Gallery

Do I need to be named as talent when I really am a talent?


Let me state it clearly from the onset: I am not against talent management per se! I feel the urge to remove any misunderstandings, because I am pretty sure that some among you will feel frustrated by what will follow soon.
Talent management has been a successful story if we judge it by the number of companies that created new roles from scratch and designed complex (and expensive) programs to nurture their talents. Practitioners in the business consulting industry, and academics profited as well from the hype around talent. Talents themselves, or presumed-to-be-talents, enjoyed the wealthiness of dozens of incentives devised for their happiness, and retention. So, what is the reason for tearing all this apart? Why should I cry wolf, instead of reinforcing the idea and maybe presenting myself as a talent management fan or supplier?
Well, a number of reasons could be find in the existing literature that departs from the happy choir and provides a more sound description of what is in it, really. Let me mention the absence of clear definitions of what talents are, the time inconsistency of talent mapping, the scant evidence of any true relation to performance (yep, there’s the McKinsey folks, with the talent war, you might argue, but surprisingly the study is so flawed, it would not be worth a dim), need anything more?
Still, companies in hundreds ran to prepare for the war, like crazy lemmings. True, we know there are people out there who you really sense to be outstanding, and I can understand that any company might like them to join, but trading that for a talent management system is not an answer.
Outstanding people do not need companies to take care of them, specifically because they are outstanding, or talents if you prefer. They work their ways through the ranks by virtue of their own ability, not because we set them on a faster route. Actually, they leave if they sense there are barriers to the accomplishment of what they are in for, more than for lack of one-to-one attention. Believe it or not, they do not need HR managers or Talent managers to take care of themselves. We should treat them as if they were start-ups, made out of a single person:
1.Remove obstacles: let them confront with peers and bosses, they are not afraid of that, but be sure that they have a way out of managers devoid of any insight;
2.Do not reward stupidity: they might get along rather well even if you do not cover them with gold, but if they sense the organization is rewarding stupidity (i.e. lack of innovation, loyalty or proneness to platitude) they will get mad at you and leave;
3.Let them put several bets at a time and accept a reasonable degree of failure: they are outstanding, but they are human as well, therefore they might run so many more projects at a time, but they still can miss some of the details, and it is useful for them, learning from failure.
Before firing your talent manager, though, remember that he might have gained the Holy Grail while attempting to target talents. Do not know what I mean? Talent managers in HR are most of the time alone in the perspective of figuring out how to align all HR practices. If you abandon talent management programs, you might find yourself in the capacity of running a tightly coupled set of HR practices and align them to the needs of your employees. So give it a try.

organization, sensemaking, social_media

Il social re-engineering


Il social re-engineering è il modo con il quale definisco la prossima evoluzione dei processi di organizzazione del lavoro e di gestione delle risorse umane. Il paradigma sul quale abbiamo lavorato per anni ha raggiunto la sua parabola discendente, anche se si è cercato di rivitalizzarlo con approcci discutibili come quello del talent management che si stanno rivelando poco soddisfacenti per tanti motivi: le persone di talento non richiedono di essere gestite, si gestiscono da sole; il vero problema sono gli essential contributori dei quali ci siamo dimenticati ecc.

Il social re-engineering è “the next big thing” del management ed è il ripensamento strategico delle imprese a partire dalle tecnologie di social media, meglio ancora a partire dal nuovo modello di società liquida in cui viviamo. Abbandona l’idea del controllo per abbracciare quella della cooperazione come vera base del business (come sosteneva già negli anni ’30 del secolo scorso Chester Barnard!) e la porta alle sue conseguenze migliori, disegnando imprese più aperte e innovative, luoghi di lavoro più diffusi e linkati, una società pienamente consapevole del nuovo.

Il social re-engineering ha alcuni punti in comune con il Business Process re-engineering degli anni ’90:

  1. l’idea di ripensare integralmente processi e attività a partire dal loro valore
  2. l’impatto della tecnologia e delle metriche
  3. la caratteristica di tecnica disrupting rispetto alle pratiche tradizionali di consulenza.

Ma si distingue da adesso per alcune specificità che sono:

  1. la centralità delle persone che sono i veri attori del cambiamento e dell’innovazione
  2. l’enfasi sulla sperimentazione e sulle logiche evolutive ed evoluzioniste del cambiamento
  3. la centralità dell’organizzazione rispetto ai consulenti.

Questa transizione richiede manager coraggiosi e nuove figure di supporto, i tecnologi, ma soprattutto dei corporate sensemaker che comprendano la vera natura dell’organizzazione e la aiutino a trasofrmarsi.

sensemaking, social_media

Recruiters Change Employee-Hunting Tactics – WSJ.com


La pressione sui processi di selezione è crescente. Il vero problema è che le tecnologie facilitano l’accesso, ma non hanno migliorato le nostre capacità di governo dei processi di recruitment. Anche qui si deve pensare ad un vero e proprio social re-engineering

Recruiters Change Employee-Hunting Tactics – WSJ.com.