All posts by : HR Wheelworks

During Talent Review discussions, we base our talent decisions amongst others on the interpretation by our leaders of ‘potential’. Subsequently we invest time and money in the talents, identified by the leaders

Most organizations fail about half the time in their designation of a high potential because they do not use any scientific measure to confirm this ‘potential’ or to proactively identify the employees with the most potential. Of course, we need the support of the leader to create a development context for each of these talents, so his/her opinion should be part of the discussion … nevertheless

We lose a lot of time and effort in aligning on the identification of the ‘right’ high potentials. While we should focus our discussion on the actions we would like to propose to our talents, so they are able to evolve, develop, take up challenging assignments, …

What Wouter clearly put forward, was that potential is only partially explained if just one measure or perspective is used. It’s by combining validated scales from different perspectives that an adequate prediction of potential is attained.

Which factors are involved? Traditionally, science has focused on the below three:

1. IQ or general intelligence is still the number 1 predictor of potential
2. Conscientiousness or get things done in a result-oriented way, as 1 of the big 5 personality traits is a second vital ingredient
3. EQ or showing social abilities, being empathic, based on good self-knowledge, is a third part to explain ‘potential’

However, this has only led to a predictive value of about 49%. As such, based on newer work and their own analyses, Wouter and his team have found valuable additions in newer, validated concepts:

1. Newer multidimensional constructs regarding EQ and adaptive habits under the umbrella of learning agility.
2. Career- or metaskills
   like adaptability, self-knowledge and self-directed learning that indicate successful identity- and learning-related tendencies

Do you want your Talent Review discussion to be focused on what really matters, being (career) development initiatives and NOT on the eternal discussion if someone is yes or no a (high) potential?

The speed of change is record-breaking.

Also in Talent Management. As a consequence of Covid-19, many organizations decided to adjust their recruitment practices, to launch a COVID well-being program, to train their leaders on how to guide people from a distance, etcetera.

All of these initiatives are focused on keeping the business going. Giving support to people to maintain productivity and performance at acceptable levels.

What about Talent Management priorities, preparing for the future?

Are we focusing with the same attention, on the follow-up of the development of future leaders?

Are we aware of the retention risk of high performers or the vacancy-risk of critical roles?

In other words, what about the impact on Talent Review & Succession Management initiatives?

Now is the perfect moment

1. to observe what leaders do when they don’t know what to do or when they are confronted with a major change.
2. to identify which roles really are critical to the business. Which of these roles do add value or bring revenue?
3. to get confirmation or not on the potential of a talent. Was he/she the one who came with refreshing ideas, moving the team forward as a natural leader, keeping spirits high, sharing his/her curiosity and eager to discover a new way of collaboration
4. to involve high potentials or future leaders in the strategic Covid-taskforce as a learning assignment.

Now is the time to put Talent Review on the business agenda.

• More than 50% of business expense is people
• Talent risk affects the big three business drivers every day: money, time, quality
• It’s about gathering different data to make better talent decisions