Finally . . . .

Someone wrote a book that is "right on" about Talent (or more importantly, Human Capital). Many of the postings from this blog are aligned with a new book, called Talent - Making People Your Competitive Advantage by Ed Lawler. Leaders don't necessarily "do as they say", i.e., they may state that people are the greatest asset of the organization but how they invest in them (training, goals, development, incentives) is not aligned. If you want to be a strong leader, one that will lead your organization to new heights, don't just read this book, but "do as it says".

Change we can believe in!

Here is a recent book review:

Time for a human-centric take on talent
By Stefan Stern
Financial Times

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4780065e-6418-11dd-844f-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1

We should never judge a book by its cover, of course. But here is an important new publication that risks being overlooked because of its title.

"Talent" is the latest word to get taken up by consultants and gurus, and exploited half to death. I blame McKinsey for this. The consultancy's report into "the war for talent" more than 10 years ago took this ordinary, two-syllable word and turned it into a fetish.

The word does not get used properly any more. Talent used to describe something rare, exceptional even. But today the label has become a synonym for the more general term, "people".

And then there is the honesty problem. Business leaders declare publicly that talent matters to them, that people are their most important asset. But, as Edward Lawler, points out in his introduction, "in too many organisations people are not treated as important assets, and it seems particularly insincere and inappropriate when managers persist in saying they are".

Finally, bosses talk about widespread talent, but in fact worry about a few senior people and potential future leaders. This is a limited approach, which neglects what other employees could be doing for you.

There is nothing limited about this author's grasp of his subject. As a professor at the Marshall school of business at the University of Southern California, and director of USC's centre for effective organisations, Lawler is one the world's most seasoned observers of business life. His recent book, Built to Change, had many admirers, with its insights into the problems faced by organisations that try to adapt to changing times.

This new book is not really about talent. It is about human capital, a more obscure and less easily marketable concept. But with it Lawler places himself at the head of a growing intellectual movement - in management circles at least - that looks to move beyond the world of rigid corporate structures and aims to build a future where businesses and organisations are "human capital-centric".

You can see how this approach differs from the minimalist view of talent at work. Lawler looks at every important aspect of organisational life - performance, decision making, governance, managing change - and considers how an "HC-centric" company would deal with them.

If some of the corporations that are cited as positive examples are familiar - Google, Goldman Sachs, WL Gore, Starbucks, Whole Foods Market - it is because by and large they are succeeding at making the cliché about people being the biggest asset a reality.

(More usual is the approach owned up to by Dilbert's boss, who confesses at one point: "It turns out that I was wrong. Money is our most valuable asset. Employees are ninth." In eighth place was carbon paper.)

What do HC-centric companies get right? First, they select new recruits carefully. As Lawler points out, Goldman Sachs takes weeks over choosing its candidates.

HC-centric companies manage performance rigorously. Everybody's performance, including that of top management, is appraised. There are no exceptions. Michael Dell was prepared to listen to what his colleagues told him about his lack of approachability and brusque manner, and committed to doing something about it.

HC-centric companies have active, credible human resources managers. This, too, is rare. As Lawler says, boards usually turn to their chief executive for HR expertise, since the HR "function" has often been unable to convince senior colleagues about its relevance and value.

Jack Welch once said that if your chief financial officer is considered more important than your HR director, you are "nuts". "The conclusion one has to reach based on this is that most boards are 'nuts'," Lawler says, "because they do, in fact, [usually] have their CFO present but not their head of HR."

Human capital management is not a frivolous, nice-to-have concept. It is fundamental to how your business operates, and to whether it will succeed or fail.

"In an HC-centric organisation, it is impossible to separate talent from business strategy," Lawler writes. He asserts that, by getting the so-called "soft" issues right, a company can build a sustainable competitive advantage.

He's right, of course. But abandoning rigid structures and creating the space for people to perform will require managers to abandon tried and trusted approaches. It will not be easy, but companies are going to have to adapt, and fast.