talent management

Talent management is typically portrayed as a neutral and normative activity that is free of biases where those with the most promise will get the best chances to rise to the top. However, while there has been no specific study of fairness in relation to the operation of talent programmes, some of the general problems that can compromise HRM practices will inevitably apply. The primary practice underpinning talent identification is the assessment of performance typically through an appraisal scheme. Biasing effects in appraisal include whether or not the rater was involved in previous appointment decisions (Schoor- man 1988), impression management (Wayne & Liden 1995) and interpersonal regard or liking (Lefkowitz 2000). Appraisal is a highly political arena (Buckley et al. 2001), and raters may inflate ratings in appraisals in the best interests of individual and unit performance to avoid conflict and confrontation (Longnecker & Ludwig 1990). The particular ways used to appraise and assess people create a construction of the individual that has meaning for the organisation (Townley 1993) even though that meaning may involve the relegation of the individual’s distinctive attitudes and behavior and thus suppress the talents that they want to demonstrate. Unless individuality fits with some organizational ideal, then it is, in effect,

lost or, at best, subsumed in the organization. Only when individuality resonates strongly with the organizational ideal does it stand a chance of being recognized and praised as talent. Talent recognition is also likely to be compromised by social and geo- graphic distance, which are particular threats in multinational organizations (Mellahi & Collings 2010).

Another threat to fair identification of talent is the masculine nature of leadership. The participation of women in corporate boards is about 12% in the United Kingdom, France and Germany (Board- women Monitor 2008), and although women take a higher share of top jobs in the public sector in the United Kingdom, it is still only around 25% on average (Equality and Human Rights Commission 2011). These raw figures indicate that barriers to the progress of women create a personal cost in terms of equality and equal opportunities and the suppression of women’s talent at the top of organizations is probably costing organizations in terms of creativity and innovation. Deloitte and Touche recognised gender inequalities and found that the male-dominated culture was a substantial causal factor. Only by tack- ling this entrenched culture did the retention of women improve (McCracken 2000), although the difficulties of cultural change in this respect can not be overstated (Barsch & Yee 2011).

Leadership potential is a big part of talent search and development, and the popular picture of leader- ship itself might be a problem for the progress of women. Although leadership theory continues to evolve, it has traditionally been described in masculine terms (Billing & Alvesson 2000), elevating the value of characteristics such as being tough, competitive, analytical, unemotional and task-oriented – characteristics often thought more likely to be dis- played by men. The way we talk has a bearing on this because micro linguistic practices influence our success by influencing how we are perceived, and the context of where we talk influences a person’s perceived fit in that context and hence their perceived talent. Research shows that women use different speech practices to men, and in leadership situations, their speech is more likely to adjust to reflect and accommodate the concerns of others much more than men would do (Baxter 2011). As leadership is seen as a masculine construct, and since leadership potential is a constant ingredient of talent searches,

then talent searches appear to have an in-built bias towards men. Organizations need to be careful that they are not seduced by heavily gendered views of leadership when they are looking for future talent.

Another problem affecting the recognition of women’s talent is that talent is usually sought in a context of full-time, permanent jobs and long hours. Indeed, long hours can be a proxy measure for energy and drive which usually appear in organizational definitions of talent. Since a high proportion of part-time jobs are held by women, this seems another barrier to talent recognition that needs to be dismantled to accelerate movement towards greater numerical equality of women in positions of power and influence in the United Kingdom (Equality and Human Rights Commission 2011). Traditional thinking that sees talent only through a mindset of full-time jobs and long hours has to be reconsidered in organizational talent searches. Finally, a range of personal factors influences individual success over and above relative performance. Personal attractive- ness influences success across a range of occupations (Hamermesh & Biddle 1994, Biddle & Hamermesh 1998). An attractive personality and high standards of personal grooming also make a difference (Robins et al. 2011). The implications for organisations in this respect are clear – to recognize sources of bias and to put in place systems and procedures to counteract them as much as possible.