Talent development: Does anybody really care?

Summary: : Researchers harp on the development of people. Fact is the employers want finished products, and employees have learned ‘presenteeism’.

Really, who cares about talent development?

Research conclusions

Researchers feel they do, because they conduct surveys and amass data. What talent management essentially is about, they explain, is developing people in the fold, to help move the business forward.

They conclude that leadership lacks understanding of critical jobs and succession planning, hence is unable to manage their people and get the best out of them.

They recommend that strategies for talent and business managements be aligned… But then they’re outside the system.

Focus is exclusive

In vast majority, it appears, the employers don’t really care. Although many say ‘talent’ is necessary, they do little about developing it throughout the organization.

Focus is usually exclusive in investing time and resources. Only those ‘stars’ slated for top management positions may be groomed for future roles.

Threatened

Every company wants the finished product. Investing resources on developing human capital doesn’t guarantee company loyalty. The fear is ‘talent’ may just be lured away after the elaborate learning process is complete.

So doing anything about indigenous development just isn’t on the radar. Besides, ‘upstarts’ with newfangled ideas might threaten one’s own position.

The silo

Fact is managers often don’t know how to handle the issues of categorizing performance or identifying talents relative to the business.

They’re used to convergent thinking - the silo mentality, in other words. Unchallenged in their little fiefdom, they expect that talent, as and when needed them, will be headhunted from competitors.

The only concern then is whether company image or the package offered is attractive enough to ensnare the catch.

Pretend knowledge

And, it seems that by their socializing, the employees really don’t care either.

Some companies that attempt a generalized improvement of the knowledge base – for example, by introducing online academies to educate the staff - soon find that the opportunity provided largely goes a-begging.

Employees are aware of the competitive market. But owning up to inadequacies may be foolish in the context of organizational survival. So they might simply pretend knowledge instead.

Presenteeism

Besides, upgrade or study anew - even at company expense – may be career ‘suicide’, because the boss could take the action as their genuinely lacking in competence, attempting to be better than superiors, or preparing for a career change.

‘Presenteeism’ is valued. Loyalty to the boss is crucial for a good performance appraisal. Many managers also believe that following their directives is adequate ‘learning on the job’; improving yourself in other ways isn’t appreciated.

No time?

Questions arise:

• Can the company really accommodate a superior knowledge base?
• Are the upper echelons comfortable with 360 degrees feedback as an actual organizational process?
• Are employees really committed to organizational objectives?

Perhaps not, since the singular excuse proffered for the lack of change, is a lack of time because of the work pressures.

Cont’d 2…the issue of apathy