16th International Conference on Human Resource Development Research and Practice

UFHRD Annual Conference 2015

Towards Evidence Based HRD Practice: Bridging the Gap

Title: Developing and retaining talent in the context of austerity: shifting the paradigms of

exclusivity and linearity

Name of author(s): Dr Julie Haddock-Millar and Professor David Clutterbuck

Organisation affiliation/position(s): Middlesex University Business School

Address: Department for Leadership, Work and Organisations, Middlesex University

Business School, Williams Building, The Burroughs, London, NW44BT, United Kingdom;

Email address: j.haddock-millar@mdx.ac.uk

Stream: Employee leadership, management and talent development – stream 7

Submission type: Refereed paper

Abstract

Purpose: This empirical study seeks to identify and evaluate the significance of talent

development complexities in the local government sector, within the context of austerity and

ever decreasing budgets. The intent of this large-scale national project was to identify the

key challenges facing the Local Government Sector in talent management, understand how

authorities are tackling those challenges and recognise examples of practice both within the

sector and in the wider world of employment. The purpose of this paper is to examine one of

the five challenges identified in the research: how to develop talent in the context of austerity

and unprecedented budget cuts.

Methodology: Quantitative and qualitative data collection tools and methods of analysis

were combined. Primary evidence was gathered from two sources. First, a survey was sent to

all Public Sector People Managers’ Association (PPMA) members. Second interviews were

carried out with respondents representing public and private sector organisations.

Findings: Local Government as a community is absolutely committed to the development of

their workforce and business transformation. The greatest barrier is knowing what to do and

how to do it. The most significant challenges cited included the development of talent and

driving workforce capability within the context of austerity measures.

Implications: Practical and social implications include the issues associated with the need to

adopt an inclusive, flexible and adaptable approach to talent - key levers in the rapidly

changing environment.

Key words: Talent development, retention, Local Government, Austerity

Introduction

The intent of this large-scale national project was to identify the key challenges facing the

Local Government Sector in talent management, understand how authorities are tackling

those challenges and recognise examples of practice both within the sector and in the wider

world of employment. The Local Government Association’s (LGA) 2013/14 top priorities for

local government are: reform of the finance systems to enable councils to have confidence

their financing is sustainable and fair; recognition of the importance of councils in

contributing to economic growth, jobs and prosperity; and supporting public service reform,

delivering more effective services for local people and holding other providers to account

(LGA Business Plan, 2013/14: 7). The top priorities provide an indication of the challenges

facing local government and the increasing pressure to transformation service models, in

large part, triggered by the current spending review of public sector cuts of up to 30 per cent.

Local government’s funding is shrinking; conversely the demand for council services is

rising. The scale of the budget reductions and impact on staff numbers in local authorities is

significant.

This study, which consisted of a survey, interviews with those responsible for talent

management both within and outside the sector, and an extensive literature search, identified

five core themes the sector needs urgently to address.

How to create a viable and coherent talent management strategy. Arguably,

standard HR practice is increasingly inadequate to cope with the complexity of

today’s rapidly evolving, resource-stretched employment environment.

How to define talent. How widely or narrowly should we define it? How do we

establish a sufficiently diverse talent population to meet evolving job roles?

How to recruit and identify talent. Should we be trying to identify talent or find

better ways for talented people to identify themselves?

How to develop and retain talent. Is it justifiable to invest developmental

resources preferentially in a “chosen few” high potentials? How do we balance

the need for specific expertise against the need for increased role flexibility?

How to facilitate talented employees to take accountability for and manage their

own careers and self-development. What processes and structures will remove

the barriers? How can we engage people in constructive dialogue that aligns

employee and employer aspirations?

This paper examines one of the five challenges identified in the research: how to develop and

retain talent in the context of austerity and unprecedented budget cuts.

Literature Review

Academics and practitioners acknowledge the problems with talent are many and varied

(Ashton and Morton, 2005; Mellahi and Collings, 2010). Talent management is often

substituted for the term human resource management, which can limit discussion to topics

such as recruitment, leadership development and succession planning (Mellahi and Collings,

2010). The term talent and competitive advantage suggests that key positions and therefore

‘A-list performers’ have the potential to contribute competitive advantage representing an

‘exclusive club’ rather than inclusivity. There is not a single or concise definition (Ashton

and Morton, 2005). The terminology means different things to different people; a lack of

clarity and transparency can create confusion and tension. Furthermore, judgements about

individuals are often arbitrary, inconsistent and based on hearsay (Sorcher and Brant, 2002).

Many organisations do not know who their talent is. When leaders look for potential, they

can introduce gender and racial bias; talent management programmes unconsciously reflect

and promote traits shown by the organisation’s mainly male leadership team (Warren, 2009).

Competency frameworks do not take sufficient account of the changing needs of jobs;

adopting a linear approach, they are not sufficiently flexible and are backward-looking rather

than forward-looking. Key activities such as attraction, development and retention can

interact in negative ways (Delery, 1998). The importance of alignment and integration with

strategy, business planning and the organisation’s overall approach to people management is

critical (Ashton and Morton, 2005), but not always evident.

Assuming the organisation has defined and identified ‘talent’, what can the organisation do to

develop the talent to prepare people to adapt to the changes in the Local Government sector

and continually develop themselves and those around them? It is important to recognise that

the decision to invest in talent is influenced by budget and resources constraints; therefore the

question of ‘who’ is developed is an important one. Iles et al (2010) suggest that there is no

real consensus concerning ‘what’ talent may fall within the scope of the talent development

process, suggesting four possible scenarios:

Inclusive approach – focuses on developing each potential employee.

Inclusive approach – focuses on the development of social capital within the

organisation.

Exclusive approach – focused on the development of specific elite individuals.

Exclusive approach – focuses on key positions, roles and develops talent to fulfil

these roles.

When the organisation has addressed the questions of ‘why’ and ‘who’, those responsible for

talent development can then begin the discussions around ‘how’. Garavan et al (2012)

suggest that our knowledge base is weak in relation to talent development and that very little

has been published in this area, particularly in the global context. There are a number of

reasons for this. First, published research tends to focus on specific initiatives or

interventions, rather than the strategic role of talent development in relation to the broader

business and talent perspective; and second, research focuses on specific aspects of talent

development, rather than the holistic view of talent development. Therefore, making sense of

this area is challenging.

Garavan et al (2012: 6) define talent development focusing on “the planning, selection and

implementation of developmental strategies for the entire talent pool to ensure that the

organisation has both the current and future supply of talent to meet strategic objectives and,

that developmental activities are aligned with organisational talent management processes.”

Definitions or descriptions of talent development emphasise leadership talent development

and therefore focus on exclusive models, rather than a broader more inclusive approach. The

degree to which leadership and management (those that tend to be regarded as ‘talent’)

development has grown as a topic adds to the perplexity. Questions around diversity and

equality are often raised in the context of talent development: ‘who receives talent

development; why; how and when?’ Harris and Foster’s (2010: 427) study of two UK public

sector organisations - the Legal Services Commission and a large unitary City Council –

revealed several interrelated and overlapping themes: “the alignment of talent management with

other HR policies; processes for selecting talent; the impact of resource constraints; and delivering

performance targets.” Line managers did not understand how talent management interventions

were aligned to other HR policies, particularly in relation to meeting diversity and equality

requirements. Issues concerning under representation of certain groups in talent programmes

exist where processes around self-selection and/or applications. Women are a group that

might ‘opt out’ of talent programmes for a variety of reasons, one of which is the balance

between work and home. Line managers and employees regard openness and transparency as

the most important influences on perceptions of diversity and equality.

The most recent CIPD (2013) annual Learning and Development survey, which reports on

trends in learning and development in the HR community, provides a useful insight into what

are regarded as the most effective practices in this area. Participants ranked on-the-job

training (56%), in-house development programmes (48%) and coaching by line managers

(39%) as the most effective. On-the-job training effectiveness is an upward trend which has

continued over a three year period (from 30% in 2010 to 56% in 2013). In a large-scale

managerial survey of 692 managers from a range of organisational hierarchical levels sectors,

McCauley et al (1994: 551) defined 10 dimensions of developmental quality in relation to on-

the-job learning.

1. Unfamiliar responsibilities – eg switching from line to staff, or changing

employers − make managers think about what they do and how they do it.

2. Developing new directions – eg initiating a new strategy or creating a new

department.

3. Inherited problems – addressing problems left by a predecessor.

4. Problems with employees – eg engaging with and developing the competences of

direct reports, who may be resistant to change.

5. High stakes – eg high visibility, especially to senior management.

6. Scale and scope – eg responsibility for large budgets, a substantial number of

people, and/or diversity of functions.

7. Influencing without authority – having to work through peers and more senior

managers to get things done.

8. Handling external authority – eg dealing with suppliers and other independents,

again through influence.

9. Managing work group diversity – eg managing and working with a range of

disciplines, who need to collaborate.

10. Working across cultures – eg preventing intercultural conflict and using cultural

difference to stimulate creativity.

The results suggest that on-the-job training can motivate employees and provide

opportunities for development, however indicators of stress can be common and a lack of

support from colleagues and wider networks can prove a barrier to learning. Where a

manager is asked to take on an unfamiliar project, the issue of peer support is even more

important. The CIPD (2013) found that the trend is declining in relation to on-the-job

coaching by line managers, from 51% in 2010 to 39% in 2013; job rotation, secondment and

shadowing, from 30% in 2010 to 13% in 2013. Off-the-job instructor-led training was also

common across the community (54%), alongside in-house development programmes (57%).

There is then a marked gap; across the remaining talent development practices, e-learning

methods (31%), coaching by line managers (29%) and off-the-job instructor-led training,

yielded similar results.

There is a multitude of ways to evaluate the effectiveness of talent development methods.

Deciding on the most suitable evaluative approach, as appropriate for each method prior to

the implementation is essential in order to challenge our theoretical assumptions and

principles about what works in practice and what will best address the issues relating to

outcomes and impact. The Kirkpatrick four level model (1994) is still widely used today

(CIPD, 2013), in order to gauge reaction, learning, behaviour and results. However, the

extent to which it is used in full is questionable. At the first level, Kirkpatrick (1994: 21)

refers to the “level of customer satisfaction”, in other words, the reaction of those that

participate in the activity. The second stage evaluates the extent to which participants change

their attitudes, improve knowledge, and/or increase skills as a result of attending the talent

development ‘programme’. The third stage evaluates the extent to which the behaviour has

changed as a result of the talent development ‘programme’. The final layer considers the

results of the talent development ‘programme’, which is often concerned with HR and

business performance metrics such as reduced absence and increased revenue. The model is

not without its critics (Passmore and Velez, 2012) and since it was first introduced,

consultants and academics have been adapting the model and creating a variety of alternative

approaches (Kaufman and Keller, 1994; Bates, 2004; Guerci et al, 2010). Passmore and

Velez (2012) identify ten ‘popular’ evaluation models and their criteria, then offering their

own model of evaluation. There is no commentary around how popular the models are, and

to what extent organisations use them in practice. When selecting a particularly

approach/model it is important to question:

How effective is the method of evaluation in assessing the real value and impact

of the talent development activity?

How frequently do organisations review their evaluation methods and adapt them

to the needs of each talent development activity?

The CIPD (2013) annual Learning and Development survey does shed some light on this

issue, and asks respondents to report on the methods used to measure the effectiveness of

learning and development activities, and the frequency of application. Methods include:

“general HR metrics such as absence, sickness, retention;

business metrics such as profitability, revenue, market growth;

return on investment after the intervention has been delivered;

limited stages of the Kirkpatrick model to plan and evaluate;

Kirkpatrick model to fully evaluate from reaction level up to business impact;

development data such as psychometrics, 360;

integrated learning system to collate focused metrics around issues such as talent

and performance.” (CIPD, 2013: 33)

The CIPD survey shows that there is no consistency around the methods used to measure the

effectiveness of learning and talent development activities across all organisations and

sectors.

Shifting the focus to retention, the CIPD Resourcing and Talent Planning annual survey

(2013: 44) identified the difficulties organisations will have retaining talent in the years ahead

and that:

“the public sector in particular has seen dramatic increases in the proportion reporting

difficulties retaining managers and professionals/specialists. Ongoing budget cuts in

this sector, frozen or limited pay increases and the additional stress of widespread

reforms mean the public sector’s retention challenges are unlikely to diminish.”

The costs of losing talent are often unknown and few organisations assess the real costs of

replacing a key person. The Manager’ Mentors Inc, recently came up with a list of eight

factors to consider and calculate for cost of replacement of key personnel.

HR recruiter time – coordinate interviews, screen candidates.

Search firm consulting fee.

Interviewing time (# interviews X # interviews X hours per interview).

Lost productivity of interviewers due to recruiting activities.

Hiring bonus, plus salary differential if a new hire commands greater salary.

Lost productivity while position is not filled.

Lost productivity due to training and start up time.

Lost productivity of workers in the group speculating why the co-worker left.

The direct costs associated with losing employees can exceed 100% of the annual

compensation for the position (Cascio, 2006), when we add in the non-direct costs such as

work disruption, loss of tacit or strategic knowledge and mentors (Allen et al, 2010) the costs

are significantly more. At a recent US international mentoring conference Margo Murray

suggested that organisations might spend time identifying those positions that may be vacated

within the next 2 – 5 years and consider the impact of losing key people. The worksheet was

developed out of the research for a doctoral dissertation on the cost of replacement of high

tech employees, which revealed that replacing a first engineer who leaves the organisation

after one year costs $577,000.

These themes are important within the context of this paper: the degree to which resource

constraints influences talent development investment decisions, and the growing need to

deliver performance targets, requiring specific expertise and role flexibility.

Methodology

The authors adopted a pragmatic approach, using mixed methods. Quantitative and

qualitative data collection tools and methods of analysis were combined to triangulate the

results of the research questions. Primary evidence was gathered from two sources. First, a

survey was sent to all Public Sector People Managers’ Association (PPMA) members (800+);

43 members responded (+5%). Second, telephone, skype and face-to-face interviews were

carried out with 29 respondents from 26 UK and international organisations representing the

public and private sector, 6 of which were subject specialist consultants.

The survey consisted of 34 structured and unstructured questions, using comment boxes,

multiple choice and ratings scales to record the data. Key topics included: Challenges in

relation to talent and their importance; identification and development of talent including

succession planning; measurement and effectiveness of processes and systems; job security,

movement, changing roles and skills; diversity; social networks; communication and change;

and, the quality of conversations.

The interview respondents were drawn from the public and private sectors. In the public

sector, respondents consisted of 14 HR/OD Managers/Leaders in City or County Councils;

and, 3 representatives from Further Education and Higher Education Institutions. In the

private sector respondents included 4 HR leaders in aerospace and aviation sector; banking

and finance sector; manufacturing sector; minerals sectors; and 6 subject experts in consultant

roles. Over 26 hours of interviews were transcribed, resulting in over 300 pages of interview

notes.

The survey and interviews were analysed separately by the authors and then brought together

to provide a comparison and joint commentary. Over 100 descriptive codes were identified

through the analysis of the interview scripts; they were then grouped into interpretative codes,

then compared and aligned to the survey data, resulting in 5 overarching themes (see Figure

1).

Survey respondents were given the option to participate in a follow-up interview. Six survey

respondents also took part in the semi-structured interviews. Interview respondents were

provided with an interview schedule which outlined the aim and objectives of the research,

questions and consent. Survey and interview respondents were given the option of

anonymity.

Figure 1: Data Analysis Process

The next chapter presents the results of the research, combining the two primary data sources,

illuminating particular aspects with quotations and case examples. Interviewee commentary

is anonymised to ensure confidentiality with the exception of specific case study examples,

where the identification of interviewees and organisations was agreed.

Findings

As stated in the introduction, Local Government’s funding is shrinking; conversely the

demand for council services is rising. The scale of the budget reductions and impact on staff

numbers in local authorities is illustrated by a number of respondents:

County Council: “We’ve changed from about 11,200 and we are now about

8,200, we have had to take out around £200 million. We have taken out over 30%

in our middle and senior manager roles.”

Primary Data 43 survey responses

and 26 interview transcripts

Analyse survey (43 responses)

Analyse interview transcipts

(26 responses)

Identify codes (115)

Cluster themes at macro and micro level

Macro themes (5) Micro themes (22)

Present secondary data, survey and interview

data to illustrate micro themes

County Council: “We achieved £150million in savings in the last three to four

years and that is a similar figure, £189 million for the next three years. We’ve

gone from about 11,000 down to 7,000 staff.”

City Council: “In 2011 we had 7,313 employees and as of the end of last month,

so the end of November 2013, we had 5,753. That is the scale of reduction. It is

very significant. (21% cut in headcount).”

City Council: “In 2009 we employed 21,000 at that point and to date it is 14,000

the prediction within the next two to three years instead it was going to be 7,000.”

City Council: “Since 2011 and we’ve just achieved £70million in workforce

savings and we are just over £24million within the next 4 years.”

District Council: “When I first arrived in 2002 there were between 400 – 550

members of staff, now were down to 130; we are going even smaller, probably

under 100 by April of next year.”

The most significant challenges cited by survey respondents and interviewees in case study

organisations included: facilitating the flexible movement of employees to different roles

around the organisation; preparing people for changing roles and responsibilities; maintaining

staff engagement in the midst of job uncertainty; ensuring the alignment between the

organisational strategy and talent strategy; and supporting changing structures, roles and

responsibilities. The most important issues cited by survey respondents and interviewees in

case study organisations included: complexity and the scale of change; development of talent;

enabling individuals to take ownership of their careers; retaining talent; and facilitating the

quality of thinking and conversations within the organisation. The results of the thematic

analysis of the interview transcripts can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Results of Thematic Analysis

No. Macro Theme Micro Themes

1 Talent Management StrategyContext; Integration; Alignment; Succession planning; Leadership; Innovation; Organisational Culture, Structure, Development and Change

2 Defining Talent Defining talent; Inclusive/ Exclusive, Segments/Groups

3 Talent Processes: Recruiting and Identifying Talent

Recruiting talent; Identifying talent; Equality and Diversity; Equality; Performance and Potential; Information management

4 Talent Processes: Developing and Retaining Talent

Developing talent; Aligned needs;Evaluating Value and Impact; Coaching and Mentoring

5Facilitating Career Ownership and Accountability

Career management accountability; Ownership; Self-development

Methods used to develop talent

The survey respondents identified a number of ways in which their organisation develops

talent including: learning on the job; e-learning; stretching roles; using projects; coaching and

mentoring. In some cases there is still a general regard for training as “going on courses”

which is restrictive. Some respondents noted the need to develop employees’ independence

and resilience but also recognised that nurturing talent is difficult – people have different

needs and the organisation has different needs. The training budget is under continual

pressure so maintaining investment but being clear about the value of that investment is

important. Survey respondents cited at least 12 different ways their organisation develops

talent. The most widely used are personal development planning; line manager coaching,

coaching outside the reporting structure, mentoring, supporting staff in their own career

planning, stretching projects and organisational investment in development activities (see

Figure 3).

Figure 3: Methods used to develop talent

Other

Job ro

tation

Develo

pmen

t Cen

tres

Career

Plann

ing (b

y orga

nisati

on)

Job sh

adow

ing

Action

Learning S

ets

Stretc

hing pr

ojects

Suppo

rt staf

f in th

eir ow

n caree

r plan

ning

Coach

ing ou

tside

the r

eportin

g stru

cture

Mentor

ing

Line M

anag

er co

aching

Perso

nal D

evelo

pmen

t plan

ning

Invest

ment in

gene

ral de

velop

ment a

ctivit

ies05

10152025303540

4 5 7 7

1922

28 28 30 32 34 36 38

Which of the following do you use to develop talent?

Respondents recognised the shift towards the ‘self-sufficient manager’ and career self-

management is becoming more prominent in both the public and private sector. However,

respondents suggested this shift will require a higher degree of career self-management and

the challenge might be enable employees to navigate their way. Organisations can’t assume

employees have the capability to do this; they need to provide employees with the tools, skills

and capability to manage their own careers. The authors selected two cases studies which

illustrate how organisations at a local level and wider geographical area are developing

employees.

Case Study 1

The LEAP programme was offered to all high performing managers at Foundation and

Middle management levels, in addition to those operating at a strategic level (three

organisational levels). This included those identified in the Talent Pool, with the potential to

develop their leadership skills.  Face-to-face training was combined with self-directed and

online learning, reflection and coaching. LEAP also offered pre-programme analysis in the

form of 360 reviews and MBTI questionnaires to help delegates create positive, constructive

plans to enhance all of their relationships. LEAP looked directly to Council For The Future

for complex organisational problems which the delegates would then analyse before

identifying financial and efficiency savings and then presenting a solution to the senior

management team. The four workshops were one-day interactive forums tackling key issues

relating to both foundation and middle managers. Topics included ‘Strategic Leadership’,

‘Employee Engagement’ and ‘Leading Change’.

Post-programme support in the form of one-to-one coaching sessions and a second 360

review (10 months after the programme). Each cohort at each level has a senior manager

sponsor and the Chief Executive has been involved. This has made a huge difference in terms

of visibility of senior managers and also of the participants. It has shown them too that the

organisation is committed to the programme and to talent development. The team also tracks

where people in the talent pool and the LEAP programmes progress. The talent pool

approach to identifying people with potential and succession planning also play a key role in

identifying those that the organisation needs to develop for the future – these people may or

may not undertake the LEAP programme as it depends on their individual development plan.

“With the role of local government becoming more complex the sector needs talented people

at all levels but especially in leadership roles. It is also increasingly difficult to recruit our

approach to talent and succession has meant that we have people ready to take on Chief

Executive, Director and Assistant Director roles in the last couple, of years. Unlike many

Councils we have no vacancies or interims at this level, and only a handful at the head of

service tier below.  This means we are able to concentrate on driving out savings and

transform services knowing that we have talented and innovative individuals leading large

change programmes.”

This case study illustrates how the organisation is seeking to align the needs of the employees

and the organisation, with a developmental programme which is based on current and future

business cases scenarios, enabling employees to develop key competencies.

Case Study 2

“The aim of Rising Stars is to nurture talent, help future leaders develop a strong

professional network and raise their profile among potential employers. The PPMA is

focussed on developing resilience, engagement, partnership working, innovation and

gravitas. The programme includes a masterclass in communication and creating personal

impact. A total of 17 stars participated in the first year.”

“Engagement and communication skills are critical for HR managers having to translate

hard-nosed business decisions into new ways working for staff, and often into job losses. The

new HR stars may well find themselves helping managers, who have never had to cope with

such major changes, talk with staff early and openly about what

faces them: “You need to engage with the manager and sell them the benefits of doing that

and taking that leap of faith.” Hay (2014)

“This year we’ve taken that – not only are we running the Rising Stars but we’ve just

launched this week Apprentice of the Year 2014. So the Rising Stars from last year will be

used as the judges for this particular event and it is looking at apprenticeships broadly

across the public sector.”

This cases study illustrates how the organisation is supporting particular ‘groups’ of

employees to develop key skills which will support them in their current and future role,

whilst also addressing the needs of the business.

Effectiveness of talent development methods

The survey respondents were asked their view of the most effective talent development

methods are stretching projects (70%), coaching outside the reporting structure (67%) and

investment in general development activities (58%). The least effective are development

centres (74%), career planning (77%) and job rotation (79%). Only 44% of responded felt

that line manager coaching is more than adequate in developing talent, and only 37% of

respondents felt that personal development planning is more than adequate in developing

talent (see Figure 4). In most organisations less than half measure the effectiveness of each

development activity.

Interviewees were generally much more positive in their responses around the range of staff

development approaches adopted and their effectiveness.

“We’ve introduced a wide range of coaching. Which offers the space to support any

discussions in terms of the issues people are grappling with whether they be in business

or whether it be having some sort of an impact on them personally.”

“We have established a programme where quarterly we bring all our Deputy Director

leaders together. We have at least 2-3 events quarterly for the large cohort. We bring

them together quarterly and part of that is not just about giving information around the

political agenda but to present an opportunity for networking with your peers. The

feedback suggests that this has been fundamental for sharing with each other when

they are grappling or just knowing that actually you are not in it alone. So our

quarterly meetings have been fundamental in supporting the larger group to remain

resilient in that wider context.”

Figure 4: Effectiveness of talent development methods

Coaching outside the reporting strucutre

Investment in general development activities

Mentoring

Line manager coaching

Stretching projects

Personal Development Planning

Support staff in their own career planning

Action learning sets

Job shadowing

Development Centres

Career Planning

0 5 101520253035404550

How effective do you think they are?

Poor/Very PoorAdequateGood/Very Good

The survey respondents were unclear around the ways in which their organisation measures

talent development approaches; those that were suggested that in many cases measurement

and evaluation was lacking.

The move away from linearity and traditional career contracts

Garavano and Sales (2005) identified nearly ten years ago that changes in competition and

technology have resulting in large scale restructuring or downsizing which have had a direct

impact on ‘traditional’ career contracts and a shift in responsibility for learning from the

organisation to the individual. The result is that employees now need to take greater personal

responsibility to ensure their skills are current and marketable. The shift towards self-directed

career development requires ongoing commitment to the continuous developmental process,

however the factors inhibiting sustained or repeated development from both an employee and

organisational perspective are many and varied, including, amongst others: “personal

characteristics, environmental conditions, the appraisal of prior development outcomes”

(Garavano and Sales, 2005: 299). One interviewee talked about the move away from

traditional annualised review processes to a ‘vacancy-led’ system which might facilitate

flexibility and adaptability. However, the cultural shift needed to effectively transition from

one approach to another is not to be under-estimated:

“If we are taking the annualised process away and saying, there you go, you now have

complete ownership of your career, you want to be able to have a good quality

conversation with somebody as to, so how do I go about making this happen. Suddenly

people want to have good quality career conversations and that is gonna take a while

for us to get to. We need to up-skill the line mangers so that they can have a good

quality conversation with people, as with any large organisations in pockets it happens

really well but it is not consistent. ... 70,000 people moving to this, I own my career. I

can look at the jobs board, I can have a quality conversation with my line manager

about my career and aspirations and he/she can help me find the next opportunity.”

Issues raised by participants around the cultural difficulties included the aversion to risk,

focus on bureaucratic structure, systems and cultures, lack of transparency and fragmented

conversations. One interviewee reflected on the cultural ‘groups’ in local government.

“In local government there are three groups. There is the group that recognises that

there is a need for change and wants to do it and is enthusiastic about it. There is a

group of people who recognises that change is likely to happen but will keep their head

down and won't proactively support it because it is too frightening. Then there is

another group of people who, for their own ends, recognise that inevitably change will

mean that they may have less people working for them, their empire will be reduced

and slimmed down and therefore proactively resist any change. Now interestingly most

of the latter group I have seen are at senior middle management and senior

management level. Most of the group that are enthusiastic about change, interestingly,

are the ones at junior management level that I have seen. To some degree younger

generation recognise that there is a need for change and are not psychologically

wedded to the status quo after years of service.”

Another interview commented:

“So what we try to do is to start shifting away from lessen the process side of things

and moving more to a talent mindset that is on all the time. So rather than telling

people at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year you have to have talent

reviews, they then wait and store up those conversations for those two moments in a

year, they are actually having these conversations continually and really then you

start to think about using mentoring and coaching and things like that to really focus

back to the simplicity which is about having a conversation. It is about the employee

feeling they can take ownership.”

There is already significant evidence of changing models and practice. Overwhelming, the

majority of local authorities have now signed up to shared services initiatives to make

combined savings worth £263m. Joint working is just one of the ways in which local

authorities will need to find innovative ways to improve the efficiency and productivity of

services and teams, particularly if the same pattern of cuts be replicated in the next spending

review. Arguably, radical reforms can only be achieved by engaging the workforce at all

levels in developing flexible and adaptable approaches to career management and talent.

Conclusions

While many organisations in many sectors face talent management challenges, few face quite

such drastic requirements for change as Local Government. Local authorities recognise the

need to find innovative ways to address the increasing budget constraints and have brought it

to the attention of the LGA through the annual survey. Every year, the LGA asked its

members to identify their top 10 priorities. Local authorities repeatedly identify talent

management as a top priority. This is not surprising considering the significant downsizing of

workforce headcount caused by overall budget reductions and cost step changes triggered by

the spending review. Many talented people have left the sector, choosing to move into the

private sector or third sector, taking with them a high degree of tacit knowledge: operational

know-how, insights about the dimensions of the sector, region and locality, as well as

business judgement (Hansen et al, 1999). The situation local authorities find themselves in is

difficult: How do they downsize without losing their intellectual capital? How do they

identify knowledge and retain knowledge? In most cases, local authorities have been in a

state of crisis, needing to reduce headcount whilst trying to retain critical roles and

individuals. Local authorities have grasped the need to develop their talent management

strategy and prepare their workforce for the flexibility and adaptability required in the sector;

few know how best to address the issues they face. The practices used to develop talent are

problematic and the effectiveness of methods adopted are far from understood.

This research has some limitations which could be addressed in future research. The survey

sample was small; therefore how representative this is of the PPMA membership is

questionable. The larger sample of case studies would give richness to the examples

illustrating organisational practice and allow for the comparison of public and private sector

practice.

References

Allen, DG, Bryant, PC, and Vardaman, JM (2010) Retaining talent: replacing

misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24,

48-64.

Ashton, C, and Morton, L (2005) Managing talent for competitive advantage. Strategic HR

Review, 4 (5): 28-31.

Bates, R (2004) A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the

principle of beneficence, Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 341-47.

Cascio, WF (2006) Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits (7th

ed.) Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2013) Learning and Talent Development,

Annual Survey Report, London: CIPD.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2013) Resourcing and Talent Planning,

Annual Survey Report, London: CIPD.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2006) Talent management:

Understanding dimensions, London: CIPD.

Delery, J (1998) Issues of fit in strategic human resource management. Human Resource

Management Review, 8: 289-310.

Garavano, CM and Sales, E (2005) What influences continuous employee development

decisions, Human Resource Management Review, 15, 281-304.

Guerci, M, Bartezzaghi, E, and Solari, L (2010) Training evaluation in Italian corporate

universities: a stakeholders-based analysis, International Journal of Training and

Development, 14 (4), 291-308.

Harris, L and Foster, C (2010) Aligning talent management with approaches to equality and

diversity, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29, (5), 422-435.

Huselid, M. A., Becker, B. E., & Beatty, R. W. (2005) The workforce scorecard: Managing

human capital to execute strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Iles, P, Chaui, X and Preece, D (2010) Talent Management and HRM in Multinational

companies in Beijing: Definitions, differences and drivers, Journal of World Business, 45,

179-89.

Kaufman, R and Keller, J (1994) Levels of Evaluation: Beyond Kirkpatrick, Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 5 (4), 371-80.

Mellahi, K and Collings, DG (2010) The barriers to effective global talent: The example of

corporate elites in MNEs, Journal of World Business, 45, 143-49.

McCauley, CD, Ruderman, MN, Ohlott, PJ and Morrow, JE (1994) Assessing the

Developmental Components of Managerial Jobs, Journal of Applied Psychology. 79, (4),

544-60.

Passmore, J and Velez, MJ (2012) SOAP-M: A training evaluation model for HR, Industrial

and Commercial Training, 44 (6), 315-26.

Sorcher, M and Brant, J (2002) Are you picking the right leaders? Harvard Business Review,

Feb pp 122-129.