Bob,

How do you define the following: 1) talent and 2) job success?

In order to make your statements ring true, "job success" must be something that is defined by the particular organization, manager, etc. that hires the person. Your arguments assume also that the hiring manager knows what talent is; is able to recognize it - or the lack thereof; and be able to make a match between their definition of job success and the talent of any particular person.

A talented employee can end up with a job that sucks; a talented employee can be promoted to a different job in which the talent is not used - this is the case with a lot of management - they have risen to the point of their incompetence. They could have been "hired for their talent" at the time, but that would not necessarily hold if the job changes. And incompetent managers are often the reason employees leave - including the talented ones. How do you get rid of the person who rises to the level of incompetence - although originally hired for talent - as required by someone's arbitrary definition of job success? Again, the organization is responsible for being wise enough to always pair the person with the talent required for their definition of job success in any given job. This is a dream world - a fantasy. Reality is that many hiring managers aren't even sure of the job description.

For this all to work out, management must have talent also - not just the newly hired employee. And that is just not always the case in real organizations with real people.

Talent is simply not the only thing that affects employee turnover.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KaliKo,

quote:

Your arguments assume also that the hiring manager knows what talent is; is able to recognize it - or the lack thereof; and be able to make a match between their definition of job success and the talent of any particular person.

Yes - I believe the assumption needs to be that talented recruiters are the ones finding the best candidates. By extension - all people in the organization need to be the right talent for the position they hold. So, before hiring new people, the organization needs to critically examine the organization and ensure that the right people are in the right jobs.

Yes, it makes sense that in order to keep talent, you want to have an environment that is pleasing to the people you hire... and that means that the people creating that pleasing environment are talented as well. I think the idea is that if everyone in the company is in the right place and knows what the heck she/he is doing, hiring additional talent will enable continued success of the whole picture of having the right people in the right places.

(It should also mean getting rid of people who don't belong where they are, or moving them to a position for which their talent best suits them.)

Just thinking out loud here.

>How do you define the following: 1) talent and 2) job success?<

The authors of "First break all the rules..." define talent on page 71 as "... a recurring pattern of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied ... The emphasis here is on the word 'recurring.' Great managers say 'Your talents are the behaviors you find yourself doing often.'" This is why job matching or hiring for talent is so effective at selecting good employees.

Job success is defined by the position’s supervisors and others in management.

>In order to make your statements ring true, "job success" must be something that is defined by the particular organization, manager, etc. that hires the person.<

That is true.

>Your arguments assume also that the hiring manager knows what talent is; is able to recognize it - or the lack thereof; and be able to make a match between their definition of job success and the talent of any particular person.<

Yes, that is true also.

>A talented employee can end up with a job that sucks;<

If an employee has a talent for his job, he won't think his job sucks.

>a talented employee can be promoted to a different job in which the talent is not used - this is the case with a lot of management - they have risen to the point of their incompetence.<

That is the "Peter Principle" and hiring for talent helps employers avoid promoting employees to their level of incompetence. "The Peter Principle" is defined as "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence".

>They could have been "hired for their talent" at the time, but that would not necessarily hold if the job changes.<

Hiring for talent means the employer knows the talent demanded by each position and how well each employee matches each job's talent requirements.

>And incompetent managers are often the reason employees leave - including the talented ones.<

Managers with poor job talent may be a more frequent cause of turnover than incompetent managers. Very few employers hire incompetent employees but they all too often hire or promote people who don't have an adequate talent for their job, supervisors and managers included.

In my estimation only about 11% of the workforce is well suited to manage people. When employers hire for talent they have fewer incompetent managers.

>How do you get rid of the person who rises to the level of incompetence - although originally hired for talent - as required by someone's arbitrary definition of job success?<

You'll find the answer to that question in the 1968 book "The Peter Principle" by Dr. Laurence J. Peter. A side note: Dr. Peter's son called me to thank me for reviewing his father's book on my web site. He was pleased to see his father’s insight and wisdom is still appreciated.

>Again, the organization is responsible for being wise enough to always pair the person with the talent required for their definition of job success in any given job.<

Most organizations don't measure talent so they don't make job assignments based on talent.

>This is a dream world - a fantasy. Reality is that many hiring managers aren't even sure of the job description.<

Only about 11% of the workforce is well suited to manage people so we should not be surprised that “many hiring managers aren't even sure of the job description.”

I'm not referring to the "many hiring managers" but rather to the “other hiring managers.”


>For this all to work out, management must have talent also - not just the newly hired employee.<

I think you are missing some important ingredients of managerial success; risk taking, wisdom, and self-assessment to name a few.

Managers must assess themselves and their organizations and then have the wisdom to see that things should and can be improved then they must take a risk and try something new otherwise nothing will change.

>And that is just not always the case in real organizations with real people.<

That is the reason that so few organizations hire for talent—too many managers are so wrapped up in their own little worlds and in their own counterproductive behaviors that they never get outside themselves to see what is going on and how fix it.

>Talent is simply not the only thing that affects employee turnover.<

What is your point?

Are you suggesting that since talent isn’t the only thing that affects employee turnover we should ignore talent?

I’m suggesting that hiring for talent is the easiest thing we can do to increase retention and productivity and to reduce employee problems.

After an employer begins to hire for talent the management team can address the other issues that impact turnover. They’ll have more time due to fewer problem employees and fewer interviews of job applicants.

Bob Gately
gately@csi.com

quote:

For this all to work out, management must have talent also - not just the newly hired employee. And that is just not always the case in real organizations with real people.

Perhaps, right there, is the first thing a company needs to look at if they want to reduce attrition. After all, one of the most frequent reasons for people leaving a job is that their managers...well...to put it nicely...weren't up to snuff.

I highly recommend the book the Loyalty Effect. Here's the Amazon link so you can see inside the book. http://www.amazon.com/Loyalty-Effect-Hidden-Profits-Lasting/dp/1578516870

This book looks at rention of Employees, Customers and Shareholders. One of the most interesting parts of the book is when he talks about survey results. If you rate satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 5, loyalty doesn't reall start until there is a rating of 4.5 or higher.