D
Catalyst | Diversity
lack of evidence that it works, with over 70% of
programmes showing neither desired business
outcomes nor tangible returns on investment.
Organisations are not – at least not yet, or not
consistently – being transformed by designated
HiPos rising through the ranks.
“Maybe we are finally learning that talent is
not always about making it to the top”
Liberating talent
Criticism of HiPo programmes have tended
to focus on how to make them better: how to
improve tools and processes for identification;
how to minimise the impact on non-HiPos; how
to retain HiPos longer term. But there’s also a
growing school of thought that we should be
thinking again when it comes to how we define,
identify and develop talent and, with that, the
focus of our talent strategies.
For Maggi Evans, author of From Talent
Management to Talent Liberation, talent is not
a scarce commodity, the preserve of the few,
but a resource that is all too often overlooked
and underused. Hiding in plain sight, it needs
not so much to be managed as liberated. Evans
is clear that a focus on HiPos can work in the
right context – for example, where there is
a clear succession need – but often, HiPo
programmes give organisations a false sense of
security that creates a disincentive to consider
a broader range of talent strategies. “The key
for organisations is to focus on mitigating their
talent risks and increasing the drivers of their
competitive advantage. When looked at through
this lens, the solution is rarely HiPos,” she says.
Instead, organisations are likely to get a better
return by increasing the visibility of existing
talent, working on retention strategies, finding
alternative ways to source hard-to-find skills
or sharing knowledge across the organisation.
Key to this is a shift in ownership: less top-down;
more inclusive, open-minded and flexible.
Swanz also believes that effective talent
strategies should be based on core themes:
engagement, a culture of learning and a trust
in managers to know their people better than
anyone. Rather than focusing on elusive,
high-level competencies that might indicate
potential, Swanz advocates a more delegated
approach, curated team by team. This should
be based on team leaders’ judgements about
their own people, plotted and tracked using
responses to regular pulse-style measurements
which focus on some essentials. Humans may
be terrible raters of others, but they are much
better raters of their own intent. According to
Swanz, “leaders often want to hire for appetite
but almost always manage and measure to
aptitude. It’s the appetite that leads to practice
and the practice that leads to performance.
That’s what organisations need to lean into.”
Nor should ratings take place in isolation:
“Decisions about talent management need to
be based not just on simpler, more regularly
collected data, but also backed up by deeper
– and contextualised – conversations about
performance, motivation and aptitude.
Relationships at work are like any other;
they need time and they need to be nurtured.
Managers need time and support to help their
people learn on the job, from people they
trust.” Lucy Adams reports that organisations
are already moving away from “cumbersome”
processes and assessments, embracing “more
agile, conversational and outcome-focused
approaches”. HR teams are focusing more on
what the organisation wants leaders to achieve,
often stated in quite broad, simple terms, and
then giving them resources and support to help
them boost team members’ performance – with
less prescription and much more autonomy.
Adams also perceives a welcome move away
from an exclusive focus on the ambitious or
those actively seeking promotion. Instead,
awareness that everyone wants to grow and
develop – even if moving sideways or doubling
down as a deep expert – is gaining traction.
Maybe we are finally learning that talent is
not always about making it to the top, but also
about capacity, learning new skills, taking on
extra responsibilities, acting as a role model or
myriad other ways in which individuals can help
organisations perform better.
There will always be employees who show
exceptional aptitude and performance, and
we ignore their potential at our peril. But we
also need a broader definition of talent that
recognises that it’s all around us, and that people
want to contribute the best of who they are, not
what we want them to be. With emphasis on the
potential of diverse and inclusive workforces,
we need talent strategies that harness the power
of the majority, not just an elite.
Issue 4 - 2020
57