What does talent consist of?
There is currently no single recognized, accepted definition of the term “talent” (Foucher, 2010). Foucher (2010), in his latest work, Gérer les talents et les compétences, provided a number of definitions taken from texts including dictionaries, specialized dictionaries, articles in scientific journals, and HR management books. In fact, not only is there no consensus between authors, some definitions actually appear to contradict one another or to merge concepts like talent, performance and potential together. However, a number of key features of “talent” do stand out (Foucher, 2010). First, “talent” refers to underlying aspects of the human being, creating a predisposition that affects the development of an individual’s skill sets. Furthermore, talent provides the foundation on which skills are built, although it is a separate concept. In addition, talent is exhibited in a specific field and needs to be developed before it can be actualized. Talent is also a gift that fosters the learning process and performance. It can therefore be considered a precursor to excellence. Finally, a person’s talents are believed to be hereditary but can be developed over and above their natural state (Foucher, 2010).
In the discourse of talent management, “high-potential” is often used interchangeably with “talented” (e.g. high-potential employees / talented employees). Yet there is a difference between potential and talent. Potential is capacity without action. It is virtual; it expresses what is possible, what could occur under the right conditions (Rey-Debove, J. & Rey, A., 2009). “Potential” refers to the possibility for an individual to become more than they are today (Silzer & Church, 2009). In other words, potential is the possibility that an individual might develop the characteristics necessary to reach a higher level. Thus talent determines an individual’s potential which, in turn, influences whether or not his/her skill sets will be realized (Foucher, 2010). In 2010, Morin listed several definitions of “human potential” within the context of the workplace. An employee’s high potential may be seen as: (a) a capacity to occupy upper or middle management positions; (b) a capacity to provide high-value (in a particular position); (c) a possibility for upgrading (increasing responsibilities); or (d) the possibility of achieving proficiency (the employee remains at the same level and performs the same task as a highly-valued expert). All these definitions include an indication of the end goal, i.e. an answer to the question, “the potential for what?” In their article, “The pearls and perils of identifying potential”, Silzer and Church (2009) also mention that it is crucial to be able to answer this question, so as to avoid the pitfall of mistaking general intelligence for potential. By stating the subject of the potential, the topic becomes less sensitive: all individuals have potential, but in different fields and for different activities (Silzer & Church, 2009).
Potential for what?
In 2005, talent management was transformed by the conclusion that it is not only important to identify high-potential employees, but also strategic positions to be filled by “A players” (Collings & Mellahi, 2005). A new definition emerged:
activities and processes that involve the systematic identification of key positions which differentially contribute to the organization’s sustainable competitive advantage, the development of a talent pool of high potential and high performing incumbents to fill these roles, and the development of a differentiated human resource architecture to facilitate filling these positions with competent incumbents and to ensure their continued commitment to the organization (Collings & Mellahi, 2009).
We now know that it is both utopian and undesirable to aim for high-potential staff in all of an organization’s positions (Morin, 2010). First, it is impossible to find that many “A players”. Also, many jobs have a very low impact on organizational efficiency. As a result, even if a highly talented individual were to hold one of these positions, the effect on the organization would be negligible. Finally, it can be very costly to hold on to A players, in terms of both salary and benefits (Michaels et al., 2001). According to Becker et al. (2009), the path to a competitive advantage involves differentiating staff (A, B and C players) and identifying those jobs that make a substantial contribution toward corporate strategy (A, B and C positions). Along the same lines, Henson (2009) considered that, in view of the fact that an organization can have multiple strategic positions, it is important to develop multiple talent pools. More than 65% of companies with a talent mindset are believed to draw from more than one pool of high-potential individuals (Silzer & Church, 2009). Each of these high-potential pools is a response to the question, “Potential for what?” We will now provide a brief description of how to single out an organization’s strategic positions.
Identifying strategic positions
To determine an organization’s key positions, a review of its missions and strategies is in order. This will make it possible to clearly identify the organization’s focus in terms of brand differentiation (Becker et al., 2009; Huselid et al., 2005). This means that two organizations with the same core value – for example, customer satisfaction – can view different positions as strategic. Let’s consider the case of a company that wants to ensure that its customers receive personalized service. This organization will identify first-line positions with direct customer contact as its key positions. However, a company like Costco, which targets customer satisfaction by offering a variety of cut-price products, will instead hold buyer positions to be strategic. Becker et al. (2009) maintain that these “A positions” provide the best opportunity to increase shareholder wealth and should therefore enjoy the greatest share of corporate investment. B positions are classified as support positions, while the remaining jobs, which typically have little economic impact, are considered C positions. And depending on the organization, the same employee might be a key player in one, but not in another. The strategic value of positions may also be altered if a company changes its values, objectives or mission.
The next article in this series on talent management and potential will be devoted to the identification of high-potential employees. It will include an overview of the personal qualities of high-potential employees, along with the steps to identifying an organization’s “A players”.
Philippe Longpré, PhD Cdt.
Marilyne Pigeon, PhD Cdt.
References
Becker, B.E., Huselid, M.A., & Beatty, R.W. (2009). The differentiated workforce: Transforming talent into strategic impact.
Collings, D.G. & Mellahi, K. (2009). “Strategic talent management: A review and research agenda”. Human Resource Management Review 19, 304-313.
Foucher, R. (2010). Gérer les talents et les compétences : principes, pratiques, instruments. Tome 1: Fondements de la gestion des talents et des compétences. Montreal: Éditions nouvelles.
Henson, R.M. (2009). Key practices in identifying and developing potential”. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2, 416-419.
Huselid, M.A., Beatty, R.W., & Becker, B.E. (2005). “‘A Players’ or ‘A Positions’? The strategic logic of workforce management”. Harvard Business Review, December 2005, 1-8.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H. & Axelrod, B. (2001). The War for Talent. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Morin, D. (2010). “Rendement et potentiel élevés : essentiels à la gestion des talents”. Onwww.portailrh.org/effectif/fiche.aspx?p=403222.
Rey-Debove, J. & Rey, A. (2009). Le Petit Robert : Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert.
Silzer, R. & Church, A.H. (2009). “The pearls and perils of identifying potential”. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2, 377-412.
