It is an axiomatic
fact that human capital represents the real distinctive organizational component
genuinely and effectually enabling employers to attain competitive edge. Beyond
the rhetoric which may at times surround this principle, it can be definitely averred
that whether an organization attains determined objectives this is thanks to the
contribution of its people.
Unquestionably,
employers can imitate, on occasions even promptly, every move made by their
most successful competitors in the market but their people. Whether an employer
has been successful in attracting the best talents existing in a determined
area, this could practically boast the achievement of two simultaneous
important feats: employing the best people and averting these to be hired by
its competitors.
Despite talent can
be defined in many ways, in the business field every definition associates with
it particularly significant features and characteristics essentially enabling individuals
to yield remarkable results and reach outstanding, above-than-average
performances.
Talents could be
thus defined as those individuals who possess distinguishing skills and
capabilities enabling them to effortlessly perform at well-above-the-standard
and who can effectually support the employer in the pursuit of its strategy and
in the attainment of its intended objectives. Yet, these individuals can be
considered as talent-dynamic, that is, people whose current capabilities and
skills are predisposed to further grow and develop over time and who can consequently
help the organization to sustain its growth and ultimately gain and preserve
competitive advantage.
With particular
reference to the business world, it can be averred that talent is not as widespread
and promptly available as employers desire it to be. By contrast, the number of
individuals who can actually make a difference and effectually help organizations
to yield the desired results is relatively small. This has triggered and
exacerbated over time a borderless competition amongst organizations, which
have ever since devoted a growing attention to the design and development of
practices aiming at attracting this significant category of individuals. So
harsh has become the competition
for talented people over time as in 1998 the consulting firm McKinsey
formulated the self-explanatory expression “war for talent” to label this new
phenomenon.
With the passing of
the years, employers realized that attracting particularly talented individuals
is not enough, it is in fact also crucially important for organizations to retain
and further develop these. The need for the adoption of a structured and clear
approach specifically aiming at investigating new and effective ways of attracting
and retaining talents gave later birth to a new specialism widely known as
“talent management.”
Talent can be
intended not only as a current state, but also as a prospective state.
Individuals can already possess the sought-after qualities or show to have the potential
to develop these in the incoming future. Some employers have hence reconsidered
the meaning of talent accordingly and expanded the extent of their search of potential
talents to the organization current staff.
Irrespective of the
approach considered as the most appropriate and hence adopted in practice by
employers, talent management can be divided into two main stages: the first
stage is concerned with the search of talented people, either in the exogenous
or endogenous context, whereas during the second phase employers efforts focus
on the development and retention of the pre-identified individuals.
The common
denominator of the inclusive and exclusive approaches to talent management is invariably
represented by the employer dedication of resources and efforts to a limited
number of individuals. Despite the inclusive approach entails the extension of
the quest for talented people to the organization overall employee population
in fact once the talented people and potential talents have been identified the
initiatives included in the business’ talent management programmes will be
offered only to the individuals qualifying for the scheme.
All
in all, it can be therefore concluded that talent management programmes and
initiatives are invariably dedicated to an elite of employees. Despite the
presence within a business of a number of particularly talented individuals definitely
represents a great asset to the business, it can be hardly assumed that
employers may ever attain their objectives and successfully pursue their
strategies without the active and effective contribution of the entire
workforce. The considerable importance for employers of developing sound and
effectual employee retention practices seems hence to be self-evident.
Employers must be
aware of the circumstance that the implementation of talent management
practices does not entail having in place employee retention practices. Even
though talent management and employee retention could be deemed as the two sides
of the same coin, these actually represent two different approaches aiming at
achieving two different aims. Whether an organization should, for instance, experience
serious hardships in terms of attrition, the development and introduction of
talent management programmes would not enable this to overcome the problem.
Similarly, organizations will never be able to address the problems associated
with skills shortage and succession planning by introducing employee retention practices.
Design, develop and
implement effectual talent management and employee retention practices is
everything but straightforward; however, since talent management initiatives
are introduced to the benefit of a limited number of people, whose wants and
aspiration can be thus more easily investigated and met, these programmes should
reveal to be relatively easier to execute. Employee retention practices, by
contrast, being basically directed at the entire workforce, can prove to be
much more challenging and problematic for the HR specialists involved in their
development and demanding for line managers and HR during the implementation phase.
Whereas offering to talented individuals genuine opportunities for professional
growth and autonomy, which could be in detail identified also on the basis of
the current and prospective business wants and necessities, may reveal to be
relatively, but not in absolute terms, straightforward, regularly coming up
with brand new initiatives aiming at retaining the overall employee population is
very likely to reveal a sorely difficult feat to perform. Some remarkable
differences are indeed likely to emerge also in terms of budgetary issues and
constraints.
It is widely
recognized that individuals derive most of their motivation from the job and
the activities they perform, provided that these are perceived as fulfilling
and generate as such a sense of accomplishment, pride and ultimately of
belonging. Whereas the activities performed by talented people imply a high
degree of autonomy and responsibility, which can definitely provide these
individuals a considerable return in terms of intangible and intrinsic reward,
it can hardly be assumed that people executing more repetitive and not captivating
tasks may derive the same sense of fulfilment as the former from the act of performing
their job. Yet, it is widely recognized that employees derive most of their
motivation from the awareness that the activities they execute are significant
and valuable for the attainment of the organizational objectives and hence for
the employer. Whereas talented people may hardly lose sight of the strong link
existing between the activities they preform and the way these fit with the organizational
strategy, this line of sight habitually results to be much more blurred for the
shop floor.
The development of both
talent management and employee retention practices definitely represents a
sorely difficult task for HR managers and specialists but, as we have seen, the
development of sound and effective employee retention practices typically presents
even more difficulties. Furthermore, whereas talented people once the employer
has decided to invest in them are likely to start and walk a path entailing a
constant development, growing levels of responsibility and possibly a change of
role over time, the largest part of employees are likely to continue to perform
the same tasks and activities for a very long period of time at best and till
retirement at worst. In these cases it
is glaringly obvious that people with a certain level of Growth Need Strength (GNS)
will feel uncomfortable continuing to perform the same activities for a very
long period of time. Under such circumstances, especially whether individuals
should perceive their current job as a dead-end one, there are good chances that
these people will try and seek for new opportunities either internally or
externally.
Managers’ mission
is therefore very important and at the same time definitely challenging. In
every organization there are people performing repetitive tasks which are in
any case vital for the attainment of the organizational objectives and that,
for repetitive and mundane these might be, require to be executed by experienced,
accurate and professional workers. Yet, more often than not these people
perform such type of tasks from a long period of time and at a more-than-satisfactory
level. In terms of quality and quantity there is a world of difference between
the final outcome yielded in the same length of time by an experienced and
loyal employee and that produced by a newcomer; especially whether this does
not fully fit the business culture. Whether some of these experienced and
productive individuals should leave the business, the employer would be
prompted to activate a costly chain process formed by: recruitment and
selection, induction and training. At the end of the process it is very
unlikely that the new hires may attain the same level of professionalism and
performance as that achieved by the employees who have resigned. The incumbents
will be able to attain the same level of contribution after a number of years at
best, which does not clearly represent an ideal situation for an employer.
All in all, it emerges
that retaining good workers and best performers is of paramount importance for
employers, irrespective of the complexity of their roles. Employers should
hence definitely continue to pursue their interest in talent management, preferably
in its inclusive rather than exclusive form, but not to the detriment and
overlooking the importance of the rest of the company employee population.
Every good employee is important, the definition of human capital is not casual
and it is not indeed limited to part of an organization workforce. Retaining
good employees is invariably important and can enable employers to practically
attain competitive advantage and avert the costs associated with employee
turnover. On the other hand it cannot be denied that a too stagnant workforce
is not positive for employers too. Newcomers, especially whether these have had
previous work experiences in different businesses, can clearly contribute to an
organization a breath of fresh air which is habitually beneficial to employers
and employees as well. This objective can, however, be met when replacing
retired people, when expanding the size of the workforce or as a consequence of
a deliberately activated sorting effect plan.
People
at all levels are important for organizations so that in order to avoid undesirable
additional costs and possible disruptions employers should devote to all of
them the right attention and resources and strive to make each individual feel
valued and respected in the workplace.
Longo,
R., (2014), Talent
Management and Employee Retention, why you need them both;
Milan: HR Professionals, Milan [online].
