Comments

Val,

I agree with your main point that executives worry too much about hiring the "right" talent ("if only we could hire X or Y") versus taking advantage of the one they already have (after all, most people currently in an organization were hired because they were "right" at one point).

A way of reframing the question could be "What are we doing (as an organization) that is making difficult for people to use their potential fully?" Think of complicated systems that get in the way, mundane assignments that have to be done because we've always done them, or the limited range of decisions that people can make without having to ask for permission.

In the end, it is a matter of culture AND systems AND the mission; they all need to work together to really engage employees. Another way of saying this is, make the work interesting, get obstacles out of the way and having the right talent (more or less) takes care of itself.

Posted by Hugo Stevens at February 15, 2008 3:15 PM

A great topic Val - thanks for raising this. I worked in healthcare for a million years and was always surprised how we somehow managed to create systems and processes that actually prevented people using the talents they have. In a nutshell there is too much supervision, too much checking people’s work, too much control, too little freedom and definitely too little trust. You ask - how does your organization retain the right people? If the organisation really wants to retain its talented people – the leaders create a culture of the opposites i.e. less supervision, less checking, less control and more trust. I think the best leaders in business today are actually coaches and they recognise the individuality of every employee. The greatest football (soccer) coaches like Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United intuitively recognise that some of the most talented players in the team will need an ‘arm round the shoulder approach’ while others need a ‘kick up the backside approach.’ I see absolutely no difference in business. I am not suggesting anarchy here. The best coaches like Sir Alex clearly spell out the boundaries, the lines you do not cross. Trust people - treat people as adults and you will mostly (I think aways) get adult behaviour. Treat people like children and don’t be surprised with childish reactions. So in summary – treat everyone as an individual; acknowledge, recognise and celebrate their talent; support them; let them just get on with their job with as little interference as possible; but be there when they need you. That is my two pennyworth. Have a great weekend!

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 15, 2008 4:41 PM

Yes, one of my bosses had a "Woo, then poo" approach to new hires. He hired the best people with "wine and roses", but then felt he had to show them who was boss by poo-ing on them.

Posted by Mike L. at February 15, 2008 6:35 PM

"Hiring the best is step one, retaining the best is step two."

I'd suggest that step 2 is allowing them to flourish. Retention follows.

Posted by Mark JF at February 15, 2008 6:46 PM

Mark JF-

I would add "Helping them flourish."

I also admit that the first step in that is allowing them to flourish.

Posted by s g at February 15, 2008 7:10 PM

A work environment where both senior management and talent build and sustain the desired culture is ideal. While senior management sets the goals and objectives, talent executes them and sustains the culture. This is a joint effort where senior management provides the architecture, tools, and necessary support and talent brings the creativity, experience and ambition to get the job done.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 15, 2008 8:19 PM

from the Nov 26/07 issue of Maclean's magazine-

'For now, says Linda Duxbury, a Carleton University professor who has conducted three separate studies of working conditions inside the RCMP, the entire institution is being propped up by the near-pathological dedication of officers who've invested their lives in it.'

also-

'Internal RCMP documents obtained by Maclean's show that one in eight members are now receiving a disabiiity payment, in many cases in addition to their regular salaries. And it's not simply the physical nature of the job. In 2006, 30 per cent of all new disability pensions were granted because of psychological injury. Many were from exposure to predictable traumas- violent crimes, car accidents, shootings. But a growing proportion, notes the document, are from "cumulative and prolonged stress" at work, exacerbated by "cultural factors, such as low supervisor and co-worker support."'

'Woo then poo' is a very expensive way to do business.

Posted by Lois Gory at February 15, 2008 8:32 PM

Great topic!
I'm a 22 year veteran of my company.
In my job, I track over 260 people who were (or still are) young, over-achievers. They qualify for tracking because they were selected to participate in an internal and/or external training program. My list goes back to 1999. I see them before they become professionals. I act as their "agent," by not just talking about the skills sets needed and the familiarity of the tools and technology (important to be sure), but the psychology of working in our industry. And, my years of experience means I have "been there" as well as knowing the system where we work and can identify other "coaches" who will patiently groom our next generation.
This is not in my job description. I can do the things in my job description AND exceed expectations in my performance goals. Feh! What drives me is that I recognize that younger people need to talk and consult with someone who has been there. If they get bored, frustrated, angry, curious, confused, desperate or if they feel good about where they are, win an award, get acknowledged in any way, they tell me about it. If they need to vent, we walk down the street and get a cup of coffee. They vent, they finish, they go back to work.
This is how we keep people. And, if they want to leave HQ because they don't like our city or need to be nearer to family, go back to school or whatever, I talk to them about working in a smaller, satellite office. This works too.
It's sometimes 7 days a week, but I wouldn't trade if for anything. Did I say mentoring was not in my job description?
This is how companies can keep people. Somebody (some people) within a company needs to step up and be a positive influence on the people who will follow. The company needs to sanction this and provide support to this person or individuals.
I'd bet the "Best Companies To Work For" have this kind of thing.
Did I say it's not in my job description?

"Find things in your industry that are 'just not done,' then go ahead and do them anyway." - Seth Godin.

Posted by nextgenradio at February 15, 2008 8:53 PM

Hiring and keeping the right talent is necessary, but the talent has a role in being kept, a role in his or her own sustainability. It's not all on senior management to sustain the talent. But senior management has to intiate a thriving culture of high energy, fairness, comparable compensation, and openness where risk-taking is encouraged; talent then will more likely execute well and sustain a culture that sustains them. This kind of sustaining is both supportive and lasting. Given the opportunity in this kind of work environment, senior management will find inventive ways to lead and talent will create ways to execute well.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 15, 2008 9:15 PM

The idea that senior management should keep the right talent depends also on the ambition and efforts of the talent. Senior management should not turn flips to keep talent, but rather provide the architecture, tools, support, respect and comparable compensation that would enable talent to be kept. Talent in return will appreciate the opportunity to use his or her skills and returns the support with excellent execution. Sustainability is reciprocal. This is how desirable culture is built and sustained.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 15, 2008 9:32 PM

Louis Gory...thank you for reminding us that prolonged stress affects every cell in our bodies and that it costs BIG! Effective leadership and work-life initiatives for both men and women are beneficial for health AND wealth. Nextgenaradio...thank you so much for the work you do and the inspiration you give. I'm inspired to do even more.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 15, 2008 10:54 PM

"Hiring the best is step one, retaining the best is step two."
A suggestion for step three- feed passion, develop potential and help them flourish so that when the best do move on they are "better best" than they were when they were first hired. In this manner, organizations are truly collaborating and participating in the new paradigm shift of a new world of work 2.0 !

Posted by Annelies Hoogland at February 16, 2008 1:21 AM

Developing and retaining a "world class" workforce should be every organization's top priority and greatest strategic resource. I believe that we really have no clue as to how much our retention policies and practices will have to shift to deal the reality of the Boomers staying in the workforce longer due to labor shortages and the arrival of the millenials....a topic in and of itself. It will be interesting to see how the "team" concept will play with a large segment of the workforce seemingly focused only on the "me"(based on what I've read). If you want to attract and retain the best, you have to pay and lead them better than the rest....a reality few grasp now. I also see the same "shift" coming with our "external" consumer customers as well. Loyalty to an employer or brand? It will be intersting indeed.....

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 16, 2008 1:36 AM

I wonder if the beauty of Nextgenradio's comments can only be fostered in a work environment where as Dave Wheeler points out is possible only if talent is paid and better lead than the rest? The beauty of Nextgenradio's comments stem from a deep personal sense of responsibility that goes beyond policy. Here is someone who has a vested interest and great love for people. How do you train this? By role-modelling it? Our culture in general seems be becoming less focused on the other and more focused on me. But I sincerely believe that extending ourselves beyond ourselves satisfies and reproduces in the work environment and culture en masse in ways that policy alone cannot reach.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 16, 2008 4:36 AM

Extending ourselves beyond ourselves is addictive when culture supports the importance of the whole by comparably compensating and leading talent in creating BOTH work AND ways of being that matter not only to the company, but to the culture in general, to society as a whole. Companies are microcosmos of the world. How we do what we do when we do it becomes even more important when we realize that our daily actions matter. They affect the whole, world-wide. Practice "random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty." Go beyond yourself. There is such beauty there.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 16, 2008 5:21 AM

All great comments. More and more, I am coming to believe an important issue that gets overlooked is filtering out the wrong talent before it gets in. An organization needs to clearly define and communicate its purpose and vision, then go after folks who have passion for that purpose. The heck with the resume and how many letters you have after your name (ok, overstated), first question is why do you want to be part of the org and how is our purpose personally important to you. Talent never shines unless it is absolutely dedicated and committed to a goal; that brings the passion, the discipline, the practice, and the motivation to master one's chosen craft.

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 16, 2008 8:12 AM

All great comments. More and more, I am coming to believe an important issue that gets overlooked is filtering out the wrong talent before it gets in. An organization needs to clearly define and communicate its purpose and vision, then go after folks who have passion for that purpose. The heck with the resume and how many letters you have after your name (ok, overstated), first question is why do you want to be part of the org and how is our purpose personally important to you. Talent never shines unless it is absolutely dedicated and committed to a goal; that brings the passion, the discipline, the practice, and the motivation to master one's chosen craft.

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 16, 2008 8:12 AM

Thank you Ms. Ellis for your kind words.

I work with idealists (non-profit) so I'm fortunate that my acts of kindness are not so random. At least on the surface.
Idealism can get in the way of market realities and making quick, strategic decisions. Idealism is a very emotional thing. To keep it and stay grounded in reality is hard at times and certainly not done everyday.

"How do you teach this?"

My Dad has a Ph.D. and just retired from 40 years of teaching. Two of my Uncles (his brothers) have PhD's as well. Two of my Aunt's (My Dad's sisters) taught in public schools in New Orleans and Detroit for 30+ years each and have recently retired.

My "teaching" is a family disease :)

"One person can't do everything, but everyone can do something."

Posted by nextgenradio at February 16, 2008 10:01 AM

Mike - I wholeheatedly agree! Nextgenradio - Keep it up! Lineage and pedigree is one thing; effort and fortitude, coupled with wisdom and understanding, is quite another. Thank you for the work you do. It matters.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 16, 2008 10:55 AM

I think that idealism is the canary in the mine of corporate health.

Scientific American Mind (Feb/Mar08) has an interesting article comparing Enron's change from a culture of transparency and accountability to one of bullying and deceit with Google's egalitarian approach. Which system gets your best work? Or your investment dollars?

If the idealists are sliding out the back door (or worse, under the desks sucking their paws) it'll be harder to drag the talent in the front door, when there are so many other inviting doors in the corporate world.

Nextgenradio, your 'non job description' actions will be remembered and copied long after the job itself is reshaped or obsolete.

Posted by Lois Gory at February 16, 2008 11:39 AM

Val:

First, I think this topic is a bit disingenuous. I've been working since 1979, and even during economic downturns, I can't think of any time when business leaders were not concerned with these topics!

Second, it's the wrong question. Too many (non-HR) executives think that hiring as a first resort is the answer to their primary talent problems.

buy cheap viagra online from india The right question is, "What is your firm doing to address your talent needs over the next 5 years?" Of course, the answer is not going to be easily written about, so biz press probably would not phrase it that way. But I bet Tom would!!!

Posted by Dave at February 16, 2008 12:06 PM

Dave - first, please help me with the "disingeniuous bit." The quick brilliant comments posted defies your descriptive - Mr. Dave, no last name...sir. Secondly, please provide us with a sufficient answer to your more astute poignant question answerable only by THE MAN, TP (no disrespect implied.) Please, do elaborate.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 16, 2008 1:06 PM

Dave,

The topic on talent is neverending and as someone in the blog pointed out, "it takes two," the leaders and the talent to create and sustain the right culture.

The question you raise in regards to what firms are doing to address talent needs over the next five years in a good one. It is not a question that I think businesses will side-step or business press will side-step. That is one reason why we see so much information now about the different generations as people (organizations) are trying to figure out what is important to the talent.

There are a lot of organizations that realize within five years (some less), they will have a shortage of leaders, and need to start developing the current talent to fill the gap.

viagra sales

Identifying the needs of the talent is all of part of retaining talent, which is the issue that I am raising.

I don't think the topic is disingenuous, I believe that people can approach the topic in a disingenuous manner. You have been in the workplace for several year, I am sure somewhere along the way, you may have heard talent being "talked up," but in reality the words and actions haven't been in alignment.

I am glad to hear the dialogue on this subject!

Valarie

Posted by Valarie Willis at February 16, 2008 4:27 PM

Mike,

I would like to add to your comment of filtering out during the interview process. The other important filter is around values. How do my values align with the organizational values? Sometimes you have bright talented people just in the wrong organization. Getting clear on value congruency before getting hired is important.

Posted by Valarie Willis at February 16, 2008 4:30 PM

Thanks Judith,

Great point about providing the right architecture, tools and support!

Valarie

Posted by Valarie Willis at February 16, 2008 4:32 PM

Now if we can only hold the same standards for management and leadership perhaps businesses will be more successful.

Posted by Business Loans at February 16, 2008 5:27 PM

This is one area where the type of business/organization will dictate how the whole "attract and retain" process is desined and executed. Mine is communications/Call Center where the positions are "entry level", the demographics heavily single parent, positions are "bargained" and non-competative in a right to work state, in a city where competition for this type of worker is keen given the large number of call centers in our immediate area. Much of our management bemoans the fact that we don't attract the right kind of people....we want "professionals". This was the basis for my previous comment regarding keeping these types of folks requires paying/leading them as professionals....something we have not shown an inclination to do. We interview those who apply and need to do a much better job of retaining those we have. One however cannot "fix" a problem or "exploit" an opportunity to get better until you acknowledge you have a problem or opportunity to fix or exploit. I personally define my team mates as my customers (they use the product or service my job produces) and use the same basic tools and principles we talk of when building relationships with our "external" consumer customers....as do a few others...and this group has higher retention rates than our peers. We have to sell them on the W.I.I.F.M.....(what's in it for me) and those who do leave do so due to rigidly inflexible attendance policies based on shift times not personal circumstances and low pay or lack of growth and progression opportunities. Easily fixable. I don't know where the roadblock/obstruction is for sure, but I suspect in our case it's more regional than corporate. Corporate can fix this the same way we do on the frontline. Inspect what you expect.....make folks accountable. Frontliners produce records profits but only "managers" get annual bonuses. Tie that bonus to turnover and employee retention and place the greatest weight on this when computing the bonus.....although spreading some of the $$$$$$$$ would help even more. It's not the science of rockets to be sure!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 16, 2008 5:30 PM

DAVE! Was that you incognito? The "Mr. Dave, no last name...Sir?" No! :-) Anyway, I completely agree with you on annual bonuses. Spread the love!

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 16, 2008 6:22 PM

What a great point Dave makes. Why is it that the big bonuses are paid to managers and not to front line employees?

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 16, 2008 6:42 PM

Wow... Valarie! What a beautiful point about value congruency. This is useful for both the interviewer and the interviewee! In my earlier days it would have saved me from many headaches, though I survived with few permanent damages. (I think my head's OK.) But there were some years early where I wondered, " what's wrong you?" I was most definitely in the wrong organizations. But I am the better for having survived them. Thank you for your words. They matter.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 16, 2008 6:53 PM

No Ma'am.....I am not Dave incognito...I can't even spell "disingenuous". I do agree with Dave's point on looking at talent/needs 5 years out...perhaps even a much shorter cycle would be needed since it is a critical issue....

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 16, 2008 9:04 PM

Too funny, Dave. Regarding critical talent issues, Valarie, Mike et al addressed them beautifully. The "Training" article and this discussion alone attest to the fact that talent is increasingly becoming a greater concern. But where there is concern opportunity awaits.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 16, 2008 10:06 PM

Has anyone read the The McKinsey Quarterly article on "Making Talent a Strategic Priority"

I posted thoughts here !!
http://slashpd.blogspot.com/2008/02/talent-management-hr.html

Posted by /pd at February 17, 2008 10:12 AM

Re Dave and Dave Wheeler's comment on 5 years out and shorter than 5 years out...

I think that this issue is important enough that it needs to be looked at as an always important continium: from tomorrow through 5 years, ten years from now, and into the future. It is a critical issue at ALL time frames.

Thanks to all for pushing this (and me)!!!

Posted by s g at February 17, 2008 1:43 PM

great article.

Posted by Charles Foster at February 17, 2008 1:44 PM

You bet Valarie...add values to the list. I am reminded about what John Chambers said, "hire for character, train for skills"

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 17, 2008 1:45 PM

Well, this post certainly struck a nerve, judging by the number of comments! And so it should.

Organisations are generally pretty bad at hiring and even worse at developing culture (or brand) - and that's what we are talking about here.

I few years ago I created an end-to-end approach to marketing that integrated the brand development stuff, that you suggest is an HR function, into a single strategy, because internal and external marketing are two sides of the same coin.

We invest fortunes on external marketing communcations that make brand promises to consumers, but surprisingly few organisations really focus on delivering their promise, which is not just inefficient it is very expensive indeed - that's where internal marketing comes in.

My Full Effect Marketing approach desn't treat the internal marketing as a separate function - its just a continuation of the same process that starts with creating a Brand Model, which includes a "promise" and then sets about making sure that everyone in the organisation is committed to playing their part in delvering that promise.

All of this though is only possible when business understands that every organisation is a marketing organisation and every function in every organisation has a marketing role to play. That being the case, organisations have to be built around their brands and marketing has to be in the driving seat and that means managing processes, like internal marketing, that in the past have been considered the remit of HR people.

Posted by Phil Darby at February 18, 2008 5:53 AM

talent is the key! so true valarie. bottom line, without your talent you have no business. in my experience, talent is often looked at like a cost center and therefore is treated as such. i also think it is important for companies to practice what they preach...talent retention and attrition would be alot easier for certain companies if they remained true to their values. i have had a number of jobs where i discovered their value statements were all fluff once i was on the inside. definitely a tricky issue and not one i see being solved any time soon!

Posted by rachel at February 18, 2008 9:31 AM

Well i believe what the companies not surviveing without workers and your human capitol talent abillity skill human resourse is a strategic department they need to select the best workers to help the company to obtain succesful now to to keep workes in companies is necessary market's income benefits good environment work and often what workers had some trouble what low productive look to help his the worker understand what is important for a company the company could to keep worker more satisfect well i believe...

Posted by JOSE GILBERTO at February 18, 2008 2:20 PM

Challenges shape talent, and even create it.

http://ideaburger.blogspot.com/2008/02/challenges-shape-talent.html

Jay, from Bangalore

Posted by Jayakumar Hariharan at February 20, 2008 7:48 AM

Great post. A good beginning would be to relook at labels. A hospital is not called Body Garage, I wonder why HR should be called HR (Seth Godin recommends 'Talent'). Terms like 'retention' and 'hiring' are probably ok in meeting rooms, but putting those terms on business cards (Manager-Hiring) makes an organisation look like an ice-factory.

PS: I have nothing against ice-factories :)

Posted by Subir Ghosh at February 26, 2008 12:46 AM

The prescription to make a true talent as per the present standards is diverse. Within the ten most important geniuses, there is Churchill again. He is the (political) statesman # 1, from da Vinci’s times to the current moment. In one book (Last Lion), it is attributed to Churchill saying that a New Yorker –back then–transferred him some methodology to capture geniality.

A great deal of schooling is crucial. A great deal of self-schooling is even more vital. Being experienced in different tenures and with different industries and with different clients helps beyond belief.

Study/researching cross-reference (across the perspective of omniscience) helps even more. Seeking mentors and tutors helps. Get trained/indoctrinated in various fields does so too. Hiring consultants for your personal, individual induction/orientation add much.

Got it have an open mind with a gusto for multidimensionality and cross-functionality, harnessing and remembering useful knowledge all over, regardless of the context. I have worked on these and published some “success metaphors” in the Web, both text and video. Want it? Google it!

Learning different (even opposed) methodologies renders the combined advantages of all of the latter into a own, unique multi-approach of yours.
Most of these ideas can be marshaled concurrently.

Posted by Andres Agostini at February 29, 2008 5:11 PM