|
Talent management has been a buzzword since the 1990s.
The popularity of this process is evident in an online search
through a popular search engine that yielded over 7,690,000
hits on the phrase `talent management.' Unfortunately, most
of the research in the area of talent management has been
confined to speculative comments and to self-reports from
CEOs and other business leaders. These assumptions by organizational
leaders may have contributed to the plethora of definitions
for what talent management means.
Commonly, talent management implies a process where the
employee is placed on a career path to develop his skills
that the organization perceives are valuable. The hope of
the organization is that the employee will remain with the
organization so that the organization can receive a benefit
from its investment in the employee. Sometimes, talent management
implies an outsourcing process where the organization selects
talent outside the organization to fill internal needs.
In this instance, talent is acquired rather than developed.
This organizational practice has become more common in the
past 10 years as the demand for talent has increased and
the apparent pool of talent has decreased.
This apparent scarcity of talent has created "The
War for Talent". One of the outcomes of this war is
the tactic of posting new organizational job opportunities
internally so that talented employees remain employed within
the organization if they sense a need to change their current
position. However, social science researchers have linked
fear of scarcity as a precursor to diminished creativity
and to an unwillingness to take risks resulting in organizations
stifling self-directed learning practices. Therefore, what
is a plausible solution to this dilemma? Perhaps, a starting
point is to deconstruct talent management to explore its
nuances for some vital clues.
|
