Define TALENT before getting into Talent Management

The new age HRMS Software applications facilitate innovative HR practices to identify, nurture and manage Talent, enabling increased focus on Talent Management as a compelling theme and a MUST HAVE for organizations to win in the market place. 

However, there are challenges as well for HR practitioners and organizations for which they cannot depend /or expect the software to provide them with answers.

Going through the research reports like “The Deal in 2020” by the Work Foundation  http://www.theworkfoundation.com/DownloadPublication/Report/255_255_deal202_050710.pdf one cannot help wondering, if the future workforce will not be loyal, is likely to be more ready to freelance and work on specific assignments basis, will the definition of "Talent" be same as in the past?

Before organizations decide to embark on a journey of Talent Management, taking a step back may help us navigate better. Organizations might be better off answering questions on:

a)    What do we mean by Talent?

b)    How do we Define Talent?

Without answering these questions, if we plunge headlong into Talent Management strategies and start evaluating or implementing Talent Management Software, it is likely that organizations will find they are no better off than when they started, that too after investing millions of their currency.

Talent in this age of disruption does not limit itself to a prescribed definition that might have helped us in the past. And Talent for today’s context or ability to manage 'Business As Usual" is irrelevant. It is an age of constant innovation, that too extreme, to stay relevant in tomorrow’s world, and “Tomorrow’s context” has to be the main theme. 

In one of the conferences I attended, a senior HR practitioner of an organization boasted how they identified and earmarked a future Talent – one of the future Talent was a person who came back to office on a holiday because there was a fire in the next building and this person wanted to ensure their office is not affected. The HR Practitioner was eloquent on how they identify such significant contributors who walk the extra-mile and earmark them through a fast-track “future leaders” program.

While the act of ensuring our office is not affected in a fire can be construed as a dedication and may attract a reward, does it really define “Talent”?

Can an organization afford to keep looking at skills they have? Or should they look at skills that will be needed tomorrow? Can organizations afford to look at employees based on their loyalties, or dedication to their work? Based on how much time employees spend on their work or based on how much work they complete within a specific time span – the typical ‘Productivity’ conundrum?

Or would it be significant if organizations start looking for people who think completely out-of-the-box and moot ideas which alter the ways-of-working drastically? Even to the extent of completely changing the definition of “work” or “productivity”?

When an organization gets started with an idea on crowdsourcing to help resolve certain types of problems or projects, will the “Talent” in this context be the person who moots the idea of crowdsourcing or the people who manage the crowdsourcing activity?

Too many questions and no straightforward answers.

Some of the key issues looming up on organizations across the world is their ability to quickly adapt and redefine how they view / categorize Skills / Competencies and Talent. How they assess both and how they go about transforming the thought processes within their organizations on these areas.

Any Talent Management program, either manual or on a software application will be inadequate to help organizations if at a fundamental level, organizations do not define what is Talent for them. A software application, whatever be its rating in a wave or quadrant will not be able to do this for them. It is their own internal assessment and honest introspection that will help them find the answers and lead them towards their future.

Thanks

Venkat