Well said. It’s easy for those like me who come from a process/software background to forget exactly what you say: that culture and leadership are crucial. I think we’ve all worked in places where one or both of those have been lacking.

There have been some great postings on poisonous culture and leadership recently – most notably Bob Sutton’s ‘No Asshole Rule’, which has really struck a chord with readers.

Check out http://bobsutton.typepad.com/ for more.

Don

Wouldn’t disagree with your definition though it’s no small challenge making working out what the right capability it is and getting the right (internal and external) people.

What interests me more than the processes is creating environments where talent flourishes … Google is most recent classic environment but many small startup businesses create exciting environments.

It’s usually down to an organisation with a great purpose, leaders who can articulate it and a culture that is exciting and energetic because people can shape it.

We can overdo the process bit!

Paul Lambert

Thanks for the comment. I think we agree, but are using different words.

For me commitments is another way of saying current and future organisational plans. In other words, I am trying to make explicit the link between employees on the one hand and on the other hand their employers’ claims of what they can do now and plan to do in the future.

Your phrase talent management is about making the capabilities match the vision of the workforce design captures this exactly.

In saying that talent management is about making capabilities match commitments I was trying to be concise, alliterative and memorable. Perhaps it was all at the expense of clarity!

Don

For anyone else reading this thread, you should check out Dubs’ posting Defining Talent Management at http://systematichr.com/?p=716

I guess I’m having a hard time with the “commitment” part of your definition. I’m not suggesting it’s wrong in any way – just that I don’t get it. To me (while I never spelled it out this clearly in my post), talent management is about making the capabilities match the vision of the workforce design. So you’d want a certain level of specific skills and competencies, are certain percentage of mid level professionals, and a specific target for the amount of engaged employees. The management of talent actively molds the workforce into this vision that you hope to attain. Perhaps that is commitment, but I just didn’t make the link.

Thoughts?
(and sorry for the late reply)

-Dubs