Talent (on other than the individual level)

Some job performances (e.g., the financial results created by investment bankers) is often depending on external factors and is therefore at least difficult to explain and can serve as a reminder that causes of performance often need to be found on other than the individual level alone. This is interesting as it leads to less intuitive notions of talent such as team talent. Also, example conditions under which collective talent may develop best are discussed in this article.

Talent analytics and the search for the ‘why’

Big data analysis can reveal accurate prediction of outcomes, but it often cannot provide meaningful insight into and interpretation of the underlying or antecedent causes. Talent Analytics (TA) is considered a promising use of big data in HR management [1]. Obstacles such as breaking through data silos need to be overcome to harness the full potential of big data analysis. The same might be true for understanding more complex interdependencies that lead to organizational performance. Not only individual performance but the environment in which it occurs is determining results. For example, N’Cho (2017) has found that companies with more audit committee members were able to create higher profits; possibly a non-intuitive fact for many.

Team talent

The most innovative shop doesn’t generate revenues without marketing [2]. From an organizational perspective, team talent as distinctive to individual talent may be an interesting concept in the way that it is a team commonality. Consequently, group incentives have proven to increase the efficiency of collective efforts (e.g., through reduction of so-called free riding), especially in the knowledge economy [3]. Evidence of studies of Major League Baseball teams also supports the concept of team talent. Allocation of profits is closely linked with the distribution of productivity, and it seems that eliminating weak links in favor of a more homogeneous team is significantly driving team improvement [4]. The celebration of stars should not neglect the appreciation of the importance of the supporting B players as they overall contribute far more to a firm’s durable performance [5]. According to the Peter Principle, leaders often remain at positions in which they are overwhelmed, an impression the financial crisis could not correct. From that perspective, it’s not the leaders who matter, but the people who are competently doing their job [6].

Encouraging and competitive environments

There is compelling evidence that trust between managers and staff dramatically increase shareholder return. If employees are not regarded as relatively fixed resources to exploit, but rather as a human potential to develop [7], their performance increases [8]. Talent has become an even more valuable asset than capital itself [9] and needs to be kept free, encouraged, and heard because control is diminishing is potential [10] However, in contrast, on CEO level, competition to control for the risk of misreporting showed to be good advice [11].

Entrepreneurial talent

Entrepreneurial talent that is mainly characterized by a well-connected network around the company founders was identified to account for the organizations’ profitability and financial success [12]. In that sense, entrepreneurial talent provides another example for relationships with factors other than skill-level measures that determine talent and related business performance.

Photo credit: geralt (pixabay.com)

References

[1] N’Cho, J. (2017). Contribution of talent analytics in change management within project management organizations The case of the French aerospace sector. Procedia Computer Science, 121625. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.082

[2] Loyd, S. (2002). Has talent, needs customers : An engineering lab profits from its first strategy experiments. Strategy & Leadership, (3), 34. doi:10.1108/10878570210427936

[3] Meagher, K., & Prasad, S. (2016). Career concerns and team talent. Journal Of Economic Behavior And Organization, 1291–17. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2016.05.019

[4] Schmidt, M. B. (2009). The nonlinear behavior of competition: the impact of talent compression on competition. Journal Of Population Economics, 22(1), 57–74. doi:10.1007/s00148–006–0104–9

[5] DeLong, T. J., & Vijayaraghavan, V. (2003). Let’s Hear It for B Players. Harvard Business Review, 81(6), 96–102.

[6] Why Incompetents Will Always Rule the World. (2009). Inc, 31(3), 22.

[7] People principle will reap rewards Why people and strategy are not mutually exclusive. (2002). PERSONNEL TODAY -SUTTON-, 16.

[8] Steenburgh, T., & Ahearne, M. (2012). Motivating Salespeople: What Really Works. Harvard Business Review, 90(7/8), 70–75.

[9] Martin, R. L., & Moldoveanu, M. C. (2003). Capital Versus Talent: The Battle That’s Reshaping Business. HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, (7). 36.

[10] John Alan, C. (2002). “I Didn’t Know” and “I Was Only Doing My Job”: Has Corporate Governance Careened out of Control? A Case Study of Enron’s Information Myopia. Journal Of Business Ethics, (3), 275.

[11] Marinovic, I., & Povel, P. (2017). Competition for talent under performance manipulation. Journal Of Accounting And Economics, 641–14. doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2017.04.003

[12] Mayer-Haug, K., Read, S., Brinckmann, J., Dew, N., & Grichnik, D. (2013). Entrepreneurial talent and venture performance: A meta-analytic investigation of SMEs. Research Policy, 421251–1273. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.001