The pace of change in talent management and global HR in general keeps accelerating as technological innovation, new generations entering the workforce, and new practices are emerging. These ongoing changes bring a mixed bag of heightened employee expectations, hopes of better management practices and business uncertainties, and force HR teams to reassess their practices. The employee value proposition is evolving towards a more flexible one in the coming years ahead.
When we look closely at talent management practices, a number of unresolved issues, or “gaps”, appear. They are related to the discrepancy between initial objectives and the reality of people management from diversity, technological, generational, and career management perspectives.
These issues illustrate the ambivalence of talent management and HR practices — well managed, they can help bridge talent and business gaps, but poorly executed, they widen them.
Whether talent management will deliver its promises (or not) will depend on the future strategies and choices being made at the organizational, departmental, or individual levels. When we start analyzing these gaps, we open the door to rethink what potential challenges lie ahead and make the plans to start addressing them.
Gap 1: Diversity
There is a sense of repetition when talking about diversity in the global workforce at managerial level. While awareness of the problem has increased and some companies present remarkable success stories, progress is too slow — a statement we are making every year. Women and some minorities are underrepresented in the global mobile workforce, opportunities in terms of career progression at managerial level remain limited and pay parity has not yet been achieved.
“If we all agree about the problem, what’s taking so long?” is the question that comes to mind. Here are a few answers:
- The perception of the problem must move from purely moral to pragmatic (business benefits) perspective. However, the business benefit of diversity at managerial level materializes only when an organization reaches a certain diversity threshold — the increased participation of women and minorities in the workforce allows for the emergence of new role models, new ideas and perspectives, as well as cost-saving opportunities (a wide talent pool means more choice to find candidates).
- When talking to organizations, the differences in terms of perception depends on how far they are on their diversity journey. While companies at the beginning of the journey might struggle with the practicalities of the diversity concept, others that have made the most progress can attest the business value of the gender parity and diversity.
- Another point to bear in mind that while putting diversity on the radar is a first step, it needs to be followed by a pragmatic strategy to build a diverse talent pipeline. During a recent conference the participants concluded: “We agree on the diversity objectives, but we simply don’t find enough candidates with the right qualifications.” There is no easy fast track to diversity, unless you want risk frictions within the workforce or even reverse discrimination. Building a strong talent pipeline takes time and training. Reskilling is a priority, as is opening up new opportunities for women and minorities joining or rejoining the workforce after a temporary career break.
- Finally, it is important to move from diversity to real inclusion: It’s not just the number that matters, but the active participation of women and minorities and their contribution to business at a strategic managerial level that is the goal and a sign that the gap is finally closing.
Could technology help bridge the diversity gap or widen it?
Gap 2: Technological
We usually assume that technology and the use of talent analytics can help remove decisions biases. The reality is more complex: unconscious biases can spill into the analysis and be eventually reinforced by the results. For example, the success criteria used in the analysis are based on a specific existing group profile and could disadvantage individuals from other groups. This should, however, not lead to knee-jerk reactions and a strong rejection of technology and analytics. Striving for more data-driven HR decisions and less assumptions is a step in the right direction.
Another potential downside of analytics and of the current technological revolution for talent teams is that a gap could emerge — those who master analytical skills (or at least understand analytics) and those who don’t. It could create a divide between departments in the organization and within the HR community itself. A risk exacerbated at a time when part of the HR function is threatened to be made irrelevant, outsourced, or automatized and struggle to become more strategic.
Technology is also impacting the debate about generations.
Gap 3: Generational
The perceived need for digital experts has led to a recruitment frenzy aimed at young techno-savvy talent while older employees are left unsure about their career perspectives and struggling for attention. Employees over 50 traditionally worry about job security, a trend that have been accentuated by technological development. There are gaps in the way the different generations in the workforce are managed, fueled by the perception of skills and expectations of the different age groups. Some of these perceptions hold a degree of truth — the new generations are shaped by new technologies unlike any of their predecessors. But some of the new generations’ alleged traits are exaggerated or confused with the traditional opposition between young and old people. Younger generations are earlier adopters of new trends and technology, but are not an alien tribe with vastly different skills or aspirations as their elders. What can’t be ignored is that older professionals represent a significant talent pool, and are becoming a fast growing part of the overall population. In the context of a talent shortage and shrinking workforce, attracting and retaining older professionals will become increasingly important. Millennials may be more digitally savvy, but older workers offer essential core skills — from international business management skills to engineering — that can plug the growing skills gap that multinationals are experiencing.
The gaps within the workforce are not just about age and minorities.
Gap 4: Between insiders and outsiders
While companies have long valued length of service as a sign of loyalty, current business models based on the acquisition of new digital talent and on borrowing talent — freelancers and gig workers — increasingly reward new newcomers as opposed to employees who have been in the company for many years. On paper, the gig economy model — in which workers take on temporary work to perform specific tasks or projects — looks like a win-win for the company and for the employees.
In practice, companies need to avoid having a fragmented workforce with employees on one side and the gig workers on the other side. How does one motivate a gig worker to go the extra mile, convey the official messages, and uphold the values of the company? Replacing developmental moves with project-based assignments done by freelancers and a generally greater reliance on gig workers, as opposed to building up the internal workforce, could lead to a less skilled talent pool in the long run.
HR teams are not equipped to follow the careers and evaluate the performance of this new category of professionals. This raises questions about the relevance and consistency of performance review and career management processes.
Breaking the divide between insiders and outsiders will require a specific talent strategy to integrate the newcomers and avoid demotivating in-house employees.
Could international mobility be widening the gap between employee groups?
Gap 5: Mobility
If mobility is good for employees’ careers and a necessary stage in reaching managerial levels in large multinationals, what about non-mobile employees? We are witnessing a growing gap between highly skilled mobile employees willing and able to market themselves and non-mobile local employees with a slower career progression in their company and greater job insecurity on the marketplace.
Is there a need to ensure that the opportunities for moving are available to a greater number of employees and can a substitute for mobility be provided to those who are not mobile for personal reasons or would it be too costly for the organization? This could take the form of virtual moves, short international training or new ways of flexible working. Another way to bridge the gap is take a wider view of mobility and consider job mobility, i.e. bring jobs to people as opposed to bringing the people to the job.
Digging one level deeper in the analysis, we can question the absolute value of mobility and ask ourselves what type of moves are really beneficial for an individual’s career: not all assignments are equal and we often see a mismatch between the talent agenda of the company and the realities of talent mobility.
Mobility might be presented as a boost for an employee’s career while in reality it brings no tangible benefit. Worse still, former expatriates could be passed over for promotion due to their lack of visibility and absence of networking internally. They might stagnate in their current roles and not use their newly acquired skills.
Mapping potential career accelerators with assignment destinations is a good exercise: working in selected destinations or being on specific types of assignments could be identified as a fast track to reach top managerial levels while other destinations provide little career benefit.
The talent mobility gap is also reflected in the communications and the way expectations are mismanaged.
Gap 6: Communications and Expectations
An HR policy’s introduction reveals much about a company culture and the role of mobility within the organization. Who wrote this introduction (top management, CEO, or a lower level manager)? What promise has been made in terms of career, remuneration, and lifestyle? Is there a discrepancy between this message and actual practices?
The policy philosophy should be summarized in a 60-second elevator pitch. What is the program about: financial gains, career acceleration, and lifestyle facilitation? A clear story needs to be set.
The important point is consistency. Organizations are rarely completely off the mark with their compensation structures, but they often fail to connect the realities of their practices and their promises to employees.
Words matter, but so do success stories and role models. How many members of top management participated in talent programs such as international assignments? Are there role models and success stories that attest to the delivered promises of international mobility?
Setting a clear communication implies having a long-term vision, more than just short-term management.
Gap 7: Vision — Long-term vs. Short-term Management
The pace of change in organizations is accelerated due to the frantic attempt to go digital. Millennials are job hopping, looking for training and fast career progressions. Management is focused on short-term financial objectives. There is a premium on speed and on change management.
The fact that the length of tenure in a given job is shortened also means that assignees and managers don’t stay long enough in their current jobs to see the consequences of their decisions.
We would like to think about talent management as a straightforward journey in the direction of more structured, efficient, and business-aligned practices. In reality, many events such as mergers and acquisitions, downsizing, business contraction, cost-cutting exercises, change of management or business strategy can derail this tidy evolution model and send HR programs on a roller coaster ride. From a practical perspective, this means that companies might have to take a step back and simplify some of their practices. The long-term vision, if any, might be drown in the urgency of short-term changes and reorganization.
Recognizing this rollercoaster experience and integrating it into the management thinking is a first step. But striking the right balance between short-term priorities and the long-term vision of what the talent management function is about, and what it should bring to the business, as well as what it should mean for the employees and their career is the real objective. This balance should in turn be reflected in the way people are managed. From a business perspective, it means reflecting on the role talent management should play in the important challenges a company will face, such as talent sourcing, new market acquisitions, organizational agility and its capacity to adapt to future changes and trends.