I am a strong believe in a robust talent management process. I will lay my hands on any article/s or books that discuss cases and strategies on the subject. I have liked several of them over the years and have applied and prospered from their knowledge in many of my endeavors. Recently I I came across one such article on FastCompany - Retaining Younger Workers in the Workplace.
The article provided a perspective on myths most organizations harbor about younger employees. Not too long ago there was a book in the same subject area by the name Generations at Work by Ron Zemke.
Over the years I realized there was something common and distinctly missing from most literature on the subject. They all talk about some of the same challenges, the same set of solutions, they all have frameworks and models, that are presented as a company wide program.
My take is we need a Meta Framework not a framework itself! A second order solution, one that fits above an existing model (clearly some of the models are good, but not executed aptly in my view):
- One size does not fit all!
- Constant evolution
- Feedback & Feedforward.
In addition to the generational differences we have significant regional and cultural differences. Just within the US, people in the North East are significantly different in thought and philosophies about work, life than the Mid Westerners and the West Coasters. The values placed in organization, rewards, speed of action and culture are eons apart even between these large unstructured segments. Yet companies take the principles from a HBS program or a McKinsey Quarterly article or a think tank or a best seller book and apply in broad brush strokes independent of the company, its location, its peoples background and history. We need to invest and INVEST HEAVILY to understand the culture first!
Talent Management programs are slow to adapt - Accelerate evolution
In the internet and mobile age, information spreads at a staggering pace. That applies to Talent management models that work and ones that fail. The unfortunate part is we don't experiment enough both in quality and quantity by reinvesting in the feedback we receive. Archaic models stick around for long periods in time because people don't measure the results of the stimulus or have deliberately chosen to ignore the signals. In addition organizational alignment, structures, processes and rewards are usually among the last areas for market research and testing.
Talent Management programs are not collaborative - They are all prescriptive
The most critical flaw I have noticed the cases, perspectives and implementation of research is still the nature and intent of program execution. Most programs tend to be prescriptive, requiring the talent pool to be boxed in one reward and recognition system or the other. None are setup for a active feedback and feedforward processes. This is not a direct evolution argument as much as it is knowing what matters to the talented individual who is being incented into delivering consistent top performance while contributing to the companies strategic long term objectives and goals.
