Talent Management: Where to look for improving talent utilization opportunities


An article (Doing more with less has a price – Canada.com) in the Vancouver Sun 20 Feb., 2012 titled “Doing more with less has a price” by Bruce Johnstone raises a number of significant talent management (TM) issues:

  • Just focussing on “squeezing” more effort out of people has limited benefits to achieving organizational success.
  • We should focus more on helping people work more effectively and efficiently.
  • Focusing just on motivation has limited benefits.
  • Frustration is the “silent epidemic” that saps organizations of their best employees and is a silent killer of productivity and motivation.

I have touched on these points in one form or other in previous posts some of these are: Talent Management: How Not to do Performance ManagementTalent Management: Revisiting Workforce EngagementTalent Management: Is Employee Morale Irrelevant?Performance Management: Push or Pull Incentives, which do you rely on?Talent Management: Too Much Great Performance?Talent management: Managing less, getting more out of your Critical talent?Talent Management: Knowing how to get a “Better Best” from your Talent in the FutureTalent Management: Balancing Performance Pressures.

A long time ago, I believe that I read that Peter Drucker said: “It is the role of leadership to get extraordinary results out of ordinary people”. This quote (whomever said it first) is key to this article’s thesis. The article touches on the opinion that organizations have reservoirs of untapped talent within their walls right now in the fourth point above.

We often mistake that the opposite of “love” is “hate” it is not, rather it is indifference. Hate is felt by someone who cares but is deeply hurt by some circumstance. The hater still cares. It is the person in the organization who has given up that is the scary circumstance. At best we get compliance and enough effort/contribution to just get by.

So when I read about “frustration”, which are we looking at: the indifferent or the angered? The strategies for dealing with each situation is different.

Dealing with anger sourced frustration involves some form of restitution, patience and trust building. Dealing with indifference is much harder. In one sense you have to get the indifferent back into the emotional feeling zone first before you can make any further progress.

The role of leadership and how that leadership chooses to manage people (through its preferred forms of control, support in doing good [let alone great] work, sense of fairness in recognizing effort and contribution, whether it sees people as people or inanimate inputs, etc.) is what makes the difference. Organizations enable performance by how they design roles, provide applicable support (involves providing what’s needed and removing barriers to success). People in roles I believe are fundamentally responsible for their own motivation this is why they can move to anger, frustration, engagement, etc.

I have pointed out to my clients how their own behaviours (too many priorities, using contrived budgets to limit useful support, interrupting, etc.) have made it very difficult for their direct/indirect reports to perform well.

That talent is poorly utilized is squarely a leadership commentary on their own performance. Leaders/managers are ultimately responsible for the utilization of all resources they gather. I believe the argument that we need to focus on employee engagement is blaming the wrong performer target. There is an old adage in labour relations: “You get the union relationships you deserve”. I suggest an organization’s leaders get the level of engagement they deserve too. This is why I appreciate the article’s suggestion that we have to focus on “enablement” which is key role of leadership.

Advertisements

About 123stilllearning456

As a management consultant I am passionately interested in talent management and risk/uncertainty issues. In the area of talent management I propose that we seek strategies that look beyond the staffing/employee centric frames of reference. I have been frustrated at the "closing down on possibilities" by these more conventional staffing/employee centric approaches. I have been impressed where people have found systematic solutions to their talent management issues by going beyond the conventional approaches. In the area of risk and uncertainty, I am interested in making this topic relevant to more normal decision making situations. My conceptual foundation is to use the micro-economist's fixed/variable cost theme. I also think it is important to look at these issues for people through their emotional and psychological lens. As a premise I think risk and uncertainty only exist where there is a person who cares about possible events and its consequences. Hence, risk and uncertainty are social based concepts (no sentience, no risk and uncertainty). A major influence on my thinking in this area is Nassim Taleb of "Black Swan" fame. This BLOG provides me with an opportunity to express my thoughts on topics that interest me. As this is an online diary, content is more important to me than polish. I apologize if this distracts from readers' enjoyment and learning. Still I find this a useful way to live up to my namesake, learn more from others and hopefully provoke creative thoughts and ideas in others.
This entry was posted in Decison Making, Performance Management, Risk & Uncertainty, Strategy, Talent Manangement, Values and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s