is needed. The maximizer styles,
Hierarchic and Integrative, share
this quality – both styles are given
to doing a lot of thinking. For the
purposes of this paper, I will only
be giving attention to the two
maximizer styles.
The Hierarchic style, shown in
Table 1, is an analytic, uni-focused, and structured mode of thinking and deciding.
When a Hierarchic thinker takes on a problem requiring a solution, the tendency will
be to examine a problem thoroughly and to carefully break it into its constituent parts
for study or examination. The analysis normally takes place with a clear objective or
desired outcome in mind that serves as the focal point. That objective typically is pre-
established based on previous training, experience, logic and/or established policy
or rules. With this objective in mind, the thinker will look for a best path or strategy to
achieve that goal, ideally one that will stand the test of time. Once a path or strategy to
achieve the objective has been identified, the inclination is to put together a detailed
plan centered on the key objective and then to stay the course until that objective has
been achieved.
Clearly, the Hierarchic style is a complicated way of thinking; a mindset that is well
suited to handling complicated systems. Its analytic, detail-oriented, and highly
procedural and focused qualities fit well with the intricate and structured aspects of
complicated systems.
The Integrative style is a better fit with complex systems. Integrative thinkers can
be equally as analytic as their Hierarchic-thinking counterparts, but in a much less
structured way. In this mode of thinking, the tendency is to keep one’s peripheral vision
fully activated and to look at the broad context surrounding a problem. The thinker is
interested in, and notices, how the parts of the system are influenced by contextual
factors and how the parts of a problem interact and overlap internally. No two problems
or systems are seen as identical; differences and unique features are noticed and
take on importance. Moreover, goals and particular outcomes are not fixed; instead,
they tend to emerge from the analysis and no one objective is likely to stand out as
eclipsing the importance of other objectives. Consequently, with multiple objectives in
mind, no one path or strategy is seen as adequate for dealing with a problem. Instead,
multiple paths and strategies to achieve multiple objectives will emerge from this way
Table 1: StyleViewTM
model

16
of thinking, and those strategies along with the goals they serve may shift and change
as the problem evolves.
As an analytic, multi-focused and dynamic way of thinking, the Integrative style fits
particularly well with complex systems that contain many interacting parts that shift
and change in unpredictable ways. The Integrative thinking process parallels the
essential qualities of complex systems.
Mindsets as deep grooves of thinking
As discussed, executives and systems managers today remain a lot more familiar
with good methods for managing complicated systems than for handling complex
systems. Many have been educated in disciplines traditionally applied to complicated
systems. Moreover, many have experience in organizations whose very structures
mimic complicated systems and are geared to reduce uncertainty and facilitate
focused effort on highly specialized roles.
Inasmuch as styles ofthinking evolve and take shape underthe influence ofexperience,
many have developed profiles that put a good deal of emphasis on the Hierarchic
style of thinking.
When things go wrong
The problem here is the Hierarchic mindset’s propensity, when faced with change
and uncertainty, to put in place procedures and work arrangements that attempt to
reduce or eliminate ambiguity. Clear job specifications are created, along with detailed
work rules, highly focused performance criteria in the form of KPIs, and rigid project
schedules that often include no provisions for unexpected events. In other words, the
Hierarchic tendencyis to create a complicated organizationalmachine tuned to dealing
with highly complicated systems and projects. When things go wrong, the effort will
be to tighten things up further, search for a “root cause” and/or to identify one or more
culprits who failed to perform their jobs according to the rules. In a complex system
these efforts could lead to additional cascades of problems.
Keeping in mind that some amount of Hierarchic thinking usually will be needed
in a truly hybrid complicated and complex system, let’s consider the Integrative
mindset. When things go wrong, instead of zeroing in on a root cause, the inclination
is to look more broadly at the system and to pay close attention to interactions and
interdependencies among the parts. Problems tend to be viewed as having multiple
causes and as resulting from inadequate interaction among the multiple parties, no
one of which will be viewed as “the culprit.”
We recently saw the telltale signs of the sole use of complicated thinking in the R&D
division of an electronics manufacturer. A costly problem arose at the very end of a
chain of functions needed to produce a significantly new version of a microprocessor.
The chain was set up to operate, in the words of one individual, like a “relay race,”
where each functional group would perform its work and then hand the developing
product off to the next functional group in the chain.
Seemingly small changes can introduce major uncertainties and unintended

17
consequences that are increasingly common when products change rapidly and
become increasingly complex. In this particular case, things went along relatively
smoothly until the design reached the last node in the chain – the packaging unit where
the new processor needed to be encased. It came to light that there simply wasn’t
any package solution available that would work. The performance requirements that
the new design had to meet had ended up giving the device a significantly different
configuration from that of previous generations.
No one at any of the earlier points in the chain had anticipated the consequences for
packaging. Had the potential for a packaging problem been recognized earlier, the
design conceivably might have been managed along the way to accommodate use
of an existing, or easier-to-create, package. But, it seemed that within each function
the focus of attention had been inward. This problem caused a costly and morale-
damaging delay while a new and unique package solution was designed, tested
and constructed. These outcomes could have been avoided had there been more
communication and interaction all along the chain, but at the time, communication
between non-adjacent functions simply was not part of the linear, A-to-B-to-C way of
managing projects.
The art of managing styles of thinking
Mindsets can be very powerful. Styles of thinking are habits and those habits can form
deep grooves. Procedures can be put in place to counter the negative consequences
that can result from people getting stuck in those grooves; however, such procedures
could simply result in a proliferation of new rules that create rigidity as opposed to
adaptability.
In contrast to managing by more and more rules and procedures, a more powerful
strategy is to make people aware of their own thinking styles and to show them how
and when to shift gears and move into a different way of thinking. That is, people can
learn to shift away from a familiar thinking style, at least temporarily, toward another
style that better fits the circumstance at hand.
Helping people to situationally adapt their styles of thinking and decision-making
requires self-awareness and a corresponding awareness of the situational cues that
indicate the sort of thinking that fits with a situation immediately at hand. To build this
self-awareness we use an assessment tool built around the StyleViewTM i
model shown
in Table 1. The tool is specifically designed to bring awareness to people of their styles
of thinking, or “decision styles,” as we call them. The assessment uses a combination
of self-description and simulation to assure that individuals see beyond sometimes
idealized perceptions of themselves and gain insights into aspects of their thinking
that they may not see when they are “lost in thought,” so to speak.
Individuals get feedback on their public personas as decision-makers – the behavior
they project in important interpersonal interactions when people are inclined to present
whatever they believe is an appropriate image as a thinker and decision-maker. We
call this level of thinking interpersonal role style, in contrast to the less self-aware
and less conscious behavior they fall into as a matter of habit when they are caught
i. StyleView is a trade name of Decision Dynamics, LLC.

18
up in the moment and are just proceeding in whatever way comes naturally. We call
this latter level operating style. It is important for people to gain insights into both of
these levels in their thinking. This doesn’t come naturally for most people; the stark
statistical reality revealed in the style profiles of hundreds of thousands of people is
that one way of thinking does not correlate with the other! The role style profiles of
most people differ quite markedly from their operating style profiles.1
It’s not easy to manage one’s styles of thinking if one can see only part of the picture.
But, with broader insights into one’s own styles, people can achieve useful insights into
their habits of thinking, and consequently loosen the grip of those habits.
Table 2 provides brief examples of cues that differentiate complicated and complex
situations, and that correspondingly indicate the key features of the Hierarchic or
Integrative style that fit each situation. A few moments of reflection using such cues
can mean the difference between staying stuck in a one-size-fits-all mindset versus a
way of thinking that is aligned with the essential qualities of the task at hand.
Our experience shows that, once individuals become familiar with their own styles, a
range of new possibilities opens up. Chief among these is the capacity to use rules of
thumb, like those shown in Table 2, to adopt styles appropriate to the various situations
they encounter. With practice, adapting one’s styles becomes intuitive and more
spontaneous. Ability to change thinking styles, combined with awareness of the fit
between particular ways of thinking and the essential qualities and requirements of
systems and projects, makes navigating the sometimes complicated and increasingly
complex landscape of the world of work an achievable endeavor.
Table 2: Guidelines for adapting thinking styles for complicated and complex situations

19
About the author
References
1. Brousseau, K., Driver, M., Hourihan, G., and Larsson, R. The seasoned executive’s
decision-making style. Harvard Business Review, February, 2006.
Dr Kenneth R Brousseau is Chief Executive Officer and co-founder of Decision Dynamics LLC,
a firm specialising in behavioural assessment systems and executive talent management. Dr
Brousseau received his PhD in organisational behaviour from Yale University. Prior to forming
Decision Dynamics, he was on the faculty of the Management and Organisation department at
the Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California.
Dr Brousseau is the author of numerous articles on career development, work system design,
team development, and organisational design, which have appeared in many well-known
journals. He is the co-author of The Dynamic Decision Maker.

20
The new ABCs of sales
High staff attrition and poor employee performance are symptoms of a recruitment
process that fails to identify the right ingredients critical for success in the role, and
none more so than in customer-facing front line positions.
Whenever I ask anybody to describe a ‘typical car salesman,’ I invariably get the same
response: pushy, arrogant, sleazy, I would imagine that as you are reading this you
have probably formed a mental image of something similar to the usual descriptions
I hear. Even when I extend the conversation further to include salespeople of other
goods and services, the personality traits and behaviours people describe tend not to
deviate by much. An interesting question for us as behavioural scientists is, are these
stereotypical traits perpetuated in a recruitment process? Are they fit for purpose or
have they gone past their sell-by date? To what extent is confirmation bias present in a
process where new recruits are appointed on their similarity to what has gone before?
In today’s knowledge economy, buyers are generally well-educated prior to any
face-to-face contact with a salesperson. Once they identify a purchasing need,
they can utilise internet search engines to uncover a vast array of information, from
specific details about the product, best places to consider spending their money, the
experience of others, potential pricing and discount options, anticipated future issues,
and so on. Gone are the days when the salesperson held all the cards and, as a buyer,
you went in to battle to get the best deal you could, never really sure at the end if you
succeeded or otherwise. This change in dynamic has had a dramatic impact on the
relationships between buyers and sellers in all walks of life.
In this new world, the role of a salesperson is less about ‘closing’ the deal and more
about building empathy and rapport to the extent that the buyer is comfortable in
concluding the transaction. Several research studies have shown that buyers today
often progress 55-70% of the way through their decision making processes before
they step foot into a dealership or store for a major purchase. This requires a whole
new set of traits and behaviours on behalf of a successful salesperson. From an
employer’s perspective, this requires a different remuneration strategy that rewards
good behaviours, and not just results and outcomes.
The best way for me to demonstrate the effectiveness of this shift in perspective
would be to share some of the story around the recent work we have concluded with
Ian Kershaw
The role of a salesperson is less about ‘closing’ the deal and
more about building empathy and rapport.... This requires a
different remuneration strategy that rewards good behaviours,
and not just results and outcomes.

21
a major UK vehicle dealership network. As with all major brands, their product offering,
dealership locations, and physical branding are practically identical wherever you go.
Their recruitment strategy was broadly the same at all locations, and well established,
yet some of the salesforce delivered consistently higher sales than others. Coupled
with this was a drive for ‘customers for life’, where again some employees excelled
beyond their peers. The organisation didn’t understand ‘the difference that makes the
difference’.
The standard approach when faced with similar questions, irrespective of the role, is
to carry out a validation study, correlating existing performance measures and ratings
with responses to a personality preference questionnaire. This generally tends to
avoid subjective information that may otherwise cloud the process.
Once these data points have been analysed we can identify with statistical significance
those traits and behaviours that are the most predictive of success. This information
can be applied in a variety of ways. Firstly, unless these traits are already elicited,
a refreshment of the recruitment process is in order. This ensures that the required
behaviours are picked out and assessed in some way such that the hiring manager
can obtain a clear and objective view of the closeness of fit. Secondly, the existing staff
can undergo targeted development in those areas of greatest misalignment in order
to support their growth and awareness. By developing existing staff and recruiting
those with a closer fit, the business can generally start to shape the future in a more
positive and successful way.
The further interesting outcome from this investigation was that one set of traits clearly
correlated with high performance in the area of sales, whilst a different set correlated
with high performance in the area of customer service. Given the commercial drive for
revenue performance as well as a more defined shift in strategic focus on customer
service, we were tasked with working out what an optimal profile looked like by
combining the two. Whilst some element of sales success was sacrificed as a result,
the conclusion we reached was that an extra nine million pounds of annual profit was
up for grabs if those who did not match the optimal profile came up in performance to
the average of those that did. This not insignificant prize was all the ammunition needed
in order to drive through the changes required to the recruitment and development
processes. Having started to make the changes the following client quote sums this
up:
‘Our dealership managers say we’re now bringing in better people
than ever before. It’s too early to study what effect this has had on the
business but anecdotally we’re hearing that there’s been a distinct
improvement in performance.’
This shift in focus away from their traditional recruitment questions of ‘How many cars
have you sold before?’ towards looking for candidates that can demonstrate empathy,
building rapport, clear communication and so on has lead the recruitment team to
consider applicants from outside of the industry. In particular this dovetails nicely when
topics of diversity and inclusivity are also considered and thereby has an impact on the
on-boarding process too.
Whilst there is a clear and demonstrable benefit on the bottom line by having higher-

22
About the author
performing salespeople in our businesses, if we took a leaf out of the latest book
by Dan Pink, To Sell is Human, we can very quickly get to a place that indicates any
interaction between two people becomes a buying and selling relationship.1
No
longer is sales solely related to a cash for goods or services situation, but one where
one person gives something to the other in return for something else. Typically this
might even be time or information based. Pink talks about the new culture of human
interactions being based around empathy, resilience, and clarity of communication–
traits that were strongly identified as correlating with a successful car salesperson
above, but equally true in any people-related situations not typically associated with
a ‘sales role’. It might therefore be wise to consider that almost no matter what our
roles are, in some way or other, we are all in sales now. In Pink’s words, Attunement,
Buoyancy, and Clarity are the new ABCs. I believe that it is incumbent on each of us
not to fall into those negative sales stereotypes, but to consider to what extent those
features of positive human behaviours are prevalent in our own roles and those for
which we are responsible.
References
1. Pink, D. (2014). To Sellis Human:The SurprisingTruthAbout Persuading, Convincing,
and Influencing Others. Edinburgh: Canongate Books.
As a Principal Client Partner at Talent Q, Ian Kershaw manages relationships with key clients,
ensuring they each have an easy and rewarding personal experience using tools and services
to support their people decisions. Immediately prior to joining Talent Q, he carried out a similar
role at SHL for six years, having previously held Operations and Commercial Director roles in
a variety of private sector enterprises from multi-site retail to major indoor and outdoor event
construction via the wholesale and logistics of a clothing brand.
This background helps him translate the science and jargon from the world of psychometrics into
practical, deliverable, and easy-to-understand solutions that address the demands you face when
sifting, recruiting, retaining, or developing your employees. Mr Kershaw is passionate about ensuring that
the use of psychometrics and any associated consultative interventions drive measurable benefit for the
client organisation.

23
Potential for what?
Joseph H Kalkman
Executives often push back on measuring “potential” because they doubt one’s ability
to measure it, and are hesitant to make people-decisions based on it. Yet they do so
anyway–they make talent calls, deciding who gets what break-out assignment or the
next promotion–without any data.
Few decisions have more impact on a career, or on the success of a company, than
determining who will take on leadership roles.
A few years ago I spent some time in Silicon Valley, meeting with venture capital titans
like Kleiner Perkins, Redpoint, Mayfield, and others. I was surprised by one consistent
theme: while venture capitalists bet big dollars on great ideas, more importantly, they
bet on the “entrepreneur”. These are the inventors who are passionate and committed
to getting a solution that works in the market. Many times that initial great idea morphs–
it is tested, adjusted, stretched, developed and evolved in the process of coming to
market and reaching scale. Sometimes the initial solution is even rejected outright,
but the core idea and the drive to get it right fuels the confidence of the investors to
continue to develop it.
So it is with Leadership Potential.
A leader’s strong performance to date is like the inventor’s great idea. It catches the
attention of senior management. But is past performance enough to trigger a venture
capitalist-like investment of time and resources? The future, while unknown, will
predictably test that leader. How will they adjust, stretch, develop and evolve in the
face of increasing complexity and challenge?
Gaining insight into their potential can increase the likelihood of making the right call.
Potential can be identified. It can be measured. That measurement should be used
to shape the investment of time and resources to develop that leader, and to build a
talent bench of ready leaders.
“Today those responsible for hiring and promotion decisions must
instead focus on potential…”
Fernandez-Araoz, Harvard Business Review
What is Leadership Potential?
Ask any thoughtful leader, and he will typically have a point of view on potential (often
reflective of his own experience). You may hear something like “You can tell a leader
has potential because he has vision…or charisma…or smarts…or tenacity...” Or maybe this
response: “I can’t describe it, but I know it when I see it.”

24
Research is helping us describe
it and measure it. Silzer and
Church report potential can be
measured by cognitive ability and
personality.1
Leadership Potential is based on
foundational, intrinsic attributes
of a leader. These foundational
attributes–namely cognitive ability
and personality (or work styles)–
are then mediated by values and
experiences shaped by extrinsic
forces. Finally, these variables
are applied in the context and
culture of the organization which
determines success in leadership roles.
Cognitive ability is a foundational element of Leadership Potential. Successful leaders
typically score better on cognitive assessments. Hunter and Hunter show cognitive
ability has a positive effect on performance.2
Korn Ferry’s data analysis indicates high
IQ executives tend to be high performers.3
Overall, Fortune 500 CEOs and billionaires
attain higher scores on cognitive tests.4
Even so, cognitive ability alone is not enough of a predictor of potential. Personality is an
equally foundational element. How leaders engage with their motivations, their work,
and their co-workers, and what work behaviors they demonstrate, directly contribute
to–or derail–their success. The Harvard Business Review reports that intelligence
alone is not enough to identify potential.5
Most leaders who “fail” to progress do so not
because of cognitive concerns, but because of derailing behaviors or fit issues with the
culture of their company. Zenger and Folkman studied 450 Fortune 500 executives
and over 11,000 leaders to identify the ten most common leadership shortcomings
(which led to firing or ranking in the bottom 10% in 360° feedback). Eight of those ten
fatal flaws were based in personality or work styles.6
While these foundational dimensions of cognitive ability and work styles are the basis
for identifying Leadership Potential, they alone are insufficient for determining the
potential of a given leader. Potential is also mediated by experiences that shape that
leader (e.g., an expatriate assignment, owning a P&L, leading a business turnaround,
etc.). Potential is also influenced by that leader’s values (e.g., passion for the content of
the work or mission of the company, declining a relocation assignment while children
are in high school, etc.).
Talent review discussions – with or without using a 9-Box type format – are useful in
bringing talent decisions forward. However, aside from historical performance ratings,
they have a dearth of data, and are often highly subjective. There are ways to measure
potential that can bring objectivity and comparability into these discussions.

25
How do you measure Leadership Potential?
Learning Agility
There are several assessments aimed at identifying potential. One concept gaining
attention is called Learning Agility, which is a personality-based analysis of an
individual’s attitude towards continuous and flexible learning approaches. People
who rank highly on Learning Agility tend to have the right attitude towards continuous
learning and are more willing to deal effectively with ambiguity and change.
In our fast-paced world, those able to deal effectively with ambiguity and change have
an advantage. But does that also mean they have high potential to be successful as
leaders? As we’ve discussed, there is more to potential than just learning and adapting.
Leadership Potential
Recently developed by Assessment Associates
International, a research firm with whom I consult,
the Leadership Potential Report (LPR) shows great
promise in this area. Rather than using Learning
Agility as a proxy for Potential, the LPR directly
assesses the cognitive ability and work styles
(or Behavior Potential) of the leader, to provide a
Leadership Potential profile and score.7
The LPR develops an overall rating of Leadership
Potential using three facets of cognitive ability and
four facets of personality closely associated with
successful executive performance.
The LPR uses a structural model of cognitive ability similar to Johnson and Bouchard8
and Page,9
based on verbal, numerical, and abstract reasoning. It also measures
personality and motivational characteristics that influence an individual’s behavior
in work settings, anchored to the Big 5 personality factors.10
These characteristics
comprise four of the most valid behaviors found in highly successful executives:
interpersonal acumen, thinking acumen, results acumen, and emotional acumen.
How do you use Leadership Potential?
Many organizations use “performance” and “potential” to compare leaders and to
identify Top Talent, often using a 9-Box structure to do so. As an HR executive, when I
led these talent sessions,we typicallyused ratings from recent performance appraisals
to represent a leader’s performance.
Regarding potential, we often had no data.
For potential, I have used nominal sorting to group leaders into categories, or company
values ratings from performance reviews, or leadership competencies, or had
managers sort leaders by descriptive criteria in a leadership model before coming
into the talent discussion. None of these methods were objective, nor did they provide
much comparability across leaders. In some cases, the assignment of potential may

26
have had more to do with how well the manager presented the leader than with the
actual potential of the leader being discussed.
When using the 9-Box for
discussing talent, the outcome of
that discussion – sorting leaders
against the criteria of performance
and potential to identify top talent
– is always the result of judgment,
not math. It is an inherently
subjective process. Managers
are paid to exercise their good
judgment in making talent calls.
The risk is that theirgood judgment
is flawed. As humans, we see our
world (and other people) from the
perspective of our own experience. In general, this serves us well, but it also invites
bias into our decisions. We can “see ourselves” in others and over-value certain familiar
traits. One way to address this risk, to control for bias, is to engage in robust discussion
with other managers about the leaders being considered in the 9-Box process. In this
way, multiple perspectives shape the talent decision, not just a single viewpoint.
Another way to mitigate risk is to use valid, comparable data to inform the discussion.
When objective data on potential is available, the 9-Box discussion can be anchored
with an initial score to compare leaders. Clearly, it is a grand over-simplification to
reduce the future capacity of a talented leader into a single score. However, providing
an objective and valid data point, which can be directly compared to other leaders, is
a significant step forward in improving the quality of the talent discussion.
After completing the talent assessment discussion and aligning on Top Talent – those
leaders with high potential and high performance – the organization can now focus its
development resources to accelerate the development of their Top Talent.
Conclusion
Every organization makes talent decisions. Some use performance data to make
these calls. Some use gut feel. Some have a long-standing, robust talent assessment
process, while others are just discovering a need to bring process discipline to this
work.
Leadership Potential is a profound, underlying variable that can help predict future
success. It is founded in measurable cognitive ability and personality traits. Tools
like the Leadership Potential Report can measure these traits, and when used in the
context of a talent review process, improve the objectivity, validity, and success of the
talent assessment process.
In short, by using objective Leadership Potential measures, you can gain confidence
that you are making the right call when tagging leaders as “high potential,” and
accelerating the development of those most likely to achieve career success.

27
About the author
References
1. Silzer, R. F., and Church, A. F. 2009. “The Pearls and Perils of Identifying Potential.”
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice,
2(4), 377-412.
2. Hunter, J. E., and Hunter, R. F. 1984. “Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of
Job Performance.” Psychological Bulletin 96 (1): 72-98.
3. Lewis, J. 2014. “Executive Insights: When is high IQ a liability for an executive?” Korn
Ferry Institute, 2014.
4. Wai, J. 2013. “Investigating America’s elite: Cognitive ability, education, and sex
differences.” Intelligence, 41, 203-211.
5. Fernandez-Araoz, C. 2014. “21st Century Talent Spotting.” Harvard Business Review,
June, 2014.
6. Zenger, J. and Folkman. J. 2009. “Ten Fatal Flaws That Derail Leaders.” Harvard
Business Review. June, 2009.
7. AAI Assessments. Leadership Potential. Retrieved 20 June 2015, from http://aai-
assessment.com/products/leadership-potential
8. Johnson, W., and Bouchard, T. J., Jr. 2005. “The structure of human intelligence:
It is verbal, perceptual, and image rotation (VPR) , not fluid and crystallized.”
Intelligence, 33, 393-416.
9. Page, R. Applied Reasoning Test, Manual. 2009.
10. Barrick, M. R., and Mount, M. K. 1991. “The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job
Performance: A Meta-analysis.” Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Joseph H Kalkman has over twenty years of executive experience in human resources and line
leadership. He is an expert in talent management, high potential identification and development,
succession and leadership continuity, and strategic organisational development. Working
primarily in Fortune 100 companies, he has led nearly every HR function, and has coached
CEOs of small non-profits and Fortune 50 companies, developed leaders at all levels, and
directly supported C-Suite executives in multiple industries.
Mr Kalkman earned his MA in educational psychology from the University of Minnesota, and
his Talent Management Certification from the University of North Carolina’s Kenan-Flagler Business
School. He has presented across the US on talent management, leadership, engagement, and effective
compensation committee relationships. The innovative HR work he implements has been featured in
Business Week, Time, NBC Nightly News, and 60 Minutes.

28
The gaming imperative for
pre-employment screening
assessments
Dr Tom Janz
The buzz has been building for years now:
“Game-enabled assessments are the wave of the future.”
“Gaming will make assessments fun and engaging.”
“Assessment games will be a competitive advantage when seeking young, educated,
talented high-tech and business professionals.”
Blah… blah… blah…
Most of us have read the articles in ERE by luminaries such as Dr. Charles Handler and
Kevin Wheeler or seen the magic quadrants or Gartner white papers. Yet, with notable
exceptions, game-enabled assessments are still far from mainstream.
So how are those tedious, boring online assessments workin’ for ya?
We detect an extinction-level event that will change everything about online screening
assessments. The HR leadership at a company in the roofing material warehouse
space called us wanting to ditch the assessment of dependability and safety provided
for free by their insurance company. Why?
Candidates didn’t complete it.
Some of those who did answered 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 after the first few items, just to get out of
there.
In addition, a fast-growing uniformed security company that processes 24,000
assessments a month wanted to drop their 80 item assessment and find something
more engaging. The HR leader at one of the world’s largest security companies wished
we had talked to her 9 months ago, when she started a field trial with the largest and
best-known international assessment vendor.
The problem is the same…
Only 40-60% of respondents who click “Apply Now” in a trial of a well-known
performance test actually complete it.
A higher percentage of candidates will complete simple, fast assessments such as the
DISC, the MBTI, the Predictive Index, and PerforMax.1
There are literally hundreds of
back-of-the-napkin developed assessments by Dr. This and Professor That.
How improving the candidate experience impacts the
chances of hiring top performers

29
Here’s the thing… there is clear evidence that they predict job performance
weakly, if at all.
Assessments that don’t predict job performance are about as helpful as giving a fish a
bicycle or worse, some mercury. Careful studies, such as the Epson research project
by Dr. Peter Saville, show these assessments deliver predictive power in the 5-15%
range— well below what the lowly unstructured one-on-one interview delivers (at
20%).2
A major reason respondents don’t finish online pre-employment assessments is
because they are tedious, long, and boring.
Generic tests that ask questions that predict job performance, but don’t look
like anything people do on the job, is another issue.
Test items that lack job relevance turn off top talent. Face validity (whether the test is
job-related) does not determine the predictive power of a test, but it does influence
whether respondents finish the test.
And if top-performing talent won’t finish the test, or blow it off, they won’t score well
and thus won’t get hired.
This is a particular problem with mental ability tests that sometimes include algebra
when there is none to be found on the job, or picking the next number in a series when
the job involves picking the right sales pitch to make to a new customer in the store.
That’s where the visual gamification imperative comes in…
If only half of the candidates seriously finish the assessment, which half is that: The top
half or the bottom half?
Well, it’s not as simple as that. Yet few would argue that more top 20% Generation Y
performers are likely to blow off or drop the assessment than performers from the
bottom 20%. After all, it’s the bottom 20% that need to do whatever it takes to get a job.
The top 20% likely have other offers, or soon will.
Look at it this way: if the 80/20 rule applies, then only 20% of the top 20% of performers
complete the assessment (at a 50% overall completion rate, but 80% of the bottom
20% complete it. Your chances of hiring a top 20%
performer, even with a screening assessment
solution that validates with a correlation of 0.5, are
way lower than for a similar screening tool that
enjoys a 95% completion rate.
Consider the diagram to the right. It shows that
of fifty candidates that complete a long, boring,
measure of theoretical personality, only two will
come from the Top 10 performing group since only
20% of Top 10 performers complete the test. Since
that type of test has less than 30% predictive power,
the odds of hiring a Top 10% performer fall below
1:10. Not good!

30
So how much good does using carefully validated assessments do if they are
longer, tricky, and annoying to candidates?
This time, the diagram graphs the situation
where the science-lite measure of theoretical
personality is replaced with a validated inventory
of performance constructs that include mental,
social, and organisational performance. The
resulting predictive power rises above 60%, but
that still results in expecting to hire just one of the
ten performers the employer wanted to hire at the
outset. The results are twice as good, but still not
good enough.
Now consider what happens when screening assessments result in a 95%
completion rate, particularly among the top 10% of talent.
Hereiswhygamificationisnotjustnice,it’snecessary.
When 95% of all candidates and at least 90% of
the top 10% of talent complete the assessment,
combined with a 60% predictive power, your odds
of employers hiring the talent they set out to find
rise to 5:10—a 5x increase. And those they hire that
are not in the top 10% will be mostly in the next 10%.
What game-enabled assessments look like today
1. The first level of gamification replaces text with visual images sampled
from on-the-job performance
Assessments that feature a great number of sentences or dozens of paragraphs of text
cause people to zone out, presenting too great a contrast with the short, interactive,
visual world of PC, tablet, and smart-phone gaming experiences that occupy large
chunks of time among most target talent populations.

31
Work Memory Test
The Work Memory assessment series offered by
PeopleAssessments.com,whereIamChiefScientist,
illustrates this category. Research published in the
journal Intelligence found that assessments of short
term memory captured 80-85% of the predictive
power of general mental ability tests3
—the best
single predictor across all research published by
scientists who aren’t selling anything.Yet they cause
half the level of discrimination against protected
minorities. That’s what we PhD I/O psychologists
call a “two-for”.
Work Memory tests use visual content drawn from
the job itself to make the assessment relevant, while
it does its powerful work measuring memory speed and accuracy. The Work Memory
test page shown here comes up after respondents applying to a retail designer brand
store associate with a role.
First, theyare shown a pagewith the catalogue items and the prices,with the instruction
to: “Study the page just as long as you need to commit it to memory.” The respondents
then proceed to answer questions on the items and prices shown here.
The Work Memory test items are drawn from the company’s online catalogue, so
they are job related. We make sure the test images and recall questions get at short-
term memory by having current workers calibrate the items—comparing how long
successful and struggling workers study the images and how many they get right.
2. The next level of gamification adds interactivity to visualization
The next level of gamification interacts with respondents, engaging them in actions
with consequences as they move through the assessment. Logi-Serve, an assessment
of service and sales excellence, exemplifies interactive visual assessment focused
around judgment scenarios.i
Respondents use slider bars, not
multiplechoicebuttons,toindicate
their likelihood of choosing four
behavioural options for each of
nine scenarios. Then, depending
on the option they chose, they are
asked to rate the likelihood that
their chosen behaviour produced
three different outcomes for the
other party depicted in the scene.
This taps into knowing which
behaviour works best in a given
situation and also how that choice
i. PeopleAssessments.com is a licensed reseller of Logi-Serve.

32
will impact others.
A recent large head-to-head field study that pitted Logi-Serve against a text-heavy,
long, tricky questionnaire for call center staff found a 98% (vs. 50%) completion rate for
Logi-Serve, with the key side benefit that over 80% of candidates responded that they
“would recommend trying this assessment to their friends and colleagues at school.”
3. A third level of gamification inserts valid assessment items into existing full
motion, three-dimensional video games
Gamification is using games and game dynamics to playfully induce behaviour. Here,
the participant first selects the gender and dress of the avatar, and then enters the
“Road Ahead” video game played by over 25 million people. They run, they jump, they
stoop to get under obstacles, they pick up coins and they move to the side to avoid
the moving train.
Persona-Labsii
has inserted psychometric test items as the game goes into slowmotion
mode as they answer the item within a preset time window. Research is currently
underway on the positive side benefits of keeping the respondent pre-occupied with
collecting points and increasing their game play level. We hypothesise there will be
less time to embellish responses to fit the job while respondents are concentrating on
the game. Assessment scores more resistant to faking should be the result. Stay tuned
for more findings on this topic.
Respondents complete assessments situated in popular games with a similar high
percentage (above 95%), as reported above for level 2.
4. In the fourth and ultimate level, the game becomes the assessment.
At this level the choices and evaluations that participants make are recorded and
compared with those of successful performers, as well as all other candidates in the
game’s database.
Oncetheinitialscreeningphasecollectspredictivechoicesandratingsfromprospective
candidates or finalists, the follow-on phase collects deeper data to shape new hire
ii. PeopleAssessments.com is a licensed reseller of Persona-Labs.

33
orientation, probationary reviews, and performance development discussions.
Achieving a high quality, interactive, full motion visual assessment experience makes
candidates forget about the time, enjoy their assessment session, and complete it. As
a bonus, over 75% of the time, they recommend it to a friend or colleague.4
Summary of best practice implications
Employers set out to hire the best talent from those that can be motivated to consider
the opportunity. If they can find ten candidates for each position opening, they seek to
hire the top 10% of talent from their candidate pool. Their odds of doing that depend
mainly on two things: one, the predictive accuracy of the methods they use to funnel
down the ten candidates to the one person per hire that receives and accepts an offer,
and two, the percentage of top performers that stick with completing the selection
methods and remain motivated to accept an offer, if received.
In the past, many if not most of the selection methods used, from the quick résumé
sort to the unstructured one-on-one interview to references to quick personality type
tests, offer little predictive accuracy. The problem is that you are unable to hire the
top talent if you can’t tell who they are. They don’t wear a tattoo that identifies them,
unfortunately.
More recently, employers have turned to assessment methods—from cognitive ability
tests to performance-keyed self-report tests to situational judgment tests. These
assessments have proven predictive power in studies published by scientists who
aren’t selling anything—when candidates can be motivated to complete them in
proctored settings or for career development applications. However, candidates asked
to complete them in an un-proctored initial screening session increasingly either click
out or click quickly to get through them, since they have such a low expectation that
devoting forty or more minutes to thinking carefully about their answers will result in
anything positive for them.
Making valid assessments as short as possible (but not shorter), visual, interactive,
and animated increases the completion rate and fixes what’s broken about screening
assessments that predict performance.

34
About the author
Dr Tom Janz is Chief Scientist for PeopleAssessments.com. He has a PhD in Industrial Psychology
and began his career with academic positions at a number of universities. He has since held
science and leadership positions at Personnel Decisions International, Guru Worldwide Inc,
Unicru, Batrus Hollweg International, and Lominger International. Dr Janz has a long-held belief
in the value of online interview decision support technology, and now pursues his dream of
offering valid, affordable online tests and interviews via PeopleAssessments.com.
Dr Janz has published several articles and book chapters on topics ranging from expectancy
theory to motivational culture to selection utility, and is the co-author of Behaviour Description
Interviewing: New, Accurate, Cost Effective.
References
1. Basile, P. Personal communication.
2. Saville, P., MacIver, R., Kurz, R. & Hopton, T. (2008). Project Epsom: How Valid Is
Your Questionnaire? Phase 1: A New Comparative Study of the Major Personality
Questionnaires in Predicting Job Performance. Jersey (UK): Saville Consulting
Group.
3. Verive, J., & McDaniel, M. (1996). Short-Term Memory Tests in Personnel Selection:
Low Adverse Impact and High Validity. Intelligence, 23(1), 15-32. Retrieved
from http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/Verive%20&%20
McDaniel%20%281996%29.pdf
4. Wexler, J. Personal communication.

35
Developing new leaders
Ruth Gibson
Developing the leadership pipeline and succession planningwere identified the top two
challenges for 2015 by readers of our last eBook. and both are high on organisational
talent management agendas. But what makes a good leader? The answer to this
question is not clear cut, and although there may be some core themes (such as good
communication and integrity) that apply across the board, there will also be unique
differences in the meaning of “leadership” between organisations—and therefore in
the requirements and processes to develop it. One thing to remember regardless is
that to ensure a healthy leadership pipeline, the processes around developing new
leaders should be continual rather than one-off events.
Where to start?
Begin by prioritising your current workforce. How can you identify the people currently
working in your organisation whom you can develop and promote to lead in the
future? Developing (and retaining) internal talent tends to be less expensive than hiring
externally.
After exhausting your internal resources, seek to fill any gaps with external hires. In
addition to providing needing skills and experience, new hires can offer a healthy dose
of external influence to existing leaders with organisational values and culture already
engrained.
If you need to refresh your process or wish to add more data to your decisions,
psychometric assessments are a popular way to assist talent identification. One of
their main benefits of the assessment method is its objectivity, i.e. the results do not
depend on a manager’s personal views, but rather on clear data mapped against
key requirements. There are many different types of assessments which may be
useful depending on your requirements, including 360-degree feedback, personality
assessments, and ability assessments. Often a combination of assessments can
produce the most powerful solutions, and when added to personal processes such as
interviews, can provide the most complete picture of a person’s potential.
What should the leadership development programme focus on?
Again, this may vary depending on the particular organisation, but there are likely to
be some common core elements. You can identify the requirements of the specific
programme through the use of a thorough development needs analysis. This will map
the gaps between the current position and future requirements for leaders, helping
to align the development programme with the strategic priorities and goals of your
organisation. Programmes with multiple activities are often considered beneficial.

36
About the author
These might include mentoring, internal and external training or courses, stretch
assignments, coaching, assessments, and more. The aim is to develop skills and
competencies required for leadership roles as well as tailoring development to the
individual and their particular needs and desires.
Engage senior leaders in the development of new leaders
Create a culture where aspiring developing leaders are not seen as a threat to jobs
of current, more senior leaders, but as an asset that should be nurtured. Or perhaps
a little competition is a good thing? Either way current leaders have vital experience
and knowledge and can act as important mentors to developing leaders within the
organisation.
Build in flexibility
It is important to build flexibility into a programme. There are likely to be some
core modules, but not everyone will need to develop in the same areas. Tailoring
programmes in this way can lead to further engagement in the process and new
leaders will feel that their needs are being met more directly than if the full contents of
the programme were generic to everybody.
Set a robust monitoring and evaluation process.
Monitoring and evaluation covers two key areas:
First, track individual progress. There are some great systems out there which will help
track and monitor goals at an individual level. A coach or mentor can also be connected
to enable conversations to continue online in between face-to-face interactions.
Second, monitor and measure results. Make sure that a system has been set up to
track the success of new leaders going through a development programme. Decide
what the KPIs will be at the start of the process. It is important to track success to
ensure that the programme’s worth can be proved and validated.
Communicate back
Communicate the success of the programme. Don’t keep it hidden, be transparent
about the work the organisation is doing and the investment put in.
As Business Psychologist and Product Manager at Synermetric Ltd, Ruth Gibson uses her passion
forpsychology, assessments, and people development to curate a powerfuland complementary
range of psychometric assessments and tools. She develops Synermetric’s relationships with
leading authors, and provides clients with training and advice on how to utilise their tools for
optimum effect.
Ms Gibson has a BSc in Psychology and MSc in Occupational Psychology, and has previously
worked for consultancies in human capital and talent management as well as resourcing. She is
a member of the British Psychological Society, and is certified in Test User Ability (formerly level A)
and Test User Personality (formerly level B). She is also a trained practitioner of numerous assessments
and tools.

37
Dynamically aligning
management of talent with
market changes
Pravir Malik
How can change in markets and management of talent be dynamically aligned? One
way is through a process of fractal-modeling whereby key characteristics of a market
are cascaded into a talent management system that allows those characteristics to be
embodied in teams and individuals.
This is a process that my company, Deep Order Technologies, has invested in, with the
development of a framework, process, and an associated always-on Organisational
DNA Determination and Development beta-tool. At their cores, individuals, teams,
organisationalentities, and markets are seen as sharing deep archetypalcharacteristics.
General categories for these characteristics can perhaps be intuitively grasped from
these examples:
• Consider a simple example of a chair. For centuries perhaps, people sat on the
ground, or on boulders. Then one fine day somebody had a flash of insight,
and the concept of sitting on a movable, comfortable chair became real. The
concept itself was the result of the power of knowledge. Having had the sure
vision of the thing to be done, the force and energy to do it became real. This is
the result of the power of energy. Now, of course, was the issue of making the
concept real. Elaborate plans were then drawn out, specifying materials to be
used, implements to be used, alternative end-designs, and even the process of
production. This was the result of the power of harmony and mutuality. Finally the
blueprints needed to be executed. The skill and workmanship and overseeing of
the project had to be embarked upon. This was the result of the power of service
and perfection.
• Or consider the example of the human body. One can again see the action of
the archetypes in the very creation of the human body. Thus, the archetype of
wisdom and knowledge creates the thinking ability resident in the brain and
mind. The archetype of harmony and mutuality creates the lungs and heart, by
whose action the individual can remain connected to the rhythm of the vaster
breath all around, and keep connected the different parts of the body whose
individual rhythms are in tune with the heart. The archetype of power and energy
create the entire digestive system by which food is assimilated and provides
power and energy for all that the body needs to do. The archetype of service
and perfection combines micro-elements into atoms, and these into molecules,
these into plasma for cells, these into organs, and these into the body itself,
which then becomes the sac within which all the other archetypes and their
representatives can act.
But markets too can be understood in similar ways. Hence the healthcare industry may
in general build itself based on the power of service and perfection. The information

38
technology industry may favour the power of knowledge. But then there are a lot of
variations possible under these broad archetypes, and as a first step the Deep Order
Technologies Organizational DNA Determination model allows shifting markets to
be understood based on the nuances of the archetypal instincts or characteristics
required for success.1
Figure 1 graphically suggests some of the DNA
mathematics that must take place to determine
this. In the figure below, the four areas on each side
of the square make up four key archetypes which
are mutually exclusive. These are used to define the
possibilities of a market. Using this we can see how
an organisation is positioned and what their primary
drivers are. The longer the arrow, the stronger the
component. E.g., in Figure 1, there is a strong drive
for knowledge/wisdom and power/leadership.
The larger figure in the square maps the relative
strength of the key characteristics of success for
an emerging market. The smaller figure suggests
possible responses to be cascaded into the
organization.
After cascading these capacities into individual companies, they will need to be
embodied so that they become real as indicated in Figure 2.
Embodiment means that when a researcher is seeking after a new insight, it must be
done with a one-pointed commitment and concentration so that deep knowledge
can be unearthed. When the manager is seeking to motivate their team they must do
so with such conviction and energy that inspiration and engagement manifest in the
team. When the organizer is seeking to design and arrange parts of an organization,
they must do so with such a sense of rhythm and harmony that the beauty of nature
becomes apparent in the designed forms. When the engineer is constructing their
device, they must do so with such a sense of accurate detail and attention that
perfection itself arises through their touch.
Figure 1:
DNA mathematics - Market and
organization alignment
Figure 2: DNA cascading

39
Archetypes Embodied
Examples of ways in which the four archetypes of knowledge and wisdom, mutuality
and harmony, power and leadership, and service and perfection can be embodied
follow below:
Knowledge and Wisdom
• Not only seeking knowledge in areas related to one’s immediate work, but seeking
knowledge in other areas as well;
• A need to research and create new knowledge;
• A temperament that is calm and turned to introspection and even meditation;
• A tendency to want to dominate all emergence of passion and vital tendencies by
reason;
• The urge to spread knowledge amongst all;
• Perhaps even seeking truths too profound to express in words.
Mutuality and Harmony
• Understanding of rhythms of all kinds;
• Understanding and even masteryofthe laws ofinterchange bywhich organisations
are built;
• A need to amass quantities in order to throw them out in even larger measure, in
order to create an even greater return;
• The ability of compelling others to unite through harmony;
• The ability of turning insights into practicalities – of making even abstract thoughts
and ideas manifest practically.
Power and Leadership
• The development of an unflinching courage;
• The ability and need to be a leader in noble causes;
• The need to protect the down-trodden;
• The ability to muster and possess great energy for any new endeavors;
• The ability to see the new and needed;
• The ability to convince others of the worthiness of new adventures.
Service and Perfection
• An extraordinary attention to detail;
• A need to labour at any discipline in order to achieve perfection;
• A giving of oneself to that which one loves without concern of the self;

40
About the author
• A sense that nothing is too small to be the object of attention;
• A sense of what has already been accomplished and what remains yet to be
accomplished.
These archetypes form the core drivers of Deep Order Technologies’ tool, which
allows individuals and teams to map and track current and aspirational characteristics.
Current characteristics are existing capacities already possessed at the team or
individual levels, while aspirational characteristics are determined by the market and
coordinated by the organization.
By performing gap analyses on the current and aspirational states of these
characteristics, the tool can provide advice on strengthening any of the sixty embodied
capacities that make up its drivers. Thus the DNA of an organisation can be cascaded
into that organisation’s practice.
In this way, through self-reflection and adjustment, this DNA can be embodied so that
an organisation can dynamically align itself for success as per the changing realities in
a market. By taking this process to an even more advanced stage, new organisational
DNA can be proactively created, to then define and create new markets.
References
1. Malik, P. (2015). Next Generation Human Capital Enterprise Systems. Aurosoorya.
Retrieved 22 June 2015, from http://blog.aurosoorya.com/2015/02/23/next-
generation-human-capital-enterprise-systems/
Pravir Malik’s focus areas include human capital, organisational, and associated systems
development. He specialises in igniting organisational potential and creativity by leveraging
appropriate technology, tools, and processes. He is currently leading the development of next
generation enterprise systems through the development of a Unified Theory and Mathematics
of Organisation. Mr Malik has applied aspects of such systems while operating as the Founding
Member of A.T. Kearney India, the Managing Director of Advisory Services for BSR, an Intent
Architect with Conner Partners, and while on the HR Leadership Team of Stanford Hospital &
Clinics.
Mr Malik has an MBA from the J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management, an MS in Computer Science
from the University of Florida, and a BSE in Computer Engineering from Case Western Reserve University.
He is the author of a series of books focusing on fractals and organisations, including Redesigning the
Stock Market: A Fractal Approach.

41
Sales recruitment
Andrew Dugdale
The British Institute of Learning & Development (BILD) and the Universal Sales Skills
Audit (USSA) recently joined forces to conduct a national survey in the practices of
sales executive recruitment.
For a profession that can literally make or break the biggest of corporations, the study
revealed fundamental cracks in the way many employers placed new hires, and a
fairly cavalier attitude toward how a new recruit was expected to perform in their
probationary period.
In the past few years a lot has been said about the need to professionalise the sales
industry. There is a need for qualifications and a somewhat more formal entrance to a
career in sales other than being handed a list of prospects and a telephone. However,
if you assume that more than half of the sales managers recruiting new executives
entered sales through this very same door, you begin to realise the problem here –
we gravitate towards those like us, the ‘that’s the way I started and it worked for me’
mentality. Now you begin to realise the magnitude of the problem and the size of the
oil tanker the industry is trying to turn around.
Reinforcing this fact was the shocking find that, when employing sales executives,
over 58% of employers believed that ‘salespeople should know what they are doing’.
This value was then rather unsurprisingly repeated when just over 58% of employers
also reported that ‘Maybe some [sales executives] aren’t as good as we would like’.
What other professions do you know where it is acceptable practice to ‘drop someone
in and see if they work out’? Perhaps in the example of a manual labour job with zero
customer contact, we might accept that all that was at risk would be the outgoing
wage for a few weeks and minor disruption to a production chain somewhere. But for
sales, the risk factors treble with wasted salary (often high), loss of projected revenues,
and the potential pointing of once loyal customers towards alternative suppliers.
So, with over 50% of employers admitting they are playing roulette with their sales
hires it is encouraging to note that over 42% did recognise that there was room for
improvement in their sales recruitment procedures, so the door for change is ajar.
54% of recruiters stated that they ‘rigorously follow up all their references’, but with
employment laws dictating how so many of these references are worded, do you
really trust them? And how many employers do you know that have done their utmost
to help a troublesome sales executive out of their door and into the clutches of a
Place your bets please...

42
competitor?
It seems that, for a profession that lacks an academic paper trail, skills assessment
has to be the way forward when recruiting salespeople. 45% of surveyed recruiters
conducted some form of assessment when hiring sales executives, leaving that rather
worrying 55% standing by their game of ‘try it and hope for the best’.
In the survey, only 38% of surveyed companies stated that ‘Our sales performance
has consistently enabled us to meet or exceed our sales targets for the company
over the last three years’. The message seems to be clear: there is still too much
guesswork employed in sales recruitment and this is a totally unacceptable risk given
the difference to performance that sales skills assessment tools make.
BILD/USSA Recruiting Sales Executive National Study
87.50%
41.67%
16.67%
33.33%
62.50%
54.17%
41.67%
16.67%
We review their CV and job history
We review their profile on LinkedIn/Facebook or
other social media platforms
We check their profile on Twitter or other social
media messaging services
We get a number of people to interview them
without a formal interview structure
We have a formal structured interview process
which we rigorously follow
We rigorously follow up all their references
We use third party tools or processes to assess
their suitability for the job
Other
Q1. What process do you follow to determine
whether they are the 'right person for the job'?

43
91.67%
54.17%
45.83%
37.50%
33.33%
45.83%
4.17%
We have a detailed and up-to-date job
description
We have a recent, well-constructed set of sales
skills for this job
We have a means of assessing which candidates
have the required sales skills
We rigorously apply our assessment
methodology during the hiring process
The methodology we use to determine
candidate fit to the role is proven to be effective
over time in reducing our 'hiring failure rate'
The assessment methodology we use provides
us with a detailed picture of a candidate's skills
gaps which we can use for future performance
development
Other
Q2. Thinking now of the sales job itself, which of
the following statements are true?
25.00%
58.33%
41.67%
12.50%
All the salespeople we hire are exceptional
performers
Maybe some aren't as good as we would like
There's room for improvement in our recruitment
process
Other
Q3. Thinking about how well sales candidates
perform post-hire in your company…

44
58.33%
25.00%
33.33%
41.67%
29.17%
16.67%
29.17%
We believe that salespeople should know what
they are doing
We occasionally pick some sales training and
send them on it
We use a formal sales methodology and send
them to be trained in that
We identify some general areas needing
development in the interview process and train
them in those
We use detailed data from third party
assessments to identify areas of weakness and
focus development in those areas
We just change salespeople who don't perform
Other
Q4. Now looking at how you improve the
performance of your sales hires…
37.50%
58.33%
20.83%
8.33%
12.50%
8.33%
Our sales performance has consistently enabled
us to meet or exceed our sales targets for the
company over the last three years
Our company has grown market share relative to
our competitors over the last three years
We have neither grown nor lost market share
compared to our competitors over the last three
years
Our sales performance has gone down relative
to our competitors’ performance over the last
three years
I don’t know how we are doing from a sales
performance perspective
Other
Q5. Thinking now about the sales performance of
your company over the last three years…

45
About the author
Andrew Dugdale is an expert on talent management within the Sales sector, helping forward-
thinking firms assess, recruit, develop, and retain the right people at all levels within their sales
organisations. He is a pioneer in developing the interface between the C-Suite, Sales, Human
Resources, and Learning and Development departments, helping to define and put in place
a framework which enables them to ‘speak the same language’, cutting across cultural
boundaries and delivering breakthrough sales performance.
Mr Dugdale is President of SalesAssessment.com, a ground-breaking business focused on
providing highly predictive online assessments and associated analyses designed to enable
clients to recruit the right people for specific Sales roles, predict their revenue potential, and focus
their development strategies accordingly. Mr Dugdale has recently spun off a new ecommerce-based
assessment company called the Universal Sales Skills Audit, delivering ‘gold standard’ sales skills
assessment at a mass market price.
References
Combined survey of BILD members and the Sales Initiative Community, 347
respondents, April 2015.
About the USSA
The USSA operates worldwide, analysing the skills of customer contact/sales staff
and compares them to a global benchmark for effective sales performance. The
assessment modules align to published academic standards for sales skills. Their
‘Core Sales Skills’ cover the five most fundamental sales skills modules. These skills
are required by all salespeople, regardless of their specific sales role.
www.universalsalesskillsaudit.com
About the BILD
The British Institute for Learning & Development®
is a registered charity. Their vision is
to achieve excellence and recognition in Learning and Development for individuals,
organisations, and the profession as a whole.
www.thebild.org

46
Business success?
Grow your own talent!
Nicole Dominique Le Maire
Forthelongesttime,therehavebeendiscussionsastohowtalenthasbecomebusiness’
biggest concern. There is even more recognition today that the traditional one-size-
fits-all approach to talent management no longer works. Global trends have changed
the way people view conventional methods and models of talent management.
In fact, the term ‘talent management’ can already be considered misleading and even
outdated!
It gives the false idea that you can manage your talent pipeline from one single, neat
point to the next. Experts say that it might be better to use the term ‘talent navigation’
- navigating a vessel on ever-changing waters with uncontrollable winds, and with an
overall sense of profitability instead of certainty.
Senior management claim that looking for the right talent these days is difficult, but the
truth is that the problem starts even before beginning the search for talent. For many,
defining what an individual with potential should look like is becoming a trickier thing
to do. There are several schools of thought arguing that anyone, whatever their role in
the organisation might be, has a talent that only needs to be discovered and nurtured
properly.
This is something that career counselors will need to consider. Many organisations see
their talent as the people who have the crucial skills required for the business’ future.
But in these changing times wherein the futures of businesses have an ever-growing
sense of unpredictability, it has become trickier to identify the critical capabilities that
will be required in the next few years. This is the reason why the real ‘talent’ needed
today is the ability to cope with ambiguity and adapting and redefining oneself.
The importance of nurturing top talent
Various research papers have revealed that top talent in organisations both contribute
a disproportionate value to their entire organisation and have the easiest time looking
for new employment if they become unsatisfied with their position.
Let’s take a closer look at some of the other findings regarding the overall value of a
company’s top talent:
• top performers can produce as much as 10 to 12 times more compared to the
average workers while they will usually need less than 2 times the pay.
The problem starts even before beginning the search for talent.

Talent_Management_-_Expert_Solutions

Talent_Management_-_Expert_Solutions

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Talent_Management_-_Expert_Solutions