Chapter 8

Managing Talent

Kevin Oakes, Holly Tompson, and Lorrie Lykins

In This Chapter

• The importance of defining talent management.
• The most common elements of talent management integration.
• The state of succession planning in corporations.
• Ownership and responsibility for talent management success.
• Best practices in human capital measurement.
• The role of technology in effective talent management.

 

Despite its high-priority status on the agendas of organizational leaders, talent management remains an elusive concept. Even its definition is debatable; is talent management the sum of its components—recruitment, development, succession planning, performance management, and the like—or something more?

Research shows that a key to effective talent management is integration: successfully intermingling components across organizational silos to share meaningful data, coordinate resources, and reap positive outcomes. Ultimate responsibility for managing talent varies from one firm to the next, but human resources (HR) typically plays a key role, and sources agree that effective talent management requires senior leaders’ support. More important, research suggests that companies that manage talent well tend to fare better in financial and performance measures than their less-people-capable competitors. Execution of strategy, talent acquisition and retention, provision of customer service, and the pressures of competition drive talent management initiatives and fuel the development of strategies to address this concern.

Definitions and methodologies aside, talent management appears to be growing increasingly integrated and valuable as a strong component of organizations’ responses to uncertain economic times. As the field matures, talent management’s effectiveness as a constituent of overall business strategy is likely to be borne out.

Today, leadership is recognized as a challenge best met with a cadre of talent—no heroes needed. And those at the top clearly understand that one of their major roles is to identify, assemble, and prepare the talent needed to lead their organizations into the future. Most senior executives know intuitively that effectively developing and managing this talent is the key to long-term organizational success.

But when it comes to talent management, there couldn’t be a more polarizing phrase in today’s human capital profession. Some managers scoff at the term, regarding it as little more than a vaguely defined, overhyped business buzzword or as a shiny new bottle for age-old concepts such as leadership development, succession planning, or HR management. But others see it as much more than that, identifying it as a term that represents an important paradigm shift in the way organizations think about and manage skilled personnel. They argue that managing talent well gives companies major advantages in the marketplace.

Where does the truth lie? Research conducted by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) suggests that both groups have a point. Talent management really is a poorly defined concept in many companies, and there’s no consensus in the business community about who owns or executes it. On the other hand, better talent management does seem to be linked to better market performance, and companies that define and frequently use the term also tend to think they’re better at managing talent.

Defining Talent Management

What does the term “talent management” really mean? A universally recognized definition is elusive. It can mean everything from performance management or succession planning to high potential development, depending on whom you ask. Talent management means different things to different individuals, and its meaning can even differ widely by function, location, or business unit within an organization. Clearly, talent management is not a onesize-fits-all proposition, and though some organizations define it in terms of their entire workforce, others view it as being exclusive to executives, essential core talent, and those with particularly high potential.

From a historic perspective, there are several reasons why a universally accepted definition of talent management does not exist. Talent management is still an unexplored frontier for many organizations, partly because an emphasis on it is still relatively new. Although it was first mentioned in McKinsey & Company’s 1997 publication of its War for Talent research, the majority of companies are just beginning to explore talent management. As a testament to the lack of experience with this, fewer than 5 percent of the respondents to i4cp’s 2008 global survey reported that their organizations have had talent management in place 10 years or longer (figure 8-1; i4cp 2008; i4cp 2009a).

When the term “talent management” first emerged, the concept encompassed three primary activities:

• the development of an employee value proposition
• the identification of sources of talent
• the systematic removal of underperformers.

Today, however, talent management means so much more. In an earlier study conducted by i4cp and ASTD, the term was defined as “a holistic approach to optimizing human capital, which enables an organization to drive short- and long-term results by building culture, engagement, capability and capacity through integrated talent acquisition, development, and deployment processes that are aligned to business goals.” Though too long, this definition captures many of the elements that companies are attempting to affect. In fact, 83 percent of 518 human capital professionals surveyed agreed with the definition; only 2 percent of respondents said they didn’t (i4cp 2007a, b).

Although the definition of talent management often varies from one organization to another, most companies admit that it varies significantly even within their own organization. In fact, more than 75 percent of respondents surveyed by i4cp and ASTD said their organizations do not have a standard definition (table 8-1).

Deborah Wheelock, head of global talent management for Mercer, contrasts her firm’s definition—“getting the right people in the right place at the right time for the right cost”— with concepts added by client companies, which include finding, developing, engaging, and retaining talent, and may extend to strategic objectives, alignment of workforces and organizational design, and workforce planning. Wheelock adds that “depending on the maturity of the company and its situation, talent management can range from isolated practices to a holistic approach” (i4cp/ASTD 2008).

So does it matter that a formal, universally recognized definition of talent management doesn’t exist? Not necessarily, but what is required is a common understanding across an entire organization of the scope and purpose of talent management, and arriving at this understanding should start with determining the business outcomes the organization wants to achieve.

Whether an organization chooses to articulate a formal definition or not, there are three basic requirements for talent management success:

1. An organization’s understanding of talent management needs to match its strategic goals.
2. An organization’s understanding of talent management must be supported by its senior leaders and reinforced by its culture.
3. There needs to be a common understanding of talent management among stakeholders.

A fourth important concept to understand about talent management is that it must integrate several key areas within an organization.

Table 8-1. Does Your Organization Have an Agreed-on Definition of Talent Management?

	All Respondents	Best Market Performers	Best Talent Management Performers
Yes	24.7%	32.8%	43.8%
No	75.3	67.2	56.2

The Importance of Integration

In 2009, ASTD’s Talent Management Committee defined integrated talent management as follows:

Integrated talent management is a practice which strategically unites all human capital functions to maximize organizational effectiveness.

Thought leaders in talent management agree that integration is the key to realizing the full potential and benefits of talent management. But most companies do not have an integrated talent management approach. Only 5 percent of the i4cp/ASTD study respondents reported that their organization integrates the various components of talent management to a high extent (table 8-2). A full third of the respondents reported that their organization integrates talent management below a moderate extent, or very little.

But what are the components that need to be integrated? The i4cp/ASTD survey on talent management identified 20 different talent management activities that covered the employee life cycle (table 8-3; i4cp/ASTD 2008).

Software vendors often define integrated talent management at its most basic as a database that gathers and evaluates information or multiple integrated databases. Organizations might be considered to have integrated talent management if they have two or more talent management applications from the same vendor. But it should be noted that integration is not only (or even primarily) achieved through technology. The integration of processes, goals, and data should be well thought out before a new technology system is adopted and implemented. Technology can facilitate integration but is not a substitute for it.

Table 8-2. Opinions About the Organizational Integration of Talent Management

To what extent would you describe talent management as integrated with other human capital processes and strategies in your organization?

Opinion	All Respondents	Best Market Performers	Best Talent Management Performers
Very little	13.70%	9.30%	2.60%
Below moderate extent	21.2	14.2	3.9
Moderate extent	39.2	42.0	30.1
Above moderate extent	20.9	28.4	49.7
High extent	5.0	6.2	13.7

Table 8-3. Components of Talent Management

Which of these components do you think are included in talent management? (select all that apply)

Component	All Respondents	Best Market Performers	Best Talent Management Performers
Leadership development	89.10%	88.50%	91.60%
Career planning	88.1	91.2	89.5
High-potential employee development	87.6	87.2	89.5
Performance management	84.6	86.5	88.8
Succession planning	86.7	89.2	88.8
Learning and training	83.8	85.8	85.3
Competency management	81.9	79.7	82.5
Retention	79.6	77.7	82.5
Professional development	79.3	77.0	81.8
Critical job identification	70.8	70.3	71.3
Recruitment	66.0	64.9	71.3
Compensation and rewards	68.9	70.9	69.2
Employee feedback	62.0	66.2	68.5
Workforce planning	62.7	59.5	67.1
Culture and values	59.1	60.8	64.3
Diversity management	52.7	48.6	56.6
Integrated HR management systems	55.6	56.8	55.9
International assignments	38.0	39.2	49.7
Benefits	34.2	39.9	38.5
Labor relations	17.8	14.9	20.3
Other (please specify)	5.7	5.4	7.0

A key issue about integrated talent management is that many organizations view integration as more process driven, and this speaks to the nature of the traditional silo structure of HR, which has inherent challenges in terms of integration. A company’s compensation group, for example, might have a certain set of guidelines and processes that are well integrated vertically but are not well linked horizontally to the performance, succession planning, or recruitment cycles, which doesn’t support the overall business outcome perspective.

Ironically, organizations that are just beginning the journey of developing talent management processes are often able to integrate them more quickly than organizations with more established processes. This is true for two key reasons: First, there are no silos that need to be confronted or egos that need to be considered. Second, it is often easier to build in a place where nothing existed before that might need to be torn down.

As one i4cp member observed: “We have established great performance management processes—development curriculum and work/life programs—but I don’t think we would have designed them the same way if [we] started fresh today with the overall goal of talent management” (i4cp 2009a).

All 20 components of the 2008 i4cp/ASTD study are positively correlated with talent management effectiveness to some degree. Based on regression analysis, seven components taken as a group explained 49 percent of the variance in talent management effectiveness. To put it another way, an organization starting talent management today could begin with these seven in mind and be assured of building on a solid foundation.

Succession Planning

Of the many human capital components that need to be integrated, most organizations cite succession planning as a critical talent management consideration in the development of long-range future planning. And findings from i4cp’s research in this area consistently indicate that most leaders believe the importance of succession planning will increase in the future. Succession planning was identified as the number one challenge organizations faced in 2008, according to a Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) survey of more than 500 executives—half from the United States—who were asked to rank their top five challenges. Moreover, the top four challenges cited—succession planning, recruitment and selection, engagement and retention of talent, and success-skills building for leaders— pertain to succession planning strategies (SHRM Foundation 2007).

But given the importance of succession planning, how effective is it within organizations? Shockingly, a brand new i4cp/ASTD Succession Planning Survey finds that a mere 14 percent of respondents describe their succession planning efforts as effective to a high or very high extent (i4cp/ASTD 2010). Most admitted their level of success is moderate, or less (table 8-4). Also, though many organizations acknowledge the importance of planning for successors for leadership and other vital positions, fewer than half of those surveyed (44.5 percent) say their organizations have a formal planning process in place (table 8-5).

Section I: Leadership Competencies

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

Table 8-4. Opinions About Succession Planning (percent)

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

Response	Don’t Know	Not at All	Small Extent	Moderate Extent	High Extent	Very High Extent
Overall, our succession planning efforts are effective.	11.8	5.1	29.2	40.0	12.1	1.8
Our succession planning efforts are not just “something we have to do”—we really depend on this process and use it when leadership vacancies occur.	8.0	15.2	28.6	28.4	16.9	2.9
Our succession planning efforts effectively identify and develop candidates for leadership positions.	6.3	10.3	30.5	31.6	17.6	2.6
Our succession plans are fluid and flexible enough to change when different types of leaders or skill sets are needed.	8.6	14.1	25.3	26.8	20.9	4.2
Our succession planning efforts extend far enough throughout the organization that key positions beyond senior management have pipelines in place.	7.2	25.9	28.5	21.7	14.0	2.6

Table 8-5. Status of the Succession Planning Process (percent)

Does your organization have a formal succession planning process?

Response	Percent
Yes	44.5
No	55.5

---

Among those in firms that do not have a formal plan, just over half noted that their firms do have informal plans. However, a good deal of ambivalence seems to exist, as shown by the significant number of respondents who said they either didn’t anticipate that their firms would formalize a plan or that they simply didn’t know whether their firms might do so.

Most often, companies vest ultimate responsibility for succession planning with their entire executive teams. However, many respondents say their organizations are extending their succession planning well beyond top management levels, choosing to include managerial, technical, and professional positions in their planning efforts as well. The greatest proportion—72 percent—of respondents said their succession planning addressed positions at the vice president level. In addition, many confirmed their use of technology to enhance speed, efficiency, and accuracy in handling information pertaining to various aspects of succession planning.

Clearly, recent data reinforces the significance of succession planning now and in the future. The next step for businesses is to follow up their own words with action by implementing and managing an effective strategy, and by incorporating it into a broader talent management strategy.

Who Owns Talent Management?

There is no consensus about who is or should be responsible for owning and executing talent management. Results of an i4cp survey found that the “HR function generally” was most often seen as the group responsible for talent management ownership (37 percent) and execution (38 percent) of talent management among respondents overall (table 8-6; i4cp 2007 a, b).

However, respondents from the best market performers as well as the best talent management performers saw things a little differently. Although similar percentages saw HR as having ownership of talent management, they were more likely to select “all managers” as being responsible for the execution of talent. No one group claimed a clear majority in either ownership or execution in any group of respondents, indicating that responsibility for talent management is divided (and perhaps in flux).

Table 8-6. Organizational Responsibility for Talent Management (percent)

Who is responsible for the execution and ownership of talent management in your organization?

All Respondents
Aspect	Resources Generally	Human raining unction	CEO
Execution of talent management	38	7	4
Ownership of talent management	37	4	9
Best Market Performers
Execution of talent management	31	6	2
Ownership of talent management	36	4	6
Best Talent Management Performers
Execution of talent management	31	3	3
Ownership of talent management	31	1	10

All Respondents
Aspect	Executive Team	All Managers	All Employees	Other
Execution of talent management	20	25	5	2
Ownership of talent management	23	19	5	3
Best Market Performers
Execution of talent management	20	33	7	1
Ownership of talent management	20	23	7	3
Best Talent Management Performers
Execution of talent management	21	31	10	2
Ownership of talent management	24	22	9	3

 

“More and more, I see end-to-end organizational structures emerging, where a single leader owns talent acquisition, talent development, performance management, and succession,” asserts Susan Burnett, chief learning officer at Yahoo! Yet even though this approach to managing talent management may be becoming more popular, it may not create the most effective results, for two reasons. First, if HR solely “owns” talent management and is responsible for the success of the process, managers who “live” with the talent have little incentive to comply with, let alone embrace, the processes (i4cp/ASTD 2008).

Second, in addition to the obvious reasons why HR cannot be the sole owner of talent management, there is a deeper issue: Talent management is about the organization’s long-term survival and success. This goal may present dynamics that are diametrically opposed to a manager’s short-term goals and objectives; therefore, senior managers need to build the right incentives into the rewards philosophy and execution.

Although it is critical for senior leadership to steer the ship when it comes to talent management, HR cannot abdicate its responsibilities to the business. The most successful models have shared responsibility:

• HR is responsible for developing and maintaining the tools and processes to enable successful talent management.
• Individual managers are responsible for carrying out and executing the intent of the processes.
• The executive team is responsible for creating the organizational incentives, monitoring the progress, and rewarding (or withholding rewards for) behaviors in line with the talent management objectives.

If a manager meets his or her business objectives but is not engaged in the talent mindset, should this affect his or her performance bonus? Many organizations struggle with this issue, especially those trying to implement or integrate talent management processes. What guidelines have some organizations established? The Institute for Corporate Productivity has uncovered several best practices:

• Employee movement/promotion is measured at the individual manager level.
• Managers of high-potential employees have specific objectives to meet regarding developing the high-potential employee.
• Managing high-potential employees is a reward for the manager.
• Low termination rates, low absenteeism rates, and high engagement scores are measured and rewarded at the team level.
• Managers who select/onboard high performers are rewarded.
• Managers who demonstrate success in recruiting and selection are included in selection teams for other areas, as in small and medium-sized enterprises.
• HR leaders are rewarded for having an impact on business outcomes.
• HR is measured as to the quality, ease, and effectiveness of talent management processes.

Along with rewards, the importance of training, performance reviews, and development is vital to the effective execution of talent management. Line managers, and especially new managers, must receive training that addresses managerial and supervisory skills such as time management and communication and team performance. Companies need to proactively do several things in training and development for talent management to be effective:

• Train managers to clarify/standardize expected behaviors.
• Educate managers in overall talent management concepts, especially how talent management adds value.
• Make talent management part of daily managerial duties.
• Include consideration of talent implications in decision-making criteria.
• Emphasize through the culture that managing talent is an essential management function.
• Leaders/managers’ performance ratings should include talent components.

Ultimately, however, without senior-level support, talent management is doomed to fail no matter how good the training and rewards.

The Importance of Support

Even in a prosperous environment, organizations need to understand the investment proposition for talent management programs and processes, and senior leadership must champion talent management. By starting with the business drivers for talent management processes, HR professionals are in a better position to articulate the value these processes bring to the organization. For organizations that acknowledge they are not effective in managing talent or would like to become more effective, this is the cornerstone of the value proposal.

As stated above, in many organizations HR is solely responsible for the success of talent management processes. But when talent management is HR’s exclusive responsibility, the success is limited. HR alone is not empowered to make the day-to-day decisions of selecting, onboarding, training, developing, and rewarding employees. This is a process between managers and employees, but often managers are not fully equipped to manage talent management strategies.

In most cases, management already values talent management, so there doesn’t need to be a lot of selling. Research findings demonstrate that well-executed talent management provides organizations with solid financial data, improved customer service and satisfaction, and a competitive edge derived from forward planning and the projection of future conditions, ensuring stakeholder benefits and the long-term health of the organization. But what does need to be communicated effectively is how the data gathered strengthens the organization—how it benefits managers and their profit centers by improving engagement, performance, and retention; and how it lowers the costs of turnover and recruitment, which in turn saves time and money and makes each profit center more productive.

The most succinct message regarding the business case for talent management is that research shows that high-performing organizations view talent management as a strategic imperative for sustainable organizational success. High performers rely on talent management to assess and address issues that include tying training to employee development as well as overall organizational goals, measuring productivity and performance of business units, and identifying key talent. So why isn’t everyone doing it?

The scenario described in the quotation below is not unique. For most organizations, the biggest line item in the budget is salary and other people-related expenses, yet only 2 percent of chief financial officers report that they understand to a great extent the return on their aggregate investment in human capital.

Perhaps because the importance of good talent management processes seems so obvious to HR professionals, they often seem unprepared to answer the questions that invariably come up each year: “What would happen if we cut the dollars for these programs?” or “What is the business case for talent management?” Without effective measurement, the answers to these questions will remain elusive.

Measurement Is Critical

Talent management professionals cannot tell a story that will resonate with the C-suite unless they are able to link talent management to business outcomes. The reasons why an organization is investing in talent management—beyond processes, systems, optimizing operational efficiency, and compliance—need to be very clearly articulated. These questions must be answered:

• Why are we doing this?
• What is the business outcome?
• How do we really know that talent management will maximize shareholder value?
• Will this give our organization a clear view of current and future needs?
• Will this give our organization a healthy succession pipeline?
• Will talent management help manage the risk for key roles?
• Will the success of talent management, as we define it, actually move us to our strategic outcomes?

Metrics help create accountability—what gets measured gets done. But if the process of gathering data becomes the primary focus, organizations run the risk of coming up short in making the connections necessary to address gaps and making certain that they have the talent in place for current needs and future growth. Metrics need to be linked to very clear business outcomes. Most organizations require different kinds of metrics, including accountability metrics, awareness or business case metrics, and metrics on return-oninvestment (ROI) or impact.

The Human Capital Institute argues that exact ROI calculations are not needed because there is no proven methodology “to put a number on ‘the value of human capital’” (Anonymous 2004). Though probably true, this may not be a successful argument come budget time. There are three common challenges to calculating the ROI of talent management:

• Clear outcomes for talent management have not been identified.
• Many of the benefits, such as “soft cost avoidance,” make calculating a positive ROI difficult.
• Organizations either have not agreed on assumptions and/or have not captured the metrics needed to calculate an ROI.

When building an ROI or presenting a budget for talent management practices, organizations should start with the stated goals of the processes and determine how they align with business objectives or issues. This is the answer to the question “What would happen if these processes were not funded?” For this reason, it is important to have executive support for the processes and to have management appreciation of the intent and value of the processes. But during the budget cycle, it is probably too late to build this support and appreciation. Ideally, human capital professionals will be in the position of only needing to remind stakeholders rather than having to try to convince them of the merits of talent management.

Although it is true that the majority of the value of talent management is “soft”—including cost avoidance, opportunity costs, and other subjective measures—a positive ROI is possible. Before the budgeting process begins, HR should work with the units responsible for finance, marketing, and/or process improvement (for example, Six Sigma or total quality management) to learn what assumptions these units are using for their calculations. Each of these areas uses sophisticated models that require assumptions about the value of market share, a customer, or an individual unit. They often use assumptions for an hour of labor, benefits, and overtime. It isn’t necessary to try to reinvent the wheel. If these assumptions exist, HR needs to use them in its ROI calculations. If they do not exist, the task shifts to working with finance to build annual assumptions that can be used for this purpose.

When looking at what is often measured, half of the companies surveyed by i4cp in 2009 distinguished between turnover rates (leaving a position due to termination, transfer, promotion, or other movement within the organization) and termination rates. The poll of 556 firms found that turnover rates were the most popular measure, followed closely by both voluntary and involuntary termination rates. The sidebar lists various categories of HR measures, noting the ones that are most often measured with regular frequency (i4cp 2009b).

Many organizations believe they already have the proper metrics in place; after all, they pay millions for HR information systems (HRISs) that are supposed to store, report, and analyze employee and talent data. However, the majority of HRISs are used as payroll systems and are not true information systems. This means that data on such things as promotions, movement, termination reasons, and even job codes may be suspect.

Although many HRISs purport to have the ability to hold talent management, development, and performance management data, the reality is that few organizations use HRISs as designed. More often, each HR function has adopted technologies that meet its specific needs but may not integrate well with those of others. This is another reason that breaking down HR silos can be so difficult.

Technology as a Panacea

Technology software and platforms can streamline and make data tracking more efficient, allowing HR to focus on strategy while building a record of performance that can be compared from year to year. Automation is critical for many reasons, but a common pitfall is the expectation that purchasing software will resolve the talent management question. Organizations should not rely on talent management vendors to drive decisions. Strategic planning must come before investment and deployment; it is critical that organizations first determine what they want to accomplish strategically and how effective talent management can help them achieve their strategy.

Some organizations may have a process that works reasonably well for a certain smaller subset of the staff—such as salaried employees or the top 25 percent—and based on this they decide to expand this process to the rest of the organization. But the expectation that automating and providing everyone with access means that the organization now has a performance management process that works well is not entirely realistic. Invariably,

some employers find that once they automate, whatever weakness existed in the system will be magnified, and, as a consequence, the focus will become ironing out problems with the technology.

Moreover, once a system is in place, it can continue to dominate the process, and attention is thus too often diverted from the mission to the system. This distraction can remove the focus from the conversations that need to take place between managers and employees or between leaders and managers.

Organizations that are considering making an investment in talent management software should keep in mind that the field of talent management is relatively young and, though vendors may claim to be talent management experts, they are almost all very new to the field, and their products are often missing critical components. Some questions to ask:

• How long has the vendor been in business?
• How financially healthy is the vendor?
• What major clients does the vendor serve?
• Is the vendor’s solution configurable for global markets?
• What applications in the talent management continuum is the vendor missing?
• How easy is the software to implement and integrate with other systems?
• What will happen if the vendor is acquired?

These are only a few of the questions that need to be asked when selecting the right technology supplier.

Most would agree that the amount of hyperbole from vendors claiming to have the “fully integrated talent management suite” can be mind-boggling. And typically, it just plain isn’t true; most vendors sell products that are lacking major core components that are needed to be considered fully integrated. Corporations need to look at talent management software with a very critical eye for the next few years—there will clearly be several mergers and acquisitions as vendors all try to add the necessary components to vie for the brass ring of a fully integrated suite.

Conclusion

The implementation of integrated talent management benefits organizations when a clear-cut definition of talent management is established across the organization, a business outcome strategy is developed, and data is properly linked. It’s not enough that a system is in place and the data flows; it needs to flow in a correct format that will help organizations make the right decisions. Integration should take place both at the strategy and process levels, and data must be linked to specific business outcomes. Like other initiatives, training and leadership are critical to the success of talent management.

Organizations can become more adroit at managing talent if they adopt certain strategies, including the following:

• Integrate talent management components more effectively, especially as they relate to the areas of selection, development, leadership, succession planning, retention, and engagement.
• Focus talent management neither too narrowly nor too broadly. Identify “talent,” and then create programs to support it.
• Make an executive team rather than just a single HR leader responsible for talent management.
• Ensure that leaders see talent management as vital and that the culture supports it.
• Hold managers accountable, and give them the right skills to manage talent.
• Continuously improve talent management programs.
• Use technology to help the organization manage talent, but don’t expect it to be a silver bullet.
• Measure talent management, especially in terms of training and development effectiveness.
• Align talent management with business goals, and make sure that your processes and policies support it.

In the end, there’s reason for optimism. Integrated talent management remains a relatively new phenomenon, and organizations generally seem to get better at it over time. New research, techniques, and technologies are emerging to improve the management of talent. Nonetheless, effective and integrated talent management isn’t easy to achieve. It is, in essence, a system with many different parts. The sooner organizations learn to create and nurture these systems, the sooner they’ll be able to turn their talent base into a genuine competitive advantage.

Further Reading

Aberdeen Group, Talent Acquisition Strategies: Employer Branding and Quality of Hire Take Center Stage, July 2008.

Eddie Blass, Talent Management Cases and Commentary. Chippenham, U.K.: CPI Antony Rowe, 2009.

Ed Michaels, Helen Handfield-Jones, and Beth Axelrod, The War for Talent. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2001.

Pat Galagan, “Talent Management: What Is It, Who Owns It, and Why Should You Care?” T&D, May 2008, 40–44.

Matt Guthridge, Emily Lawson, and Asmus Komm, The Strategic Priority of Talent: Part 2. Office World News, May–June 2008, 12–14.

i4cp (Institute for Corporate Productivity), Taking the Pulse: Succession Planning. Seattle: Institute for Corporate Productivity, 2008.

———, Taking the Pulse: Talent Branding. Seattle: Institute for Corporate Productivity, 2008.

Kevin Oakes, “The Emergence of Talent Management,” T+D, April 2006, 22.

“Talent Management: Now It’s the Top Priority for CEOs and Their Organizations,” HRfocus, February 2008, 8–9.

Andy Teng, “Making the Business Case for HR: Talent Management Aids Earnings,” HRO Today, May 2007.

Lesley Uren, “From Talent Compliance to Talent Commitment,” Strategic HR Review, March–April 2007, 32–35.

References

Anonymous. 2004. A Simpler Way to Determine the ROI of Talent Management. HRfocus, 3–4.

i4cp (Institute for Corporate Productivity). 2007a. Talent Management Survey 2007. Seattle: Institute for Corporate Productivity.

———. 2007b. Survey Results: High-Potential Assessment. Seattle: Institute for Corporate Productivity.

———. 2008. Major Issues Survey 2008. Seattle: Institute for Corporate Productivity.

———. 2009a. Talent Management Playbook. Seattle: Institute for Corporate Productivity.

———. 2009b. Taking the Pulse: HR Metrics Survey. Seattle: Institute for Corporate Productivity.

i4cp (Institute for Corporate Productivity) / ASTD. 2008. Talent Management Practices and Opportunities. Seattle and Alexandria, VA: Institute for Corporate Productivity and ASTD.

———. 2010. Improving Succession Plans: Harnessing the Power of Learning and Development. Seattle and Alexandria, VA: Institute for Corporate Productivity and ASTD.

Michaels, Ed, Helen Handfield-Jones, and Beth Axelrod. 2001. The War for Talent. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

SHRM Foundation. 2007. Strategic Research on Human Capital Challenges. Human Capital Challenges Report, 10–21, 24.

About the Authors

Kevin Oakes is the CEO and founder of the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp), the world’s largest private network of corporations focused on improving workforce productivity. He has been a leader in the human capital field for the last two decades, and was most recently the president of SumTotal Systems, the largest provider of talent and learning solutions in the world, which he founded in 2003 by merging Click2learn, where he was CEO and chairman, with Docent. Completing a five-year board term, he was the 2006 chairman of ASTD, and he was the 2008 chair of the ASTD Board Selection Committee.

Holly Tompson, PhD, is a senior research analyst at i4cp. Previously, she taught human resource management at the University of Tampa to undergraduates and MBA students, and today she serves as an executive coach, working with the University of Tampa’s Focused Leadership Program. She has a BS in business and psychology from Trinity University in San Antonio and a PhD in organizational behavior and human resources management from the University of South Carolina. Her work has been published in the Journal of Management, Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, Journal of International Business Studies, and Small Business Journal.

Lorrie Lykins is i4cp’s managing editor and has been involved in human capital research for 10 years. She has an MFA from Queens University and has authored numerous reports and white papers on subjects ranging from corporate volunteerism to health care and wellness to disaster preparedness and women’s issues. She is an adjunct professor at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Florida, and is a longtime correspondent for the St. Petersburg Times. She is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists and the National Book Critics Circle. Her work has been published by Talent Management magazine, the American Management Association, and HR World.