The identification of talent: Case studies from the UK public and private sectors.
Oghale Ayetuoma1, Stephen Swailes2 & Janet Handley3
Refereed paper submitted to the Leadership, Management and Talent Development track of the
16th International Conference on HRD, University College Cork, Ireland, 3rd-5th June 2015.
1. PhD Candidate, Department of People, Management & Organizations, The Business
School, University of Huddersfield
2. Professor of HRM, Department of People, Management and Organizations, The
Business School, University of Huddersfield
3. Head of Department of People, Management and Organizations, The Business
School, University of Huddersfield.
Corresponding Author:
Stephen Swailes
Professor of Human Resource Management
The Business School
University of Huddersfield
Huddersfield HD1 3DH
Email: s.swailes@hud.ac.uk
1
Abstract
Purpose: This paper reports the preliminary results of a study looking at how three
organizations in the UK public and private sectors identify high potential employees.
Specifically, the paper looks at how talent is constructed and identified and the barriers and
challenges encountered with talent identification from the perspectives of both management
and ‘talented’ employees.
Design/methodology/approach: Three in-depth case studies involving multiple informants
in the Civil Service, local government and retail were written based on 21 interviews with
HR/Talent & leadership development managers as well as managers on talent schemes.
Additional data was obtained from corporate documentation.
Findings: All three companies had different drivers for talent management which influenced
the constructions of talent used and frameworks for talent identification. The civil service and
retail sectors used a categorising tool that enabled a common language for defining potential
and facilitated identification practices. Despite this, definitions of potential and competency
frameworks in both the retail and civil service sectors differed as well as their processes for
identification. The challenges and barriers to talent identification appeared more similar than
different but notably and in contrast to the public sector (the civil service and local
government) which had an exclusive talent management practice, the retail sector operated a
more inclusive talent strategy which was driven by a culture of openness, honesty and a
rigorous talent identification framework.
Research Limitations: Talent management practices were mostly in their start-up phase
being two to five years old and still evolving. Inclusion of the views of employees not in the
talent pools would create a broader perspective on the process of identification. This paper
reports work in progress and further analysis of case data is continuing.
Originality/value: This empirical study contextualises talent definition and identification
practices from the perspectives of HRM specialists, line managers and high-potential
employees. Since the majority of research on talent management concerns practices from the
U.S. or Multi-nationals, this study adds value to the limited research on talent management
outside these contexts.
Keywords: Talent, talent management, talent identification
2
Introduction
One of the enduring questions in the literature on talent management concerns the
inconsistencies and ambiguity surrounding definitions of talent and talent management (The
Economist, 2006; Tansley, 2011). Research by the CIPD (2007) found that, “talent mainly
focused on individual attributes, with great variations over definition” as most times these
definitions were ‘organization-specific’ and determined by the nature of work as well as
mission and culture (CIPD, 2007; Iles, Chuai, & Preece, 2010).
Questions arise therefore concerning how organizations then define talent and conceptualize
their talent management practices, what challenges and barriers to reliable and valid talent
identification occur and how they are managed, and, how are the challenges and barriers to
talent identification managed? This paper attempts to explore these research questions and
provide some perspectives of constructions of ‘talent’ and talent identification practices
across UK public and private sector originations. This is in response to calls for more
research on the ‘reliability/validity of talent identification and assessment using in-depth case
studies’ and ‘to develop more collective perspectives on ‘talent’ (Iles, 2013: 302-303)
particularly in contextualizing the criteria used for high potential and high performance
(Dries & Pepermans, 2008; Tansley et al., 2013: 339)..
Although there are several papers on talent management addressing the importance of
evaluating and identifying talent and potential, the reporting of talent practices are biased
towards organizations in the U.S. and multinationals such that there is a need for an
understanding of practices outside these contexts (Collings et al., 2011).
Talent Management.
The identification and development of talent has been championed as being critical to
organisational success (Boudreau, 2005; Hartmann et al., 2010; Iles, Preecce & Chuai, 2010)
and is recognised as one of the major challenges of the HR function (Buckingham &
Cosburgh, 2001). However, despite this claim, the Chartered Institute of Personnel
Development (CIPD) revealed that only 6% of organisations have effective TM systems in
place (CIPD, 2012).
3
Theoretical development in the field has been limited (Dries, 2013) and commonly draws on
Strategic HRM (Collings & Mellahi 2009; Iles et al. 2010), the resource based view of the
firm and differentiated HR architecture (Lepak & Snell; Wright et al, 2001). Some authors
(Iles et al., 2010; Preece et al., 2011) attribute this poor theoretical foundation to the fact that
most of the talent literature is ‘practitioner or consultancy-based’ and focuses on the practices
(the ‘how’) as opposed to ‘who’ is considered talent and ‘why’.
Lewis and Heckman (2006) argue that definitions of talent management fall into three
groups. First, ‘talent management is used as a substitute label for HRM practices such as
recruitment, leadership development, succession planning’ and that herein lies its limitation.
Second, they label talent management as a, ‘general classification of employees into different
talent pools’. Emphasis is on projecting employee needs and managing the progression of
employees through positions (Lewis and Heckman, 2006:140). Some authors contend that
although this stream of thought builds on earlier research in succession planning, it provides a
differentiation between talent management and HRM (Barlow, 2006; Jackson & Schuler,
1990). This perspective focuses on the internal rather than external labour market and starts
with the identification and mobilization of internal talent pools (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005;
Bryan, Joyce & Weiss, 2006).
Their third definition encapsulates a ‘focus on talented employees’. The argument is that all
roles within the organisation should be filled with ‘A’ performers, a system known as “topgrading” (Smart, 1999) which emphasises management of ‘C’ players and poor performers
out of the organisation (Michaels, Handfield-Jones and Axelrod, 2001). This perspective
argues that, “an organisation is only as strong as its top talent” (Walker & LaRocco, 2002:
12). Although this approach has attracted global attention in practice (Hartmann et al.,
(2010), its applicability should be questioned as it is neither desirable nor appropriate to fill
all positions with top performers. Collings and Mellahi (2009) proposed a fourth definition
which emphasises the importance of key positions that have a big impact on the success of
organizations (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Hulesid et al., 2005). They argue that the priority
is first to identify the key positions following which talented employees can then be
developed to fill them.
Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2013: 291) argue that discussions about the definitions of talent
border on whether talent refers to people (subject), the characteristics of people (object) or
4
whether talent is more about performance, potential, competence, or commitment.
Furthermore, is talent a natural ability or does it relate more to mastery through experience?
Three main perspectives of talent can be found in the literature. The first is the exclusive
perspective which views key people displaying high performance and potential as talent (nonposition-related understanding). The underlying argument is that it is not possible for
everyone in an organisation to be considered as talent because what differentiates the
‘talented’ from the others is measured in terms of their current and past performance as well
as their future potential. These perceptions support the elitist view that 20% of the workforce
contribute 80% of the value. This perception of talent is essentially based on segmentation of
the workforce into parts that will be treated differently. Chuai (2008: 12), for instance,
asserts that talent management is impractical without segmentation, arguing that without it,
managers will treat all employees equally regardless of performance, competence and
potential or other characteristics that in practice distinguish one employee from the other.
The second exclusive perspective focuses on having the right people in key positions
(position-related understanding). Although this second strand also adopts a narrow sense of
the definition of talent, it is examined from a different perspective. Huselid et al. (2005) argue
that talents are not non-position-related. Here, it is only the right people (A players)
occupying those positions, that are considered talent and get a disproportionate level of
financial and managerial investment, guaranteeing the maximum opportunities for their
development. A perfect match of ‘A’ players’ and ‘A’ positions’ is expected to contribute to
‘A performance’. Huselid et al (2005) also propose placing the very best employees in
strategic positions, good performers in support positions, and eliminate non performing jobs
and employees that do not add value. In the second strand and in the first, the principle of
differentiation is paramount. From Huselid et al. (2005: 117) “effective business strategy
requires differentiating a firm’s products and services in ways that create value for customers;
accomplishing this requires a differentiated workforce strategy as well”.
The third perspective is an inclusive perspective in which organizations perceive all or most
of their workforce as talent (Swailes et al., 2014). This perspective assumes that everyone can
potentially contribute to competitive advantage and perceives that everyone has talent and
that talent is seen as an absolute characteristics of an employee not something that is relative
5
to other employees. The inclusive approach does not hold that everyone has to be a high
potential employee.
Talent Identification.
As shown above, constructions of talent vary widely, from being focused on particular people
to a set of characteristics, or to statement of need. Organizations also vary in the extent to
which they view talent as the performance and potential of employees, or whether it is a more
exclusively focused on scarce resources and more senior positions (Yarnall, 2010). This
model of talent is defined by McCartney and Garrow (2006: 6) as, “employees who have a
disproportionate impact on the bottom line, or who have the potential to do so”. The
identification of talent in this case is driven by capability or skills gaps in the organisation
and identifying critical segments of the workforce, which are essential to the business’
(Yarnall, 2008: 32).
Yarnall (2008) explains that current trends in talent management suggest a move back to a
more planned approach to career development with case study research indicating companies
are taking back control over the careers of high potential employees and developing smaller
groups in line with the business strategy. She argues that these trends frequently involve
identifying, selecting and developing discrete talent pools which are seen as valuable
resources for future senior roles and have been categorized as leadership pipelines,
professional groups and critical role approaches (Garrow & Hirsh, 2008). One of the reasons
for establishing talent pools is the need to improve succession planning processes by moving
away from rigid replacement strategies towards creating pipelines for future roles (Byham et
al., 2002). Other reasons include focusing training and development resources more clearly
on existing gaps and reducing turnover and retention of top talent (Nottingham Business
School, 2007; Pepe, 2007).
Specific issues identified in relation to the identification of leadership potential include:
i)
adequately separating performance from potential ratings (Balzer & Sulsky, 1992
ii)
moving away from “gut feelings” and informal or subjective assessments carried
out by untrained management staff an toward the deliberate development of valid
frameworks of leadership potential (Silzer & Church, 2010)
6
iii)
embedding procedures relating to the identification of leadership potential in
organisational strategy, as opposed to assuming a short-term, ad-hoc approach
(Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007), and,
iv)
getting line management fully engaged in the process, taking into account that they
often feel burdened by tasks they are obliged to fulfill on top of their regular
managerial responsibilities. (Dries & Pepermans, 2008)
Line managers may be reluctant to identify their best people as high potential for fear of
losing them to another department. (McCall, 1998).
Some considerations (Burk et al., 2009; Yarnall, 2011) on the identification of talent are
firstly to ensure that the approach adopted by the organisation is right for the organization
and not just an imitation of current industry trends. Burke et al. (2009) recommend having a
2-5 year strategy that addresses key challenges facing the organisation such as economic
downturn or disruptive technology, issues with implementing business strategy such as
internal resistance and challenges such as mergers, culture change or acquisition. Specific
challenges signal the organisational capabilities and individual competencies that must be
developed or enhanced (this creates the yardstick for identifying and selecting leadership
talent) and determine the target population for development.
Research Methods
This research adopts a constructionist epistemology which holds that meaning is not
discovered, but constructed. Considering the exploratory nature of the research questions, a
case study methodology using in-depth semi-structured interviews for data collection and
document analysis was followed. Three sets of semi-structured interview schedules were
designed for different cadres of employees (HR/TM managers, line managers and talent pool
members) using open ended questioning techniques. These were further amended for better
clarity and focus, following feedback received from a pilot study conducted in a public sector
organisation.
Sampling
To promote a cross-sectional view, targeted participants were HR/TM professionals, line
managers and talent pool members. . Twenty one interviews were conducted in 2013 and
2014. The case study organisations are coded as CivServ, Locgov and RetCo. CivServ and
7
RetCo had been running their talent programmes for over four years while Locgov has run a
programme for just over two years.
Data Analysis
Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions were read and re-read
alongside documentation received from organisations for familiarisation and identification of
themes to aid imputing of coding onto Nvivo. Particular attention was paid to use of words,
recurring words and phrases, and metaphors and aligning these to different interviewees and
contexts as well as documentary sources. Both the interview transcripts and documents
obtained from organisations were imputed into QSR Nvivo where the coding of the data and
further identification of themes was carried out. Thematic analysis using deductive and
inductive approaches was undertaken alongside ‘within case’ and ‘cross-case’ analysis;
searching for ‘patterns’ that show similarities and differences across the cases (Eisenhardt,
1989: 533, 539-540). Findings from each case organisation were analysed separately before a
cross-case analysis was conducted.
Findings
Data analysis was driven by two main questions:
1) How do organisations define talent?
2) What challenges and barriers to reliable and valid talent identification occur and how
are they managed?
Cases suggest that while each construction was biased towards the corporate strategy of each
organisation, each had its own specific talent driver as described below. CivServ was dealing
with a reform agenda which focused on strengthening skills, deploying talent and improving
organisational performance. There was a focus on skill gaps, developing professionalism and
managers for future leadership. A talent pool participant described talent as:
‘looking for qualities that leaders possess and potential to reap very senior leaders’… ‘those
qualities might be ability to work across boundaries…innovate and lead change and lead
change is a huge amount of that’…
Another view was:
8
‘it is about the strength of the profession in the civil service reform agenda’… (Head, Talent
Resourcing).
Locgov’s talent driver was the recently appointed CEO whose vision was to make it the best
local council in UK as well as a drive to develop an internal pool of talent to fill senior roles
due to mass exit of senior colleagues (for succession planning), a mature workforce with 31%
aged 50+ as well as having a more diverse leadership. The OD manager alluded to the driving
theme by defining talent as,
‘somebody demonstrating that they live the behaviours that we want and the values...this is the
most important thing for our CEO.. that our managers live the values..’
‘it is people who have gone above and beyond the day job’…they do something other than
just turning up for work and doing a 9 to 5’,…’have a real passion for what the council is
trying to achieve’… ‘It is everyone in the targeted grade, where we know either because we
have information from people who are going to go on an early leavers program or because of
reshuffling/resourcing…at the minute we know there’s going to be some movement in the next
few years…and where we know there are gaps…’
In RetCo, the talent driver was an overall strategy which was about strengthening capability
at all levels to ensure being world class in managing and developing their talent. There was a
strong emphasis on identifying potential in a consistent way to ensure fairness and
transparency at all levels. In line with this strategy, constructions of talent demonstrated an
understanding of who was considered talent in terms of the tools and processes used for
identifying potential and resonates the identification of talent at ‘all levels’ indicative of an
inclusive approach.
‘Everybody has somewhere to go on the 9 box grid…. everybody is given a position on the 9
box talent metrics… But all of the behaviours apply to all the levels’…. (Talent Advisor)
‘So we would be looking at talent from colleague level up… So our role as talent spotters is
to look for people coming through at all levels…. we do have a robust development program
at all of those levels’. (People manager stores)
So everybody across the organisation at appraisal time is mapped onto the 9 box grid L&D
Manager)
9
Further discussion draws on the three perspectives of talent in the literature, talent as people,
b) talent as positions and c) inclusive talent people.
a) Talent as high performing and high potential
Most constructions of talent fell under this category as talent was seen as, ‘people who have
potential to be kind of future leaders’ (line manager, CivServ).
An organisation development manager in Locgov observed that talent is, ‘Those who have the
ability or potential to be a senior leader… you can classify it is people who have gone above
and beyond the day job’ While a team leader in Locgov viewed talent as, ‘people who have
the ‘up and go about them, who seek to better themselves, see opportunities in everything and
work outside the box…
Interestingly, respondents from HR and talent specialist teams in CivServ and RetCo linked
constructions of talent to the 9 box grid used in identification.
‘it is those who sit on the top line of the 9 box grid’ (Head of Talent Resourcing, CivServ)
‘Our definition of somebody with high potential, they would know that it’s the 9 box grid’
(Talent Advisor, RetCo);
Colleagues are identified as typically in the top 3 boxes Q1, Q2, Q3...who are the highest
performers which would tend to be around 10% generally… (L&D manager, RetCo).
This last construction corresponds with the definition often used with talented and gifted
people namely that talented people are those who ‘have the ability to perform an activity to a
degree that places their achievement within at least 10% of their peers’ (Gagne, 2000).
The 9 box grid not only addressed issues of separating performance from potential which is
an issue in the identification of leadership potential in organisations (Balzer & Sulsky, 1992);
but also provided a valid framework for identifying leadership potential thus eradicating the
informal ‘gut feeling’ and subjective approaches of appraising employees (Silzer & Church,
2010). Findings revealed that performance appraisals were carried out separately from
assessments of potential which were aligned to careers conversations with employees.
Performance and potential ratings are then plotted on the 9 box grid (See Appendix 3 for the
9 box grid used in RetCo).
According to the CIPD , “Organisations must clarify how they define talent, who they regard
as the talented and what their typical background might be” (CIPD, 2007a:2). Having a
10
system that enabled a standardised definition of talent appeared to drive a unified
understanding of the meaning of talent and this promoted a consistent approach to talent
identification. This was aided by a common language used to discuss and evaluate talent.
Additionally and consistent with studies of talent being domain or organisation specific,
definitions of potential and competency frameworks differed between CivServ and RetCo even
though both used the 9 box grid. These differences are shown in Appendix 1.
b) Talent as exclusive positions (viewing right people in key positions as talents):
This view is most aligned to Collings and Mellahi’s (2009) definition of strategic talent
management as, ‘activities and processes that involve the systematic identification of key
positions’. Referencing the talent drivers discussed above, it is implied that all three
organisations define talent by key positions particularly as it relates to identifying successors
for succession planning purposes as this was an important aspect of their talent strategy. For
example the senior HR business partner in CivServ explained that, ‘in CivServ, they are
actually looking for talent in terms of director level… but also looking for the super talented
to get to the Director General level’;
The OD manager in Locgov commenting on talent that observed, ‘it is everyone in the
targeted grades.’ In RetCo, the talent advisor described the process thus,
‘So that means that the exec board are looking at all of our directors and then identifying the
two tier successors for those roles’ …So as for identifying high potentials, identifying
performance risks, risks as in somebody isn’t performing and then ‘gaps’ such as stating that
there is actually nobody that can fit into this role and it is a critical role ‘..
Similarly in RetCo, the L&D manager reiterated the process of identifying key positions in
her role,
‘I made sure for the core roles there were successors in place. I think it ended up being the
high profile critical jobs, we used to call them hot jobs or critical jobs, these are jobs that are
absolutely key to our organisation … they would be the ones we would essentially focus on’
c) Talent as inclusive people: (viewing everybody as talent)
11
Worthy of note is a respondent in CivServ whose construction of talent referenced this
perspective in explaining that talent is, ‘People who have a sense of objective of strategy,
track record for delivery, engaging style, they are inclusive.’ (Deputy Director, CivServ).
Defining talent as people who are inclusive is quite rare within the literature and provides an
avenue for further exploration. It is not to be confused with the philosophy of inclusive talent
management, rather it is a characteristic of talented people. However, looking at the
constructions in line with the talent drivers for each organisation, RetCo stands out as one
that clearly has a more inclusive talent practice because, as an organisation, it sought to
identify talent at ‘all levels’ and not just targeted levels.
Talent Identification Processes.
The processes of identification are presented in Appendix 2. All three organisations used a
pay grade system and appraisals in their identification processes. CivServ and RetCo used the
9 box grid in addition to appraisal.
While RetCo depended only on these two tools for identification and development of
potential alongside rigorous tracking, monitoring, coaching and mentoring processes, the
public organizations subscribed to a nomination, application and selection process for
identifying talent for development programs. Common to all organisations was the idea of
employees with potential and succession planning. In RetCo, those employees who fell into
the top right corner of the 9 box grid (see Appendix 3) i.e. in Q1, Q2 and Q3 are those
identified as potential but each one had different plans. Q1 meant ‘ready now’ meaning that
employees named in this box are ready for promotion and development to their next role. Q2
signified ‘future talent’ ready for development in 6 to 12 months. Employees named in Q3
have potential and are currently in the right role but require further development. Succession
planning in RetCo was done at the same time as talent was identified. This ensured critical
roles had successors at any given time in line with the corporate strategy of the organisation.
12
Managing challenges and barriers to talent identification
This section discusses challenges and barriers to talent identification and how these were
managed.
Performance Appraisal
All three organisations used an appraisal system but in Locgov it was described by two high
potentials as, ‘more about conformance than performance’ and as something that ‘makes no
difference, has no impact, no teeth’. In CivServ and Retco it was a vital part of the
identification process and connected to the 9 box grid used to measure potential. In CivServ,
the challenge was that line managers saw the 9 box tool as another mode of performance
appraisal and could be unclear in their use of both tools. To manage this problem, aside from
the guidelines provided to managers, CivServ encouraged line managers to have careers
conversations and assessment of potential at separate meetings from appraisals to promote
differentiation and to make it less informal to encourage rapport with staff. Similarly, the OD
manager in Locgov spoke about a development workshop for their 2,500 managers on how to
conduct conversations to curtail this problem. RetCo appeared not to have any challenges
with their performance management systems as they had a rigorous process in place which
was captured and monitored electronically and consistent with this was a ‘top 3, bottom 3’
identification process which enabled underperformers to be properly coached and supported.
The 9 box grid
Both CivServ and RetCo used this tool for careers conversations, competency framework and
rating potential. Challenges for both organisations included line managers’ (in)competence in
the use of the tool leading to diverse interpretations and inconsistencies of scoring per
department and dread of having conversations for fear of being misunderstood. Line
managers sometimes saw the tool as another appraisal device and a tick box exercise without
conversing with employees about their aspirations and their potential. To manage this
situation, CivServ and RetCo developed guidelines on scoring with descriptions of
behavioural expectations and HR business partners talked through guidelines with managers
as a way of supporting line managers. CivServ and RetCo also had a talent review board that
further assessed ratings after collation and monitored the progress of talent. However, while
CivServ would only do this monitoring when required, RetCo monitored on a quarterly basis
to support the process. CivServ had appraisal and careers conversations annually while
RetCo had both a mid and end year review which further supported the tracking and
13
monitoring process to promote reliability. RetCo developed those identified as high potential
employees via the tool without further process but in CivServ employees had to apply for
development programs and this only happened if they were nominated by their line manager.
This posed some challenges because being identified as potential did not guarantee
development in a talent scheme. If a person was nominated unsuccessfully, then they had to
wait and reapply, sometimes requiring support from a senior manager.
Nomination Process
Only CivServ and Locgov used the nomination process for identifying talent for the purposes
of development programmes. This was the first stage of talent identification for Locgov as
appraisals were ad hoc in practice. Only those employees who were nominated by line
managers were able to apply for talent schemes and for Locgov, applications required
additional support from line managers. In both cases, there were concerns about favouritism
such that those who did not have good relationships with managers were left out or their
applications not supported. Sometimes line managers were unaware of programmess and so
employees missed out.
In both organisations only those in the targeted grades were approached or received the
notification to apply and this was a barrier to talent identification. In Locgov, there were
cultural challenges as some older managers felt that eligibility should be based on seniority
rather than merit and there was a reluctance to suggest that one employee has more potential
than the other. Also, most people were not aware of the talent scheme due to poor publicity of
the program so talent identified were more from a particular area of the business creating an
imbalanced talent pool. Culturally, there appeared to be a lack of credibility in the talent
scheme in Locgov due to discontinuity of other previous schemes and as a result some line
managers were non responsive when invited to nominate talent from their team. Similarly in
CivServ, some managers did not think the schemes were good enough and so did not put
people forward. As a result of these barriers and challenges, employees felt their eligibility
for development was based on luck and not merit and perceived an unfair system. There did
not appear to be any reference to managing this challenge in CivServ but Locgov took the
applications to an independent review panel involving both external and internal partners to
shortlist candidates.
14
Internal moves
In all cases, lateral moves were a requirement in order to ‘raise one’s profile’ (particularly in
the public sector cases) and to develop versatile skills for applying for future senior positions.
Alhough the prospects were attractive if one was successful, the risks for underperformers
were that they could be removed from the talent pool or labelled unfit for roles and in RetCo
sometimes the move could leave employees earning less and relocating. As a result, most
high potential employees avoided taking these moves, waiting for an appropriate opportunity
which sometimes never came soon enough such that they outlived their cycle on the talent
pool. RetCo managed this challenge through having ‘honest and open’ conversations with
staff and recognises this as a problem. There were no references to tackling this problem in
the public sector.
Resourcing
In CivServ, this challenge was two-fold as the HR business partner complained that
everything had to be done manually on spreadsheet and she had to collate records of over 200
people on her own, being the only person responsible for this task in her department and
secondly she talked about not knowing who was talent across departments as the departments
did not talk to each other. This was well managed in RetCo which had an electronic database
of talent scores which made it easy to identify talent across the organisation and facilitated
assignment of talent to cover roles when required. RetCo called this a‘talent share’ practice
across the various regions.
Retaining Talent/Talent Pool
The two public organizations did did not use talent databases so it was difficult to monitor
talent across the organisation. This was managed to an extent by placing talent in
development schemes which lasted two years but further challenges arose out of this. For
example, false expectations arose as there were no imminent opportunities for promotion, and
sometimes performing stretch assignments under the talent schemes led to people opting out
of the pool as they could not keep pace. To manage this problem, CivServ set up a team to
engage with high potential employees on talent schemes, monitoring their progress and
offering feedback and support. In CivServ, some line managers did not want to develop their
talented employees and would rather give them a promotion so that they could remain in the
department. The head of talent resourcing advised that high potential employees needed to
take ownership of their own development and look for opportunities. RetCo had a proactive
15
measure in place since they had consistent monitoring practice of their talent. They conducted
performance management for underperformers and coaching and mentoring was a cultural
practice and requirement for line managers so that all employees worked under a supportive
environment to promote maximum performance and satisfaction. CivServ introduced an
intervention system whereby talented employees were sent to work in private organisations
for a period of time to develop diverse skills that would make them more competitive. In
Locgov, an early leavers program had been created which offered the large number of older
but more senior managers the option of early retirement and about 1000 staff had accepted
this offer. The OD manager explained that although it was a slow process, they were
seriously working on it and also made it quite clear what the council wanted to do and this
was clearly stated in their internal literature to talent participants.
Fear
In CivServ, there was a fear of departmental underperformance by managers if they released
their talented employees to other departments and also talented employees feared moving to
other departments for fear that bad relationships with new manager may lead to them leaving
the pool. The Head of Talent Resourcing in CivServ stated that this was a challenge which he
had to address and managing it requires managers to have open and honest conversations
with employees as this was one of the main issues amongst line managers. He explained that
his philosophy on talent management is ‘the art of the conversation’ because this was a big
problem in the Civil Service. There was no mention of this challenge in Locgov but in
CivServ this problem was tackled through the biannual career conversation reviews and high
potential employees were made aware of their next career move based on an open and honest
discussion and agreement.
Lack of transparency
In CivServ, high potential employees expressed concerns about the lack of transparency as
sometimes they were not told about their potential rating and didn’t know what their
development plan was unless they asked. One of them described the process of identification
this way, ‘it is done very quietly below the radar’. A high potential employee in Locgov
described herself as being lucky to be on a talent scheme as most of her colleagues were
unaware of the programme. Contrastingly, a high potential employee in RetCo explained that
everyone was given a development plan during the careers conversation which they discussed
regularly on their one-to-one and that further information was online and also promoted
16
during careers days and induction of new employees. It was a transparent system and another
talent scheme participant in the same company explained that the most interesting part of his
experience in RetCo is ‘the honesty’. Managers in RetCo repeatedly emphasised the ethos of
being clear and giving honest feedback.
Poor leadership
The Talent Resourcing manager in CivServ narrated a situation where a high potential
employee wanted to quit her job, because her manager had not communicated a development
plan for her in three years. Although her line manager identified her as high potential and
communicated this to his managers at meetings, he had not had a conversation with her about
her aspirations and development plan. To manage this problem, the Head of Talent identified
the need to, ‘help managers to feel they can have that conversation with somebody they have
classified as high potential’. In Locgov, a team leader complained about his manager refusing
him time to go for development programs stating that ‘there is a disconnect between those at
the top and those in the talent pool’ and how ‘it is important for management to buy into the
status quo as the council has changed but she (his manager) hasn’t’. Although the OD
manager recognised this problem as a cultural issue, she provided no view on how this
challenge was being managed. This issues was not encountered in RetCo due to the
structured and consistent performance and potential assessment systems in place by which
managers were held accountable.
Culture
The OD manager in Locgov explained that a major challenge in implementing the talent
program was, ‘cultural reluctance to suggest one person has potential and somebody else does
not’ as well as the view that ‘you have to have served lots of years in the authority to get to
some position’. In CivServ, the talent resourcing manager talked about the challenge with
line managers to ‘open up their minds’ and the civil service reform agenda was about making
‘leaders’ not ‘managers’. The public sector had a cultural challenge which was not evident in
retail. This was because culturally there was respect for and greater sensitivity to all cadres of
employees. For example, employees were not called ‘staff’ but ‘colleagues’. They also ran an
inclusive and transparent TM practice where all employees were fully engaged and made
aware of development available to them as well as the expected associated leadership
behaviours which were cascaded through a generic leadership framework. All of this
promoted an empowering environment for high performance and opportunities for all.
17
Conclusions
This paper has explored how three organisations constructed views of talent and also
investigated challenges encountered in the processes of identification. Findings revealed that
firstly, all three organisations had talent drivers to which working definitions of talent were
aligned and which created a framework for their talent identification practices. Secondly
constructions were consistent with the three perspectives of talent found in the literature but
while interviewees from the three organisations defined talent under exclusive people and
exclusive positions particularly for succession planning purposes, only the private sector
organisation offered a more inclusive approach that focused on looking for talent across all
levels of employees. The two public sector organisations focused on targeted grades.
CivServ and RetCo used the 9 box grid for talent identification and this enabled a common
language in discussing who their talent was based on definitions of potential and the
criteria/competency mapping provided by the grid. This inferred reliability with the process
of identification in comparison to Locgov which did not and this made it harder to assess the
impact of Locgov’s identification processes, more so as they had only been running their TM
program for two years. Notwithstanding, the definitions of potential and criteria for assessing
potential in CivServ and RetCo were different even though the same tool was used for
identification. RetCo depended on the 9 box grid for identification of talent and also used it
for staff development and progress monitoring through a bi-annual review. Similarly,
CivServ used the tool for identifying potential but the process of development required
further long winded procedures of nomination, application and selection into a talent scheme
which created further challenges for the identification process. As a result, not all employees
identified as talent in CivServ remained in the talent pool if they were not nominated to apply
for talent schemes. These employees had to wait another year for the opportunity to present
again.
We suggest that while the literature is uncomfortable with diverse definitions of talent and
talent management, this study suggests that diverse definitions and operationalisations are
inevitable given the wide of range of strategic drivers and workforce philosophies that occur
in organizations. This is revealed in all three organisations in that they all had talent drivers
which directed talent definition and identification practices. Other challenges to the
identification processes mirrored those found in the literature and though they appeared more
similar than different across the three cases, a remarkable differentiator for RetCo from the
18
other organisations was a defined culture of openness and transparency expressed by all
interviewees in that organisation. This was particularly driven by the more inclusive practice
of looking at talent at all levels by using the same tool for identification up to director level.
Managerial Implications
This study reveals the importance of talent drivers that act as point of reference for an
organisation’s talent practices and which contradicts arguments that organisations adopt
talent as just another fashion imitating their competitors. The use of tools such as the 9 box
grid in addition to appraisal promote consistency and reliability in the definition and
assessment of potential and if utilised efficiently facilitates management and employee
engagement with the careers conversation.
19
Appendix 1: Case Study Organizations and Informants
Case
No. of
Informant Positions
TM Role
Employees
CivServ
105,000
Total
interviews
Senior Manager Talent
Policy owner
Public Sector 200 people
Resourcing
Civil
in talent
Senior HRBP (Deputy
Across Govt.
Service: one
schemes
Director)
Resourcing
of biggest
Mgr. Planning
Line Mgr/ Hipo
bodies
Mgr. Business Strategy
Line Mgr./Hipo
responsible
Deputy Director
for social
Credit Policy Mgr.
and welfare
6
Line Mgr./ Hipo
Line Mgr./Hipo
issues
Locgov
33,000
Org. Dev. Mgr.
Policy Owner
Public
37 Hipos in
HR & Recruitment
Line Mgr./Hipo
Sector.
talent
Mgr.
One of the
schemes
Team Leader
Hipo
largest local
Engineer
Hipo
government
Snr. Performance
Line Mgr./Hipo
bodies in UK
Improvement Mgr.
Project Manager
Line Mgr. /Hipo
Principal Service Mgr.
Line Mgr/Hipo
8
Progression Mgr.
Line Mgr./Hipo
RetCo
180,000
L&D Mgr.
Hipo Dev.
Private
10% of
Talent Advisor
Records Mgt.
Sector.
employees
Payroll Manager
Hipo / Line Mgr.
One of the
classified as
People Service Mgr. &
Line Mgrs
four biggest
talent
Regional Mgr.
retailers in
Team Leader Stores
UK
Graduate Resourcing
7
Hipo
Specialist
Hipo Resourcing
People Services Mgr.
Line Mgr.
20
Appendix 2
9 box Grid
CivServ
Locgov
Definition of
-
-
Potential
-
Aspiration: Being ambitious, motivated and
flexible and committed and passionate and
and gain mastery in situations that are new,
goes the extra mile
different and highly challenging
Value: Which are honesty, integrity and
-
impartiality and objectivity
-
Learning Agility: Can learn new things quickly
Ability: This is setting direction and
engaging people and delivering results
Aspirations: shows strong desire for higher levels
or responsibility and leadership
-
Attitude to commit: Demonstrates high levels of
engagement and ownership in the role and in the
company
Competency
Star performer, high potential, early promise, strong Exceeds on Results/High Potential (Q1), Meets on
Framework
performer, solid contributor, future achiever, good
Results/High Potential (Q2), Exceeds on Results/Medium
performer, satisfactory contributor and
on Potential (Q3), Too New To Rate (Q4), Meets on
underperforming
Results / Medium on Potential (Q5), Exceeds on Results
/Low on Potential(Q6), Below on Results/Medium on
Potential (Q7), Meets on Results/Low on Potential(Q8),
Below on Results, Low on Potential (Q9)
CivServ and RetCo definitions of potential and competency frameworks used for talent identification as provided by the 9 box grid.
21
Appendix 3: Processes of Identification (Targeted grades are highlighted)
CivServ
Pay Grade Structure
AO (Admin Officer)→EO( officer grade) → HO (Higher Officer)SO → (Senior officer) → →Grade 7 (Emerged grade) →Grade 6 (Higher
senior management Grade) → SCVS Grades: SS1 (Deputy Director) →SS2 (Director Level) → SS3 is Director General →Above SCVS
→CEO, Heads of Government departments
Process:
Performance rating via appraisals (annually) → Career Conversations +9 box Potential rating ( measured by potential indicators and competency
framework above)→development within role or across government depending on rating → nomination for Talent Schemes →application by
employee →selection – →assessment centres → start program or Lobbying of perm secretary for ‘high potential talent scheme’.
Locgov
Pay Grade Structure
AO (Admin Officer) entry level →EO (officer grade) →HO (Higher Officer) →SO (Senior officer) →PO( Principal Officer) → Civil Service
grading & above
Process:
Appraisals →Publicise Talent Scheme via email/networks → Nomination by line manager → application for talent scheme → manager reference
→ selection by external & internal panel→ employee notified → start program
22
RetCo
Pay Grade Structure:
Zone D (entry level) →C8 (non-manager) →C10 (middle manager) →Zone B (senior manager) →Zone A (Head of Department) →Director
→Executive Board.
Process:
Performance Appraisal rating & career conversations using 9 box (beginning of year) → data captured electronically for analysis → talent
review and further decision making (who is top talent & who needs to move, those in critical role (succession planning) and need more
motivation and underperformers) → midyear review of performance rating by talent review board → midyear appraisal and career conversation
and above process happens again (using potential definition and competency mapping framework above) → step up program (promotion &
development) or → step on program (development in role) or → performance management for underperformers
23
24
References
Ashton, C. & Morton, L. (2005). Managing talent for competitive advantage: Taking a
systematic approach to talent management. Strategic HR Review, 4, 5, 28–31.
Barlow, L. (2006). Talent development: The new imperative? Development and Learning in
Organisations, 20(3) 6-9.
Beechler, S. & Woodward, I. C. (2009). The global "war for talent. Journal of International
Management, 15, 273-285.
Berke, D., Kossler, M. E. & Wakefield, M. (2009). Building Talent, Developing Effective
Leaders Is as Crucial as Ever. Leadership In Action, 29(1), 3-7.
Barrick, M. R. & Zimmerman, R. D. (2009). Hiring for Retention and Performance. Human
Resource Management, 48(2), 183-206.
Boudreau, J. W. & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, Talent Segmentation, and
Sustainability: A New HR Decision Science Paradigm for a New Strategy Definition. Human
Resource Management, 44(2), 129-136.
Boudreau, J. W. & Ramstad, P. M. (2007). Beyond HR: The new science of human capital,
Boston, Massachusetts, Harvard Business School Press.
Bryan, I., Joyce, L. & Weiss, C. (2006). Making a market in talent. The McKinsey Quarterly,
2, 98-109.
Buckingham, M. and Vosburgh, R.M. (2001), The 21st century human resources function. It’s
the talent, stupid! Human Resource Planning, 24, 4, 17-23,
Burbach, R. & Royle, T. (2010). Talent on demand?: Talent management in the German and
Irish subsidiaries of a US multinational corporation. Personnel Review, 39(4), 414-431.
Byham, W.C., Smith, A.B. & Paese, M.J. (2002). Grow Your Own Leaders: How to Identify,
Develop and Retain Leadership Talent. Financial Times/Prentice Hall, London
Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent Management for the Twenty-First Century. Harvard Business
Review, 86(3), 79-81.
Chowdhury, S. (2002). The talent era: Achieving a high return on talent, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Chuai, X. (2008). Is talent management just 'old wine in new bottles'?- The case of
multinational corporations in Beijing, Teeside University, Teeside.
CIPD (2006). Reflections on talent management, Change Agenda, London: CIPD.
CIPD (2007). Talent: Strategy, mangement, measurement, London: CIPD.
CIPD (2012). Resourcing & Talent Planning Survey Report. London: CIPD
25
Collings, D. J. & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic Talent Management: A review and research
agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 304-313.
Collings, D. C., Scullion, H. & Vaiman, V. (2011). European perspectives on talent
management. European Journal of International Management 5(5), 453-462.
Corporate Leadership Council (2003). High impact succession management. Available at:
www.corporateleadeshipcouncil.com.
Curtis, S., Gesler, W., Smith, G. & Washburn, S. (2000). Approaches to sampling and case
selection in qualitative research: examples in the geography of health. Social Science
Medicine, 50, 7-8, 1001-1014.
Dell, D. & Hickey, J. (2002). Sustaining the Talent Quest: Getting and Keeping the Best
People in Volatile Times, Research Report 1318, The Conference Board.
Dries, N., Pepermans, R., & Carlier, O. (2008). Career success: Constructing a multi
dimensional model. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 73, 253-267.
Dries, N., Vantilborgh, T. & Pepermans, R. (2012). The role of learning agility and career
variety in the identification and development of high potential employees. Personnel Review,
41(3), 340-358.
Dries, N. (2013). The Psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda.
Human Resource Management Review, 23, 272-285.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Reseaarch. The Academy of
Management Review, 14, 532-550.
Gagne, F. (2000). Understanding the complet choreography of talent development theought
DMGT-based analysis. In, Heller, K.A., Monks, F.J., Subotnik, R.F., and Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.)
International Book of Giftedness and Talent, Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Garavan T. N., Carbery, R. & Rock, A. (2011). Mapping talent development: definition,
scope and architecture. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(1), 5-24.
Garrow, V.G. & Hirsh, W. (2008). Talent Management: issues of focus and fit. Public
Personnel Management, 37, 4, 389-402
Hartmann, E., Feisel, E. & Schober, H. (2010). Talent Management of western MNCs in
China: Balancing global integration and local responsiveness. Journal of World Business, 45,
169 – 178.
Hughes, J. C. & Rog, E. (2008). Talent Management A strategy for improving employee
recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality organisations. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20, 743-757.
Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E. & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical and Strategic Human
Resource Management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 40, 171-188.
Huselid, M. A., Beatty, R. W. & Becker, B. E. (2005). A players or A positions? The
strategic logic of workforce management,. Harvard Business Review, 83(12), 110-117.
26
Iles, P., Chuai, X., & Preece, D. (2010). Talent Management and HRM in Multinational
companies in Beijing: Definitions, differences and drivers. Journal of World Business, 46(2),
179-189.
Iles, P. (2013). Commentary on "The meaning of 'talent' in the world of work". Human
Resource Management Review , 301-304.
Ingham, J. (2006). Closing the talent management gap: Harnessing your employees’ talent to
deliver optimum business performance, Strategic HR Review, 5(3), pp 20-23.
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1995). Understanding human resource management in the
context of organizations and their environment, Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 237−264.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E. & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for
organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource
Management Review, 21, 243-255.
Lepak, D. P. & Snell, S.A. (2002). Examining the Human Resource Architecture: The
Relationships among Human Capital, Employment and Human Resource Configurations.
Journal of Management, 28 (4) 517-543.
McCall, M.W. Jr (1998). High Flyers: Developing the Next Generation of Leaders. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Makelea, K., Bjorkman, I. & Ehrnrooth, M. (2010). How do MNCs establish their talent
pools? Influences on individuals' likelihood of being labelled as talent. Journal of World
Business, 45, 134-142.
McCartney, C. & Garrow, V. (2006). The Talent Management Journey, Roffey Park Institute,
Horsham.
McCauley, C. & Wakefield, M. (2006). Talent Management in the 21st Century. Journal for
Quality and Participation, 29(4), 4-7.
McDonnell, A., Lamare, R., Gunnigle, P. & Lavelle, J. (2010). Developing tomorrow’s
leaders - Evidence of global talent management in multinational enterprises. Journal of
World Business, 45, 150-160.
McDonnell, A. (2011). Still Fighting the "War for Talent"? Bridging the Science Versus
Practice Gap. Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 169 -173.
Mellahi, K. & Collings, D. G. (2010). The barriers to effective global talent management:
The example of corporate elites in MNEs. The Journal of World Business, 45, 143-149.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H. & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Morton, I. (2004). Integrated and Integrative Talent Management: A Strategic HR
Framework. Research Report R-1345-04-RR. Conference Board, New York, NY.
27
Morton, I. (2005). Talent Management Value Imperatives: Strategies for Successful
Execution. Research Report R-1360-05-RR. Conference Board, New York, NY.
Nottingham Business School (2007). Talent: Strategy, Management and
Measurement, London: CIPD.
Pepe, M. E. (2007). The strategic importance of talent management at the Yale New Haven
Health System, Organisational Development Journal, 25, 2, Summer, 207-211.
Pichler, S. (2012). The Social Context of Performance Appraisal and Appraisal Reactions: A
Meta-Analysis. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 709-732.
Ruderman, M. N. & Ohlott, P. J. (1990). Traps & pitfalls in the judgement of executive
potential. Greensborough N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership, 141, 1-34.
Schuler, R. S. & Jackson, S. E. (1999). Strategic Human Resource Management, Oxford,
Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Silzer, R. (2010). Identifying and assessing high-potential talent: Current organisational
practices. In R. Silzer & B. E. Dowell (Eds.), Strategy-driven talent management: A
leadership imperative (pp. 213-280). San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass.
Slan-Jerusalim, R. & Hausdorf, P. A. (2007). Managers’ justice perceptions of high potential
identification practices. Journal of Management Development, 26(10), 933 - 950.
Smart, B. D. (1999). Topgrading: How leading companies win by hiring, coaching, and
keeping the best people. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall Press.
Srivastava P. & Bhatnagar, J. (2007). Talent acquisition due diligence leading to high
employee engagement: case of Motorolla India MDB. Industrial and Commercial Training,
40(5), 253 - 260.
Stahl, G. K., Bjorkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S. S., Paauwe, J. & Stiles, P. (2007). Global
talent management: How leading multinational build and sustain their talent pipeline.
INSEAD faculty and research working papers.
Swailes, S., Downs, Y. & Orr, K. (2014). Conceptualising inclusive talent management:
potential, possibilities and practicalities. Human Resource Development International, 17 (5).
Tansley, C., Harris, L., Stewart, J. & Turner, P. (2007). Talent Management: Strategies,
Policies and Practices, London.
Tansley, C. (2011). What do we mean by the term “talent” in talent management? Industrial
and Commercial Training, 43(5), 266-274.
Tansley, C., Kirk, S. & Tietze, S. (2013). The Currency of talent management - A reply to
"talent mangment and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach". Human
Resource Management Review , 337-340.
Thorne, K. & Pellant, A. (2006). The Essential Guide to Managing Talent: How Top
Companies Recruit, Train and Retain the Best Employees. London: Kogan Page.
28
Vaiman, V., Scullion, H. & Collings, D. (2012). Talent management decision making.
Management Decision, 50(5), 925-941.
Walker, J. W. & Larocco, J. M. (2002). Talent pools: The best and the rest. Human Resource
Planning, 25(3), 12−14.
Wright, P. M. & McMahan, G. C. (1999). Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic Human
Resource Management. In, Schuler, R. S. & Jackson, S. E. (Eds.) Strategic Human Resource
Management, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Yarnall, J. (2008). Strategic Career Management: Developing Your Talent, Elsevier, Oxford.
Yarnall, J. (2009). Talent Pools. People Management, 9, 32.
Yarnall, J. (2011). Maximising the effectiveness of talent pools: a review of case study
literature. Leadership & Organisational Development Journal, 32, 510-526.
29