July 31, 2016 • 8 Likes • 2 Comments
Earlier in my career, I was all in with the word "talent" and differentiating people based on "talent" and I was an advocate of "competencies" as one way to assess "talent." Then, I gained years of experience and my views have evolved.
It is time to stop classifying people as "talent" and time for HR to stop using "competencies" as the answer looking for a problem. Here is why:
Get Rid of the Term "Talent"
1. A few years ago, Geoff Colvin authored a book entitled Talent is Overrated. What he was talking about was the people we refer to as talented were actually people who worked very hard or spent time with "deliberate practice." Mozart as a young child became a great composer as his father was a well-known composer who rigorously trained his son through hard work and constant ("deliberate") practice. The same with Tiger Woods. He became a great golfer because his father was a strong disciplinarian who ensured his son practiced every day ("deliberate practice") to become a world-class golfer. So, inside organizations or anywhere, talent is about hard work, focus, habits and attitude.
2. Who are we, particularly in HR, to have the profound wisdom to dub a small percentage in the organization as "talent?" All that does is create an adverse and hurtful effect on those who are not privileged to be called "talent." And that is the majority of people - people who all companies say are the "most important asset" yet we insult the majority all while companies strive for an engaged workforce. Aspiring for an engaged workforce while only categorizing a small percentage as talent will not work. Would you the reader feel engaged if you knew the company did not really view you as "talent?" I stay away from referring to people as "talent" and instead we identify those who deserve to be considered on a growth track or on succession to critical roles based on the following criteria: a) ATTITUDE, b) Dedication & Commitment, c) A record of some noted achievements (not performance review ratings), d) Clear demonstration the values we espouse. Yes,We put our money where our mouth is about the values. NOTE: Nothing about competencies. In fact, all these things translate to a person being the right "fit" in an organization.
3. I have many stories to drive my point but I will focus on just two for now: First Story: I was once a global vice president for talent management & leadership development for a company with 40,000 employees worldwide. The CEO had very good intent as he wanted to know who the "Top 100" talent was below the Vice President level worldwide. I understood his intent. With 40,000 employees in 20 countries he had no visibility to top "talent" and he wanted to know who they were so we can make efforts to retain them. Again, good intent. I argued against this initiative but I lost. As a responsible corporate citizen (after providing the case against this) I had to take the charge. After going through a rigorous process that frustrated every one of our 12 Operating Company CEOs (because they were allotted a specific amount based on the size of their operating company and they felt they had much more talent than they were allotted) we finally got to the "Top 100." We then had a very expensive and high-visible event at a 5-star hotel where all of the "top 100 talent" and their CEOs and the top HR heads were flown in and many other top leaders from corporate were invited. The negative impact was quite palpable. So many people were upset and wondered why they were not selected as "top talent." Many had legitimate complaints as they were outstanding professionals and managers with their dedication and commitment to the organization and their attitude and desire to grow. The Second Story: Again, in a previous role the company had spent significant money for one of the most prestigious and top executive search firms in the world who also provide executive leadership assessment and consulting. I listened in on each feedback session for our top executives that was conducted by one of the expensive and experienced consultants. During one session a highly regarded General Manager expressed his ambition to someday be considered for a CEO role for one of the operating companies. This "Talent" consultant proceeded to tell this GM "No, it is not going to happen. It is too late in your career and your assessment says you don't have the talent to be a CEO." I won't tell you what happened next but I think you can imagine the emotional reaction of this highly regarded GM being told he was not talented enough to give any credibility to his aspiration to someday be a CEO of one of our subsidiaries. I suddenly became a referee and had to diffuse the situation immediately and quickly release the consultant from working with this executive and I had to take over with the coaching process with this executive moving forward.
Let Go of Competencies as a Solution Looking for a Problem
The HR profession has a strong comfort zone with the competency world and they have to begin letting go. I do believe competencies have their place, but not as ubiquitous as they are today. I also say this as a one-time consultant where I was contracted by one of the world's leading firms known for helping companies create competency models.I was shocked at the lack of rigor in this process. In fact, with one client they had a deck of cards with each card representing a competency from their large competency dictionary. The client built their competency model with this deck of cards. I could not believe it.
1. I have never seen any correlation between someone scoring high on competency assessments and being a consistently high performer who achieves results and demonstrates effective leadership.
2. I often refer to a Harvard Business Review Article published a number of years ago. It was a real-life case of a Boston-based company where the Sales VP had to be fired due to unimpressive sales. The HR Vice President convinced the CEO they had to create a competency model and hire to those competencies. At the end of the case study, there were 4 well-reputed and successful people who weighed in. Three of them were from the HR profession (a top HR academic, an HR executive, and an HR Recruiter). The fourth thought leader was a Chairman and CEO from a Fortune 100 company. As you might expect, all three HR experts jumped on the competency bandwagon and applauded the HR VP for the process using competencies. The Fortune 100 Chairman and CEO felt completely different and said the HR was addressing the wrong problem and addressing the problem in the wrong way. He felt that competencies was more apt to be viewed as HR jargon. I believe he was right. In fact, I added up the different words the HR thought leaders used to describe "competencies." I counted many different definitions of competencies as they used terms like "skills, behaviors, principles, dimensions, proficiencies, personal attributes, abilities, leadership fundamentals, etc. Whew! no wonder many CEOs don't take the world of competencies that seriously. CEOs are more concerned with performance and results.
Now What: I suggest we eliminate the word "talent" as it does more harm than good and refer those deserving for organizational growth as those who are viewed as having the right attitude, are dedicated and exemplify the organization's values. For competencies, use them when necessary (like having a consistent and objective way of assessing leaders for selection or development) but not as the answer for everything. Why? Because I have never seen the correlation between competencies and results.
Michael F Andrew is a corporate executive and author of the books, "How To Think Like a CEO and Act Like a Leader," and "The Greatest Leader He Ever Saw" https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002BLVH7G
No comments:
Post a Comment