105

Talent Creation Christo Nel

People are not your most important asset. The right people are. Jim Collins

For any economy to grow and for a society to survive and prosper the development of talent is the primary challenge. In this paper Christo Nel explores what the challenge of talent creation entails.

CHARACTERISTICS OF TALENT CREATION IN THE NEW SOCIETY

The organisation is widely recognised as a portal for talent – people want to work here because it makes their CVs so much more valuable.

The organisation understands that in today‟s world it is difficult to retain the best talent all of the time, so when leave they treat them as valued alumni.

People who leave the organisation remain raving fans of the place – they tell others that it‟s a great place to work.

Talented people are readily transferred across boundaries to optimise their growth.

The organisation sees itself as a contributor to the interests of individuals – inside or outside the organisation.

Managers are rewarded for their clear capacity to spot and grow talent.

Of all the challenges facing South African businesses right now, one of the most important and mot pressing is that of finding the right people to do the right job. This is one of the most difficult challenges in the New Economy. Businesses in South Africa already face a serious skills shortage, which, due to a variety of factors will only be exacerbated in the years to come. Some of the broader and more serious concerns are outlined below:

Aids: Some 4.8m South Africans are HIV positive and as a consequence thereof will be unable to make a positive and lasting contribution to the labour force. The loss of these people will have a profound impact on the labour force and skills base currently in existence in South Africa.

The Brain Drain: It is estimated that between 1.1m and 1.6m professionals have left SA since 1994 to work overseas.1 Already, there is an estimated shortfall of between 350 000 and 500 000 skilled workers in the managerial and technical sectors.2 The skills shortage that is resulting is not adequately being replaced with a new, skilled work force.

The problem of an emigrating workforce is not something that is peculiar to South Africa. This is part of a larger problem facing the developing world. And as a result is one of the reasons why it is so hard to counteract as not only internal but also external forces are applying their pressure. As the

106

population growth rates in European countries slow, and in some cases contract, concerns mount about an aging population retiring from the labour market with too few newcomers stepping up to replace them. These countries are turning to „poaching‟ skilled individuals from the developing world to fill the gaps present in their shrinking workforces.

Even the US will struggle with a significant shortfall in its labour market in the foreseeable future. It is estimated that around 30 million people will retire in the US in the next two decades (Reference?). In addition to this shortfall, economic expansion will create another 20 million positions. It is estimated that the shrinking US labour force will not be able to take up about a fifth of these vacancies, with the shortfall being filled by employees from the developing world in order to plug the leak in the labour pool. See Figure 1 below. This phenomenon has aptly been named the „donut economy‟.

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Declining Supply of Future Executives - USA

Number of 35-44 year olds in the USA: Index – 1970 = 100

Supply Peak in 2000 (190)

Trough (163)

15% decline

from peak to trough

over 15 years.

Demand up by 30%

Demand

Figure 1: Declining Talent Supply

The dilemma of the „donut economy‟, where the size of the donut expands as the economy grows, but the hole in the middle of the donut also gets bigger as the limited skilled labour force is stretched to its limit with no backup emerging to relieve the pressure, have profound consequences on the supply of talent in emerging countries, like South Africa which has an attractive skilled labour force. With companies like Microsoft targeting the local talent pool aggressively, South African businesses have to adopt extremely attractive practices in order to persuade the local talent to remain in South Africa and thus to get their share of the skilled labour force.

South Africa is firmly embroiled in the struggle with the phenomenon of a donut economy. The South African economy was fairly flat between 1984 and 1994, and there wasn‟t any significant fluctuation in the local talent

107

pool. The relationship to available talent and economic growth thus remained relatively stable. However this situation has been changing. Since 1994, the economy has been expanding, albeit at a very slow rate, but the talent pool – skilled and portable employees – has not grown at all. This together with the pull from the developed world has made the problem one requiring critical attention.

Unskilled talent pool: South Africa‟s vulnerable talent pool is a tragic testimony to our political past. The inadequacies of the Apartheid Government‟s Bantu education system, an insufficient investment in the education of the black population as a whole and the consequences of a political policy by the black population of „liberation before education‟, which kept schools empty and children uneducated, created a lost generation of millions of uneducated and unskilled people. While school attendance and, by some accounts, the quality of education, have approved in recent years and could and hopefully will have a positive impact in the future on South Africa‟s unskilled talent pool, the immediate problem is more pressing and immense.

As Thabo Mbeki said, South Africa doesn‟t have an unemployment problem, it has an unemployability problem.

The profile of the local labour force as it currently exists in South Africa leaves SA businesses seriously out of kilter with the demands of the New Economy. Manufacturing and resources were the engines of the Old Economy and the needs and demands placed on the labour force were very different. The bulk of the labour force could be unskilled or semi-skilled (semi–illiterate and with limited numeral skills) as the services they were supplying were not based upon anything that required literacy or numeracy of any standard. The labour force that the old economy employed was not required to be skilled in order to meet their demands. This is however not so with the new economy. The situation that existed previously whereby a largely unskilled labour force could and did meet the demands of the old economy is no longer workable. The new economy - a technology driven and services-based phenomenon - has little need for these workers. The new economy labour force is and needs to be educated, wired, English-conversant – and highly mobile.

108

As illustrated above, the talent pool – or the “dough” has remained relatively constant over the past decade and a half. Since 1994, the economy has been growing faster in any five year period than any comparable 15 year period before then. Since 2005 the speed of economic growth has picked up considerably, and barring some international crisis of note there are signs that the illusive 6% annual growth could be attained and maintained.

One of the greatest threats to South African economic growth is the skills shortage. There is perhaps an even greater threat. If the USA or much of Europe should achieve significant growth it is certain that they will embark upon concerted talent poaching to fill their own depleted reserves. It is already common practice for companies to approach newly graduated people with offers of work abroad. In early 2006 one of England‟s premier lay firms launched a concerted effort to head hunt the young partners and senior lawyers from large South African law practices. Barclays in the UK has a simple approach to talent: Find the best talent available anywhere in the world, pay them whatever is required, but get them! The extraordinary growth of China and the ongoing growth of India will further fuel the global talent shortage.

1984 1994

2000

Not Enough Dough – Lots More Hole

Donut Economics

The Talent Gap

109

Aside from the broader and more serious concerns facing the South African economy and workforce, the whole nature and concept of employment has changed to such an extent that it could almost be redefined altogether. Approaching employment in the new economy requires a kind of paradigm shift in expectations. Gone is the implicit social contract of long-term company loyalty in exchange for job security and a pension. In the Old Economy, employees generally remained with companies for decades and staff turnover was very low. In fact this model was seen to reflect success and was one which was desired and planned for. The onset of the freer age of democracy and self-realisation, globalisation, the speed of change in the marketplace and the need for companies to turn on a penny to adapt and so be successful- and to adjust their labour forces accordingly - have heralded a radical departure from long-term employment. In fact, it is now viewed as the norm not to spend decades with a company, and far more commonplace to find people changing jobs every 5 years or so. The entry of Generation X and Y into the workplace also forced a revolution upon the managers used to managing company „lifers‟. This group of westernized twenty- and thirtysomethings grew up in relative comfort and security, in a time when the luxuries of self-actualization and personal fulfillment became mantras in popular culture. Their need to realise their own potential and be happy are often more important to them than remunerative stability sought by the older generation and so loyalty was offered in exchange for security. Nowadays this offer of security on a longer term is not always possible for companies. In the same vein it is not always sought by this new generation of employees. Companies need to challenge these employees continuously and help them to expand their skills. The Generation X and Y employees‟ formative years were also times of great disillusionment with authority (Watergate, Vietnam, the threat of nuclear war, Apartheid and the Southern African border wars). This has had a profound impact on their relationship with authority and their willingness to pledge allegiance to any organisation. Loyalty was no longer offered merely in exchange for security but needed to be based upon something larger than that and would probably be a more emotive rather than financial decision. All of this contributes to a fickle, highly mobile labour force, burdening companies with a high rate of employee turnover and continuous skill loss. Rather than complaining about this companies have to face up to the consequences of this phenomenon and even try to make the most of it. It is a reality in the New Economy so in order to survive it; it needs to be turned into a positive factor. They need to reframe their approach to their employees and thus reframe this negative as an asset. Because such a lot of people will move in and out of your company, you have to start seeing them as customers. The business maxim that satisfied customers will tell three to four people about your company, but the dissatisfied ones will complain to fourteen to eighteen also holds in this regard. Employees talk. Companies‟ reputations as employers are shaped by the way they treat their employees, especially the ones who leave. Because it is acceptable to migrate between jobs and companies these days it is no longer necessarily because of not

110

being happy at a company that someone will choose to leave. And you want their telling of the reason for their leaving to not be a reflection of their unhappiness at your company. If they speak highly of their time at your company and the skills that they acquired this will more than likely encourage other people to seek employment with your company.

A great example of how remuneration is not the only thing to consider but being a well-liked and respected employer is equally important in

talent retention is present at SABMiller. SAB in South Africa pitch their pay levels at about the 75 percentile of the going market rates so they're paying good money but they're not paying the best in the market. They do pay the best in the market at operational level. But they provide such opportunities that their top talent has the security of feeling that “Even if I leave here I'll get a job elsewhere because I have SABMiller on my CV.” And then they make sure that they create alumni so that when the people leave, they leave as raving fans of the organisation rather than nay-sayers and critics. This is in line with the findings of Jim Collins (Good to Great) which demonstrates that the CEOs of the great companies on average earn less than their counterparts in the competitors.

But accepting the phenomenon of employee mobility does not mean surrendering to it. More than ever, companies have to be aggressive in identifying, retaining and developing talent. They need to be proactive and creative in identifying strategies for retaining this talent and not continue to apply the old mechanisms of remuneration and benefits as the sole means of enticing and holding onto their employees. McKinsey3 undertook a study where they discussed the issues of talent management and retention. They discovered that in order for a company to succeed in retaining and enticing talent they had to have certain elements present. They discovered that they needed to redefine and strengthen the role that HR played within the company, being credible to their employees in a business sphere as well as on a personal level. Line Managers had to also assume responsibility for talent management and the company itself had to have a clear and strong talent value proposition. In other words, the company needed to have a clear idea of what sort of person they wanted to entice and / or retain, what would make them decide to rather work for this company than another, and then develop a strong brand to support this proposition which they would then sell to the end consumer (the employee). The worrying phenomenon is that 3 years later McKinsey undertook a follow up study4 and discovered that even though they had indicated the importance of talent management, and even though it can be shown that the most successful companies are those that manage talent best, few companies are taking the necessary action to manage talent effectively. They also discovered that it is not only managing talent that matters. But that tolerating poor performance is equally if not worse at harming the success of a company5. IDENTIFYING TALENT

111

While an aggressive recruitment strategy to obtain the best prospective employees is, of course, crucial and should not be abandoned or put on a back burner, a more immediate task is the retention and development of existing talent within the company. In order for this to happen, talent needs to be identified within the company as an initial point of departure. Using a variety of personality and aptitude tests, in combination with regular performance reviews, can form part of a „talent matrix‟, which creates a clear matrix of diversely performing people. Once you have identified the talent base that you wish to incubate and grow you can start to determine how you are going to achieve this growth. There are generally five groups of people whose skills and capacity should identified, and accordingly be nurtured (See Figure 2). A brief explanation follows:

The stars: These people are obviously superior achievers, high performers with great potential, who have the necessary cognitive and visionary skills to lead a company to success. Unfortunately, they are also the most mobile because of their „star quality‟. Companies cannot afford turnover of more than one percent of this category of employee, and should invest the necessary resources – e.g. remuneration, they should earn 35% to 40% more than the norm for their positions – to prevent this.

Many companies have also tried alternative strategies to nurture and retain star performers. A couple of financials companies – including

First National Bank and RMB – have recently launched advertising campaigns proclaiming and publicly commending the quality of their employees. The adverts serve to not only promote their business competence amongst the general population, but also have the added benefit of attracting new talent. Equally and perhaps more importantly, they also serve to create a sense of loyalty amongst their own star employees, thus encouraging them by providing an alternative reason to remuneration to remain within the company. This in turn will limit the pull of alternative employment by diluting the value of money as a reward for employment.

Companies seeking to poach star performers from other companies will have to do more than merely raise the financial bar.

The high flyers: Second in line in the desirability ranks are the high flyers. While they lack the rare and exceptional talents and capacity of the stars, they are well above average achievers with unrealised potential. In the new economy context, the high flyers are often relatively young employees, promoted recently (without having the mentoring necessary to assist them in their new roles) and frequently out of their depth, lacking in the emotional wisdom or life skills to make an exceptional contribution (although they will possess the ability if nurtured to be able to make such

112

contribution). They often clash with co-workers and structures because of their lack of political savvy and experience in working within a corporate hierarchy. They desperately need the appropriate coaching and mentoring to hone their raw skills and talents and so derive the full potential of their abilities. The return on investment with high flyers will soon be evident to a company that invests this time. High flyers could potentially become star performers and should be nurtured by giving them opportunities to grow and shine. These opportunities could be in the form of special projects or overseas postings which will challenge the high flyer and force them to acquire new skills and develop their existing talents.

Knowledge anchors: These employees are generally approaching the end of their careers, or have plateaued, and have built up a wealth of knowledge about a business. Losing them at this point can come at an enormous cost to any company as with the easily measurable skills, talents and outputs that are lost by this person no longer working at a company, the company also loses a less tangible but more important and harder to replace benefit in the institutional memory that this person possesses. This person will have acquired an extensive knowledge of the company, the industry within which the company operates and the peculiarities of their particular job. One of the biggest mistakes a company can make is to release knowledge anchors on early retirement before their skills and knowledge have been transferred. A shrewd move in this regard is to link them up with high flyers as the mentor which will hone and shape the unrealised potential within the high flyer. Losing a knowledge anchor to retirement is a loss to the company but losing their knowledge before it has been transferred is a tragedy. When knowledge anchors do retire, companies should consider not terminating their relationship completely. Often it will be attractive to both parties to retain the knowledge anchor on a consultancy or project-by-project basis.

Many businesses, like ABSA, have benefited from the objective insights and knowledge of retired managers used in special projects.

This can often avoid the costly and time consuming business of duplicating work already done once by the company by allowing the knowledge memory to be transferred back into the new pool of employees.

Solid citizens: They may not shoot the lights out with their brilliance, but you can rely on them to deliver every time, on time. Consistency is their forte and the benchmark by which they are unsurpassed. If the bulk of your company‟s labour force is from this group, count yourself lucky. Solid citizens are usually passive learners and while they are not innovating, they are good at providing support. And this solid support is necessary to form the

113

foundations upon which the high flyers and stars can build your company‟s castle. A common mistake with managing solid citizens is promoting them to their level of incompetence. As discussed in the previous chapter on levels, just because someone is good at what they do, it doesn‟t mean they will be good at something else. You need the right person doing the right job. Because they usually are long-term employees and deliver steady returns, they are often advanced one level above their capabilities when actually their benefit lay in that they did what they were doing very well. Due to the fact that this group should form the major component of your employee profile, some staff turnover in this group can be tolerated.

On the other side of the spectrum there are usually a few specific types of

people who should be identified and weeded out of the company.

Icarus (Vexation) This person is probably a company‟s worst enemy. An Icarus is an employee who climbed the corporate ladder too quickly, who is in the wrong job and who is not capable of acknowledging his lack of capacity and so whose misjudgements pose a serious threat to the wellbeing of the company. An Icarus candidate could be a meticulous number-cruncher who becomes head of marketing or a creative spirit in charge of the financial division. An Icarus is a person with great potential, but who flies too high and with the wrong set of wings. And we all know what happened to Icarus. The Icarus individual needs intensive counselling and most probably also a career shift so that his liability is limited and his true potential applied in the right arena.

Work out: Passive headache

There are always people who have some potential, although not high, but do not perform at all. They can often come across as passive with low energy to get things done. These people are people with some potential, but who are stuck in cancerous attitudes and have no inclination to innovate so the potential is not put to any good use and in fact put to no use at all. Resolving problems with this group is best done with a direct approach which generally works most successfully with this group – they should be confronted about their performance and counselled. If, after attempting counselling in order to provide the person with ways to improve their performance, the interventions prove to be unsuccessful, the person should be exited from the company as the dead weight they will add will enhance nothing and detract from positive growth.

Spare wheels: These people are the average achievers within any company who have gone flat – they have reached their ability plateau and have little to contribute to a company anymore. Their function within a company is now

114

effectively obsolete and they should re-educate so that they can start to contribute in a positive manner once again or else they should be required to leave. Spare wheels utilise valuable resources that could be put to more profitable use elsewhere in the company.

Dead wood: Dead wood within a company consists of under-achievers who cannot be saved by any amount of counselling and re-education. Every company should assess their workforce regularly by reviewing and measuring their performance. Non-performers like dead wood should be pruned quickly, not only because they are a deterrent to performance, but also because they chase the motivated and superior achievers away. Go-getters do not like to surround themselves with indifferent people who slow efficiency down. It is frustrating to work to achieve something when you are surrounded by people who seem to have no drive to get things done and in fact seem to be obstructionist in their lack of performance and indifference to their output. Unfortunately dead wood is astonishingly difficult to get rid off. Under-achievers never do anything wrong, because they never do anything.

115

Figure 2: Performance versus Potential Matrix

Ranking employees according to a talent matrix is only the first step in the process of identifying and retaining talent. The knowledge acquired from the matrix has to be put to further use in a talent audit so that the benefits of the matrix can be drawn out to enhance your company‟s performance. The main function of a talent audit is to analyse and takes stock of people in key jobs, assessing whether or not their current capabilities are matched to those required of their positions. At the same time, the audit also scrutinizes the deployment of talent in an organisation with the goal to ensure the maximum spread of performance. In other words making certain that talent is assigned to the divisions where it is lacking by taking it away from the divisions where there is currently surplus and thus in effect a wasted pool of talent because it is not being utilised to its maximum potential and there is an area where the potential is sorely needed and would be well utilised. This in essence is a good way of ensuring that talent within a company is leveraged to its best ability.

Perform this exercise from the top (CEO-level, preferably). The view of talent is better from that height, because their day-to-day working lives are not intertwined with the individuals being assessed. Executives are

therefore better able and more prepared to be ruthlessly objective about what

2

Performance - Potential Matrix

Perform - Capable

HI

LO

Potential

LO HI

Stars:

Cherish

and

Retain

Passive/

Headache

Work out poor

performance

Solid

Citizen:

Retain

Solid

Citizen:

Nurture

Knowledge

Anchor:

Focused

coaches

Spare Wheels/

Staid Solid

Citizen:

Revitalise

Work out:

Deadwood

Hi Fliers:

Nurture

Attitude/focus

Icarus/

Vexation:

Redeploy

Coach

Performance - Potential Matrix

Perform - Capable

HI

LO

Potential

LO HI

Stars:

Cherish

and

Retain

Passive/

Headache

Work out poor

performance

Solid

Citizen:

Retain

Solid

Citizen:

Nurture

Knowledge

Anchor:

Focused

coaches

Spare Wheels/

Staid Solid

Citizen:

Revitalise

Work out:

Deadwood

Hi Fliers:

Nurture

Attitude/focus

Icarus/

Vexation:

Redeploy

Coach

116

is in a company‟s best interest when it comes to talent redeployment. Often, and in a sense understandably and probably unconsciously, managers hog talent because it makes their lives easier to work with capable people. ATTRACTING AND RETAINING TALENT The best way of retaining and attracting talent is by being a great company who treats their employees in a great manner. At the very least your company should have a sound business strategy, top-notch financial and procedural systems, cutting edge technology, a valid vision, great values and a healthy relationship with employees. These are no-brainer prerequisites.

In one of our clients we encountered a very different mind-set. They countered that they did not want to be an employer of choice, but instead wanted to attract employees of choice. Their strong brand indeed was capable of attracting talented people, but then people often encountered a system that was not up to scratch. It showed in their unsustainably high staff turnover that far exceeded the market average. In today’s world the reality is stark – if you are not perceived as a choice employer you are not going to attract and choice employees.

As a company you also need to be more human in the way you deal with failure. When people are learning and stretching themselves, they will make mistakes. If they are not making mistakes, they are not growing and taking on new responsibilities. Companies need to learn to celebrate failure.

A legendary example is attributed to Tom Watson Jnr, the past CEO of IBM in its hey day of the 1970s. A senior executive was involved in a

project that at the time caused a $2 million loss. Watson asked him to come and see him. As he entered the CEO‟s he said, “I suppose you want my resignation.” Watson replied,”Don‟t be a fool, we‟ve just spent $2 million educating you!”

By instilling a truly talent-friendly culture within your company, you can differentiate your company from the rest and make it an irresistible place to be employed. There is no enigmatic approach that will achieve this. To illustrate we can simply learn from global best practice. In the past decade, the Gallup organisation polled 60 000 managers in twelve industries from 24 different countries to find out what high performing work places have in common. They distilled their findings into twelve questions that can be used to determine a company‟s chances of success6. As the talent pool dries up, and quality employees are headhunted aggressively, these twelve questions will also be the very questions that your talented employees will ask themselves as the pressure to leave your company mounts. These questions are critical and could mean the difference between keeping your stars, or losing them to a brighter and more attractive company.

117

The questions correspond closely with Abraham Mazlow‟s well known Hierarchy of Needs, and can be seen as an evolving „climb‟ towards the summit of achievement in the context of an employee‟s career.

The questions have been broken up into a series of „camps‟ illustrating the idea of climbing towards to summit of the mountain of your employment.

Ask yourself these twelve questions; then begin asking your people if, and at which camp, they are „stuck‟.

Base Camp: ‘What do I get?’

1. Do I know what is expected of me by the company?

2. Do I have the resources- materials and equipment (and context) - to do my work right?

These questions are very important to an employee. Ambivalence is death to productivity as you are never sure what you are meant to be doing and so there is a lack of focus which in turn leads to a decline in output. Employees should have a clear understanding of what is required from them in terms of what they should be delivering and by when (the deadlines etc. involved). Constant feedback and information will empower employees to achieve and innovate. The need to have a clear framework within which to operate and a sounding board to constantly assess and monitor (and if necessary adjust) their performances. Camp 1: ‘What do I give and feel?’

3. Do I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day?

4. In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for good work?

5. Does my supervisor/manager or someone at work seem to care about me as a person?

6. Is there someone at work who encourages my development?

South African companies regularly score the lowest in this category. Treating employees like human adults has often not been a major objective. But increasingly companies are learning that individual attention and encouragement boost performance (in some cases this can be more important than remuneration alone). Employees must be assisted and given the opportunity to grow, especially in the development of their skills base. Ken Blanchard has a great way of putting this. He says it is walking around continuously catching people doing things right. A relatively easy paradigm shift that very rarely gets applied and has a momentous impact on the morale, motivation and performance of an employee. Camp 2: ‘Do I belong here?’

7. At work, do my opinions seem to count?

8. Does the mission of my company make me feel my job is important?

118

9. Are my co-workers committed to doing quality work?

10. Do I have a best friend at work?

These questions all have to do with fitting in with the people at work and the culture of a company. The company‟s values should correspond with the individual‟s and the kind of employees attracted to the company should also inspire loyalty. As the boundaries between social life and work are diminished, this becomes even more important. This is also changes the nature of employment where the individual is evaluating the company as much as the company is evaluating it. The individual needs to know that they will be content in their work environment and feel comfortable with the ethos of the company. Camp 3: ‘How can we all grow?’

11. In the last six months, has someone talked to me about my progress?

12. This last year, have I had the opportunities at work to learn and grow?

As the basic needs of individuals in the work place are fulfilled, the focus turns towards a set of more sophisticated desires: how do we achieve full individual and collective potential. This is important when it comes to talent creation. Talent may either already exist within an individual or may require some fostering to bring it to the fore. As the term implies, this is about talent „creation‟. Creation of anything requires input and opportunities for growth. It would be a foolish company in this economy of the donut labour force who ignores these important questions and relies on the old style methods of retaining employees by merely offering financial rewards and incentives. A successful company with an enduring and loyal talent pool is one that takes a creative approach to talent creation and is concerned about the growth of their employees‟ potential, their happiness at work together with offering them competitive financial packages.

TALENT MOBILITY AND DEPLOYMENT

Sustainably competitive organisations accept that talented people are likely to be more mobile and desire to have a greater spread of career challenges. This, combined with a market that is constantly hunting for talent creates a significantly more mobile workforce than ever before. One of the measures to counter this is to imitate the market by using the organisation as a seamless larger environment within which people readily get moved around. This serves two purposes.

As people evolve from one Level of Work to the next their roles alter quite radically. (Refer to the chapter on Structures.) One of the most common

119

problems is that people who are promoted from middle management to general management roles often do not make the transition form focusing on a functional area, such as finance or production, to focusing on the integration across functional areas to build optimum synergies and high performance value streams. A primary reason for this is that the individual often has not developed adequate understanding of the other areas with which s/he must now interact. As a consequence the newly appointed general manager will all too often continue to focus on the narrower divisional interests rather than engaging with and influencing the activities of other divisions.

SAB has along track record of moving talented people from one discipline to another. As talented individuals progress from one level of work to the next it is not strange to find someone being moved from sales to production to HR to marketing, and along the way they start to understand the other divisions from within, and from the narrower perspective of their own initial are of functional expertise.

The second benefit of internal talent mobility and deployment is that the individual is given the opportunity of developing alternative competencies as well as developing a multiple career. Instead of the individual needing to leave the organisation to go and experience alternative options elsewhere, the organisation becomes a replica of the market which offers the individual this same flexibility and opportunity.

Alan Clarke was identified as a talented individual from the day he was recruited by SAB in South Africa. But SAB knows that talent alone is not enough, and it has to be developed so that the individual can demonstrate the ability to perform to the level of his talent potential. Alan’s story is best operating practice in real life. He started out as a specialist in Industrial Psychology. He was soon being given tasks in the development en execution of world class manufacturing practices. This laid a foundation for him to spend a few years as a general manager in production for one site. A next step was as an executive in charge of production for a region with several sites. From there he had a lateral move to executive in charge of marketing. The next step was to become CEO of a subsidiary company, which became the stepping stone to head up SABMiller operations in Europe. Within the space of 15 years, Alan in effect had experienced at least five different career options. Clearly his talent and capacity to turn it into action was an essential ingredient, but he was also experiencing the full potential and variety that the market had to offer – without leaving SAB!

TALENT AS ENTERPRISE-WIDE RESOURCE

Talent mobility and deployment is impossible to achieve if managers in different departments and divisions are allowed to hoard talent as their property. This is of course a natural and understandable response. Whenever a manager loses a talented person it always places pressure on that are of

120

the organisation until the scarce resource can be replaced. For this reason it is essential to put processes in place that enables the organisation to have a single view of the talent pool, and to oversee it as an enterprise-wide resource. There are no short cuts. It requires the stamina to entrench a range of interrelated best practices:

1. The first three layers of leadership need to develop a coherent understanding and approach to defining and identifying talent. This requires specific development in assessing whether a person has the essential combination of high performance and high potential. HR plays an important support role, but this is essentially line accountability.

2. The people with a track record of high performance and who have been identified as high potential (the capacity to advance at least one to two more levels) need to be identified. This constitutes the Stars, High Flyers and Knowledge Anchors.

3. HR must have the wherewithal to provide a single view of this talent pool. This needs to include a record of assessments, pervious performance discussions and reviews, and reports from the managers who provide feedback on the individual‟s performance, potential and track record in previous and current roles.

4. The CEO and executive team take shared accountability to review this talent pool at least once per year. During this review they discuss each person and explore the following critical facets:

a. Is the person living up to expectations in the current role?

b. Does the person have the potential to move into another role – vertically or horizontally? If not, why?

c. How long has the person been in the current role and is there any chance that s/he may be becoming bored or frustrated in this role?

d. Is there a close match of potential, competence and challenge?

i. If the potential proving to be too low for this role, what redeployment is possible?

ii. If the competence is proving to be too low, what immediate development is required?

iii. If the challenge is too low, how can the job be reengineered to give greater accountability, what challenging projects are available, or what advancement is possible?

e. What are the risk factors of losing this person?

f. What is the relationship between the person and immediate superiors? Are there any risks in the relationship?

g. If this person is evaluated at present, where would he/she be placed on the Performance-Potential matrix?

h. Is there another area of the organisation that needs this person more than the current area of work?

121

i. What short term development needs does the person have and how will they be fulfilled through a combination of mentoring, coaching, training and education, or redeployment?

5. An important activity at this stage is to identify any area within the organisation where there appears to be an ongoing talent shortfall. This invariably has to do with managers in that area who are not taking the development and retention of talent seriously enough. Such situations are viewed as executive committee concerns and handled accordingly.

6. The recommendations for each individual within the talent pool become part of the performance contract for that individual‟s direct manager. The manager is required to ensure that the required actions are fulfilled. In this way the first three tiers of the organisation‟s leadership become the active custodians and executors of talent creation.

TALENT COVER

An essential element of the talent review is to determine the talent cover for mission critical roles. This consists of two types of roles:

1. Roles that are specific to the organisation or are essential to sustain its competitiveness.

2. Roles where there is a real shortage of required skills in the market.

By applying the disciplines managing talent as an enterprise-wide resource it becomes possible to establish Talent Cover and Review Tables as illustrated below. This provides a single view of the challenges facing a particular layer of mission critical roles. In the past this was a laborious manual exercise, but with modern ERP solutions this is no longer difficult, although it can take several months to establish then initial data base.

CRM R&D GM Finance Mrktng

Mary XX

Mannie

XXX

Gustav

XXX

John XX

Gillian

XXX

Fred

X

Steve

0

Gerald

XXX

Susan

0

Peter

0

Garry

0

Thsepo

XXX

Superior XXX Competent XX Good Potential X Concern 0

With this type of single view of the talent pool it become possible to establish and maintain a simple yet effective review and deployment of talent across the enterprise. At its most basic it looks something like this:

122

Talent Development, Retention and Deployment

Who Exposure Response

Gerald Current GMs are young Recently completed MBA Ready to seek

alternatives

Move to finance Put in charge of new systems

integration

Mannie Been in R&D for 7 years Record of staff turn over Possible knowledge

capital thief Not developing people.

Counsel on need to train successor – temporarily let R&D report to Gustav

Second to marketing for product launch

Mary Seriously overstretched Fred has potential but

requires 2 years experience

Search for support in market – active headhunt

Gillian Inherited bad situation Over extended with poor

support

Review Peter’s capacity Move Tshepo to marketing Second Mannie to marketing

and put on Coaching and Developing People programme

THE VITALITY DISTRIBUTION CURVE

Jack Welch provided some of the greatest breakthroughs in business thinking over a period of almost three decades, but one of his less fortunate contributions was the approach to the so-called Vitality Curve, or normal distribution curve to evaluate the performance of people.

The Vitality Curve and Constructive Discrimination

Below Average Mid Range Above Average

+- 10%

C Players

+- 20%

A Players

+-70%

B Players

The Vitality Curve and Constructive Discrimination

Below Average Mid Range Above Average

+- 10%

C Players

+- 20%

A Players

+-70%

B Players

123

Welch got important parts of it right, but there was one major flaw. He introduced the practice that every manager on an annual basis had to assess staff and identify the top 20% of performers, the 70% of solid performers, and the 10% of poorest performers. Here‟s where his flaw occurred. He then insisted that the bottom 10% of people had to be fired every year. By his own admission this worked for the first one and even two years, but thereafter it got increasingly difficult. In fact, it rapidly becomes impossible. Imaging any world class sports team, such as Manchester United soccer team or the Australian cricket team firing the bottom 10% of performers every year. They would soon shatter the continuity and morale of their teams.

Welch‟s error does not lie in the identification of the bottom 10% of performers, but in the edict that they have to be fired. Apart form the near impossible task of separating out and firing the bottom 10% every year, there is also the simple reality that there is not so much talent in the market that an organisation can realistically hope to never have any “C players” in the system. Furthermore, the C Player mode is often the development arena for younger talent just entering into a new role. The other problem is that as soon as this type of forced firing becomes policy it immediately makes it possible for managers to place the blame for addressing ongoing poor performance on “the policy” instead of assertively and courageously having the tough performance discussions that are an integral part of New Economy Leadership and sustainable competitiveness.

Notwithstanding his error, Jack Welch did get an essential thing right when he insisted that managers had to have the guts to apply so-called forced ranking to identify the 10-70-20 distribution of competence.

(STOP) What does your organisation‟s performance rating curve look like? Does it resemble the following graph?

124

If your performance review process is delivering this type of distribution curve, you may as well throw it out. It’s not worth the frustration. Better yet, throw out the managers who deliver it!

This case study of more than 31 000 performance reviews provides some significant challenges. We call this type of curve the Tyranny of Averaging. First, it conveys the following messages:

There are almost zero under-performers in our organisation, and only a fraction more of below par performers.

Then a miracle occurs – almost 60% of people meet all expectations.

The miracle continues – more than 30% perform exceptionally well.

Suddenly the miracle ends – less than 1% of people are super performers.

When we conducted focus groups to find out why these types of results are so common place in organisations we got the following answers:

Managers are loath to provide the uncomfortable feedback when people are under performing. What is more, this will place pressure on them to invest in the under-performer‟s development and take up valuable managerial time coaching the individual.

It easier to just rate everyone as acceptable and somewhat above average. It creates less conflict.

Distribution of PerformanceCase Study of more than 31 000 people

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

01 2 3 4 5 N/A

1:Did not meet - 0,026%

2:Met some, not all - 1,18%

3:Met all - 59,97%

4:Exceeded to some extent - 33,48%

5:Exceeded greatly - 0.89%

N/A: Cannot yet rate - 4,45%

Distribution of PerformanceCase Study of more than 31 000 people

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

01 2 3 4 5 N/A

1:Did not meet - 0,026%

2:Met some, not all - 1,18%

3:Met all - 59,97%

4:Exceeded to some extent - 33,48%

5:Exceeded greatly - 0.89%

N/A: Cannot yet rate - 4,45%

125

We are told that there is no such thing as a 5-rated performer. Such people would need to be capable of walking on water!

When someone is rated as a 5 performer it raises expectations and they want to be either promoted or earn more money.

Does this sound vaguely familiar? If so, your performance review processes are to all intents and purposes useless. The system may be OK, but how it is being applied is a waste of time. This is more often than not a managerial and leadership problem, and will almost always require the development of capabilities to conduct tough conversations and apply more assertive performance reviews. This is where Jack Welch got it right. He realised that there was a very slim chance of achieving a workable and valuable performance review process if he did not create the imperative that every manager had to arrive at a 10-70-20 distribution curve. In our experience we never encountered an organisation that is capable of overcoming the Tyranny of Averaging without creating the requirement that managers have to deliver a bell-shaped distribution curve. Without this demand you will continue to get performance reviews that fail to address under performance in a constructive manner, and celebrate superior performance in ways that reward and retain talent.

This is arguably one of the toughest elements of New Economy Leadership. It always creates howls of resistance and excuses on why it is not possible to achieve this. A dominant reason is because people approach the idea of forced ranking from 1st and 2nd wave perspectives. Let‟s explore this further below.

THE 10:70:20 OF CONTINUOUS LEARNING AND TALENT CREATION

Entrenching the Vitality Curve drills down into the core of the art of measuring, coaching, learning and growing talent.

Has your organisation ever claimed that it is or wants to be a learning organisation?

Has your organisation become concerned about the talent it requires for the future?

Has your organisation stated that it wants to attract and retain the best people?

Does your organisation claim that people are its most important resource? If you have answered yes to any two of these questions you have clearly developed awareness of the critical role that ongoing talent creation plays to ensure that your organisation will remain competitive. Now, please answer the next question.

126

Does your organisation have a performance review system? If so does it have a rating scale that resembles this?

o 1: Failed expectations o 2: Failed some and met some expectations. o 3: Met all expectations. o 4: Met all and exceeded some expectations. o 5: Exceeded all expectations.

If you have answered yes to this question you have just failed one of the crucial tests of talent creation and retention. What is more, if you are calling yourself a learning organisation think again. This type of rating system sends out a simple and unambiguous message:

People are not encouraged to learn.

People are expected to do what they do well over and over again.

People must not make mistakes.

People must not experiment.

People must not learn.

People must play it safe. Sound harsh? Let‟s explore it.

The parents of five year old Johnny have just bought him his first two wheel bicycle. He’s so excited and immediately wants to try it out. His dad walks with him to the nearby park and shows little Johnny the basics. Then he allows him to get onto the bike. Like his own father taught him, dad holds onto the saddle and runs behind Johnny as he learns to balance and peddle at the same time. Then dad lets go so that Johnny can ride without help. Like every youngster before him Johnny peddles a few meters, wobbles and crashes down. He grazes his knee and it is bleeding a bit. Johnny tries to bite back the tears. Dad runs to where he is lying on the ground. Scenario One – Dad springs into traditional performance review mode using the 5 point rating system! “Johnny, you’re useless. You haven’t met any of the expectations. In fact, I’ve got a good mind to not let you get onto the bike again until you can prove to me that you can ride it! ”

It may sound silly, and yet this is precisely what happens when organisations persist to use a rating system that punishes attempts to learn and that are accompanied by inevitable failure.

Scenario Two – Dad acts in a natural and constructive manner – without knowing it he uses New Economy approaches: “Wow son, you rode a whole three meters without falling! Here, let me look at your knee. Gee, that’s quite a scratch you’ve got there. I bet you’ll show it to the guys at school on Monday. Does anyone else yet have a scar from falling off his bike? Do you feel like trying again? I’ll hold on until you tell me to let go!” With a smile Johnny jumps onto his

127

bike, ready to try again – knowing it’s OK to fail as long as he doesn’t get afraid to learn.

This is one of the greatest secrets to constructive performance review, life long learning. When practiced consistently over time by enough leaders and teams it has several powerful affects: It creates a workforce that is excited by the prospect of making new

contributions. People are not reticent to discover what they cannot do. Incompetence is appreciated as an essential component of learning. Incompetence in the quest for learning and developing high performance

is celebrated, and not branded as “failing to meet expectations.” Perhaps this is what Peter Senge had in mind when he said that to be a leaner is to be ignorant and incompetent, and unfortunately not too many executives are up to that. But, in our experience this is the inevitable consequence of hanging onto antiquated definitions that erode the energy and space for people to embrace learning and the inevitable incompetence that must accompany it. One of the great New Economy Leadership challenges is to transform the way we view incompetence and learning. In particular, it means that we need to seriously consider changing how we define various levels of competence. For as long as we hang onto the Old Economy terminology and sentiments we can forget about developing talent and stimulating the learning that is required to cope with the ongoing change, speed and pressures of the New Economy.

Initiate

Trainee

Apprentice

Active Learner

Team Player

Artisan

Virtuoso

Specialist

Artist

Coach

Knowledge

Capital Thief

To be a New Economy Leader is to be a Learner

These are symbiotic twins joined at the head, heart, guts and being:

Initiate

Trainee

Apprentice

Active Learner

Team Player

Artisan

Virtuoso

Specialist

Artist

Coach

Knowledge

Capital Thief

To be a New Economy Leader is to be a Learner

These are symbiotic twins joined at the head, heart, guts and being:

128

Perpetual Learning and Building Knowledge Power 0

Initiate/Trainee 1

Apprentice/Active Learner

2 Team

Player/Artisan

3 Virtuoso/ Specialist

4 Artist/Coach

Knowledge Capital Thief (-1)

Status of Knowledge

Innocent Bystander

Don‟t know what there is to know

Regularly getting lost

Unconscious Incompetence

Don‟t know what you don‟t know

Unstructured searching

Conscious Incompetence

Know what you don‟t know

Structured searching

Unconscious Competence

Don‟t know what you know

Unstructured experience

Conscious Competence

Help others to know even better

Structured experience

Hoarding Competence

Claim others don‟t know enough, ever

Keeping others searching

Essential Competencies and Disciplines

Observe

Study

Memorize

Imitate

Replicate

Procedural

Integrate

Conformance

Systematic

Innovate

Add value

Systemic

Experiment

Cross boundaries

Visionary

Transform self

Transfer knowledge

Inclusion

Greatest Threats to Perpetual Learning and Building Knowledge Power

Over-eager

Lack of rote work

Inadequate practice

“Eskimos brain- storming elephants”

Passivity

Reliance on habit

Lazy spontaneity

Undisciplined exploration

Low commitment

Erratic delivery

Homogeneity

Lowest common denominator

Risk aversion

Arrogance

Individualism

Functional preoccupation

Stagnation

Alienation

Rut learning

Lose touch with production/delivery

Fear of others

Hang onto power

Impatience

“I made it my way”

Key Learning Methodologies

Find focus

Make a personal commitment

Clarify personal intent

Practice patience

Define the “learning curriculum”

Evaluate personal competence

Conscious learning

Note taking

Questioning for clarification and content.

Check personal understanding

Mind mapping

Summaries of key points

Ask for critique

Focused subject reading

Debate & question assumptions

Develop themes

Practice, rehearse to “perfection”

Establish patterns of knowledge

Challenge content and standards

Theme reading beyond the known

Personal research

Write articles, present papers

Reform the known

Formal mentoring of others

Define limits and start from there

New fields exploration

Expressive leadership

Sponsor others

Dedicated coaching

Prepare personal transformation

Commit to leaving a legacy

Relish the growth of others

Explore personal reticence

Value teaching

Learn to coach

Adopt a protégé for “the duration”

129

This is not merely a case of playing with words. It requires a deep shift in how we approach continuous learning and talent creation. There are some essential ground rules.

Learn about learning As a point of departure it is necessary to develop ways of rating various stages of learning that are appreciative and constructive rather than punitive, as is the case with the Old Economy terminology and categories. We have consolidated the following terms into a New Economy approach to assessing competence. The table provides a high level summary of the various facets of ongoing learning. In the New Economy, with its continuously accelerating integration and accessibility of information, leaders and entire organisations will need to create a culture in which understanding and celebrating the full spectrum of learning is shared and lived by everyone. To be learners we need to understand learning. This serves as no more than the most basic exploration. Initiate/Trainee It‟s the start of any person‟s learning process. The executive that is promoted to CEO, the graduate starting a first job, the youngster going to school for the first time, all share the same characteristics. Relative to our established competencies we become initiates and trainees who need to develop new competencies. It requires thinking and learning processes that we may have become unfamiliar with and have to adopt from scratch. It can be a time of tension and even anxiety, especially for people who are already in senior leadership positions. It requires a real capacity for humility and openness to learn from others. The downside is when someone remains state for too long. Then they become a performance problem. Apprentice/Active learner As we become aware of what it will take to master the new skills we often become even more aware of our own incompetence. A person who has never even touched a violin, who is in the place of initiate, has no context within which to measure personal incompetence. It is as we step into the learning process that we start to really appreciate just how difficult it will be to truly master the new competencies. It is a time of learning from others. It‟s also a time to actively experiment with new skills and attitudes that at times will feel uncomfortable. Team Player/Artisan As our new competencies take root our ability to make productive contributions within a team develops. But, we need the team. It‟s like playing a game of cards for which we haven‟t learnt all the rules yet. The team can give us immediate feedback and support. As soon as we have to work without the team we start to struggle and forget certain of the competencies that are not

130

yet deeply entrenched. The capacity of a team to become the custodians of learning and providing support to one another is now exceptionally important. Virtuoso/Specialist This is that delicious stage when we feel on top of everything. We‟re in the flow of being independently capable of fulfilling tasks without any reference to others. In fact, we become the reference for others. There is conventional wisdom that says we develop from unconscious incompetence to conscious incompetence, then develop conscious competence before slipping into unconscious competence. In our work with managers and executives we have often witnessed people apparently moving from conscious incompetence to unconscious competence. As a result they do not structure their learning so that they can make this available to others. This is the biggest trap for the virtuoso or specialist. It causes them to become knowledge capital thieves. Artist/Coach The artist and coach is the specialist who has developed conscious competence and is capable of accelerating the learning of others. This occurs when we accept our innate responsibility as leaders to be coaches and teachers. In the New Economy every person, regardless of rank will need to take on the role of artist and coach. The vast majority of learning and training will have to occur on a daily basis as a normal part of daily work. In the Old Economy training and development was often something that took place in the classroom. Line managers were seldom required to consciously take on the role of trainer and coach, although there are obviously wonderful examples of people who taken on the role of cherished mentor and coach, even when everything around them was infused with Old Economy values. Knowledge Capital Thief The very best security system in the world cannot prevent one of the most prevalent forms of theft occurring in every organisation. It‟s the theft of knowledge and experience by people who often are not even aware they‟re doing it. We have all encountered them. When they go on leave there are problems because they leave holes in the system that no one else can fill. They may even claim that it would “take three people to fill my job if I leave.” And of course, leave they will – upon retirement, joining another organisation or dying, but they will leave some day. When they do they take there experience and knowledge with them. This is not necessary with bad intent. It is mostly unconscious. They pose a major risk to the organisation if they cannot be convinced of the need to become active coaches who pass expertise and learning onto others.

Leadership and learning are symbiotic twins joined at the head, heart and guts.

Becoming perpetual learners, and the capacity to live with the full spectrum of learning taking place within our self and others is one of the most important

131

New Economy Leadership competencies that organisations need to target as part of their competitive quest.

Personal 10:70:20 profiles of learning Anyone who claims to be highly competent at everything they are doing can only know one thing for certain: They have reached a stage of stagnation and are stuck in a rut. A healthy alternative is constantly encourage individuals and even teams to identify the areas in which they are Under Developed, Developed, and Highly Developed. It looks something like this: When an individual describes his or her competencies within this format, and they are required to truthfully rate themselves on a diverse set of high performance leadership competencies, we generally get this type of profile:

The 10:70:20 of Leadership and Learning

Artist

and Coach

Virtuoso and

Specialist

Team Player and

Artisan

Apprentice and

Active Learner

Initiate and

Trainee

Artist

and Coach

Virtuoso and

Specialist

Team Player and

Artisan

Apprentice and

Active Learner

Initiate and

Trainee

C – Underdeveloped

Learning

This individual is aware of the

area in which development is

required. He does not try to hide

this. Instead he applies his mind

to studying and practicing the

new skill. He readily models his

nascent skill on others, and

seeks advice on how to improve

.

Research demonstrates that it is

within the grasp of anyone to

make this improvement if they

are willing to put in the effort.

They‟ll never become totally

comfortable but they‟ll get to the

point where they can add value,

albeit under the guidance and

with the support of colleagues.

Metaphorically this is the person

who can plonk out Chop Sticks

on the piano, but that‟s about it.

B - Developed:

Good

This individual has progressed well

and can apply the skills in a

predictable manner. She will

seldom let anyone down and can

deliver consistent outputs that fulfil

the ongoing demands of the job.

She may not be independently

capable of delivering good results,

but everyone knows that when she

works in and with a team her

performance is valued.

She is admired for her reliability

and dogged determination to

deliver contributions that fulfil

expectations.

Metaphorically she is the person

who can provide great

entertainment and play the piano

while everyone joins in a fun-filled

sing-along.

A - Highly Developed:

Great

This individual is simply streets ahead

of anyone else in what she does.

There is a natural flow and seemingly

magical ease at play when she is

working. For her, this part of her work

has lost its boundaries between art

and endeavour.

People sometimes stand a bit in awe

of what she does. Where others see

problems she simply sees an empty

canvass that is waiting for her to

engage with it so that it burst into the

colours and shades of a master

piece. She is the first source of

reference when someone needs

assistance in her area of mastery.

Metaphorically she is the concert

pianist who entices goose flesh on

our skins as she transports us into

the magic of the music.

132

In 2005, Barclays UK bought the controlling share in South Africa’s largest retail bank, Absa. During one of the early executive leadership workshops in which all of the directors participated, each individual was required to develop a personal profile of leadership and executive competencies required to ensure that the acquisition would be a success, and what it would take to achieve their strategic objectives. Each team member then gave colleagues feedback on their personal assessment, and made suggestions on other competencies to consider in the three broad areas of personal evaluation. At the end of the exercise Steve Booysen, the CEO remarked, “It is quite a relief to recognise what I’m good at, but also that I do not have to be good at everything, and that there is always room to learn.

The combination of speed, responsiveness and unleashing the energy of individuals across all levels in your organisation requires sustained adherence to a set of new „rules of the game‟. Individuals who follow no rules are anarchists who feel entitled; rules in an environment that does not encourage learning and growth amount to suffocating bureaucracy and enforce hierarchies. As you will see in the next Chapter on Business Disciplines, the New Economy brings with it an increasing demand to define the rules of the game, and to exercise consequences of non-compliance. So dealing with your talent requires robust and sustainable performance enhancement. Performance reviews remain sterile tools if the overarching performance culture has not been developed.

Personal 10:70:20 of Leadership and Learning

Artist

and Coach

Virtuoso and

Specialist

Team Player and

Artisan

Apprentice and

Active Learner

Initiate and

Trainee

Artist

and Coach

Virtuoso and

Specialist

Team Player and

Artisan

Apprentice and

Active Learner

Initiate and

Trainee

C – Underdeveloped

Learning

B - Developed:

Good

A - Highly Developed:

Great

133

“Brainpower is the fuel of the New Economy - a commodity always in demand and never readily available”7. This chapter should give you the foundations to begin a Talent Creation Program in your company. Chapter Five will deal with Business Disciplines – the essential ingredients required to create the context for effective Performance Management.

.

134

Hands on Info

All Hand on Exercises are provided in the chapter.

135

KEY GOVERNANCE / LEADERSHIP QUESTIONS

TALENT CREATION

Do we have formal processes in place to identify and retain talent?

Is there place at executive level that has a “one shot” view of the talent?

To what extent is the company making real impact in targeting these

behaviours?

Do we have disciplines in place to manage talent interdepartmentally?

Are we breeding the type of managers that will drive the 12 questions of

talent creation? Do they have the necessary soft skills?

136

NOTES

1 Business Day, February 23 2001.

2 Business Day, April 5 2001.

3 “The War on Talent”, McKinsey Quarterly, 1998 Volume 3, p49 and 50

4 “The War on Talent Part Two”, McKinsey Quarterly, 2001 Volume 2, p1 and 2.

5 “The War on Talent Part Two ”, McKinsey Quarterly, 2001 Volume 2, p3.

6 First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently, by Marcus

Buckingham and Curt Coffman, published by Simon and Schuster (May 1999). 7 From: Web-Exclusives By: Julie Piotrowski and Christine Canabou

http://www.fastcompany.com/articles/1999/11/recruiting.html