Simple tools can be powerfully attractive, especially when it comes to complex decision-making regarding talent. Leaders need all the help they can get to put the right person in the right position at the right time.
You mention it here in the post...using the tool as a stand-alone, without letting it foster a robust discussion about the talent under assessment, diminishes its power. I had the privilege of working at a company where I worked in Talent Management. Then I transferred to an HR Generalist role and actually got to see how it was used first hand outside of the CEO suite. What I saw was largely an administrative exercise, an extension of the annual performance review. I convinced the leadership to let me run the sessions how they were originally intended and guess what? Leaders had robust discussions about their talent and most everyone found it to be a useful exercise. Unfortunately, what I see and hear from HR Colleagues is that Talent Assessment is pushed too far down into the organization and Corporate pushes these mandates down with little to know direction - mostly driven by whatever HRIS System is in place. What is missing is the robust talent discussions you mention in the post. If you're in a Corporate Talent Management role, get off your butt and out of your ivory tower and visit your local sites. Partner with your HR Site Leaders and Staff (don't just send a deck) and help them run the first first Talent Assessment meetings. Teach them how to get the most out of it.
Valuable insight from your experience for us to read, David. Thank you.
The tendency for tools of value to follow their own 'Peter Principle' kind-of pathway... the tools themselves invariably be promoted to roles they are intended.
As you rightly point out, the real magic is always in the conversation.
In my experience, leaders and HR Business Partners get hung up on, What is potential? More than, What is Performance? Often the conversation goes, Potential for what? Always good to start with operational definitions like you’ve outlined in today’s post.
9 Box is also being discarded for being too static. It lacks reliability and can exacerbate bias. It carries the risk of negatively impacting marginalized employees. Assigning a “name” or label to potential can shape a manager’s belief in their employee and that employee’s engagement. This encourages a fixed mindset. It is a blunt instrument to use with caution.
1. Consultation with incumbents and SMEs on in-scope critical roles to identify key experiences and desired exposure.
2. Psychometric assessment of cognitive ability (the best predictor of job performance) and personal style (mapped to the success criteria for future roles)
3. Development centre with simulations/exercises, feedback on the assessments and a development interview.
4. Development of an Individual Development Plan (IDP) that plots out the strengths and gaps and conveys the kind of experiences and exposure the talent needs to work on over short and medium term to progress.
5. Mentoring leaders on management and monitoring of the plan.
You mention it here in the post...using the tool as a stand-alone, without letting it foster a robust discussion about the talent under assessment, diminishes its power. I had the privilege of working at a company where I worked in Talent Management. Then I transferred to an HR Generalist role and actually got to see how it was used first hand outside of the CEO suite. What I saw was largely an administrative exercise, an extension of the annual performance review. I convinced the leadership to let me run the sessions how they were originally intended and guess what? Leaders had robust discussions about their talent and most everyone found it to be a useful exercise. Unfortunately, what I see and hear from HR Colleagues is that Talent Assessment is pushed too far down into the organization and Corporate pushes these mandates down with little to know direction - mostly driven by whatever HRIS System is in place. What is missing is the robust talent discussions you mention in the post. If you're in a Corporate Talent Management role, get off your butt and out of your ivory tower and visit your local sites. Partner with your HR Site Leaders and Staff (don't just send a deck) and help them run the first first Talent Assessment meetings. Teach them how to get the most out of it.
Valuable insight from your experience for us to read, David. Thank you.
The tendency for tools of value to follow their own 'Peter Principle' kind-of pathway... the tools themselves invariably be promoted to roles they are intended.
As you rightly point out, the real magic is always in the conversation.
In my experience, leaders and HR Business Partners get hung up on, What is potential? More than, What is Performance? Often the conversation goes, Potential for what? Always good to start with operational definitions like you’ve outlined in today’s post.
9 Box is also being discarded for being too static. It lacks reliability and can exacerbate bias. It carries the risk of negatively impacting marginalized employees. Assigning a “name” or label to potential can shape a manager’s belief in their employee and that employee’s engagement. This encourages a fixed mindset. It is a blunt instrument to use with caution.
Hi Crispin, Do you find a different tool taking it's place?
Hi Mikey,
Process rather than tool
1. Consultation with incumbents and SMEs on in-scope critical roles to identify key experiences and desired exposure.
2. Psychometric assessment of cognitive ability (the best predictor of job performance) and personal style (mapped to the success criteria for future roles)
3. Development centre with simulations/exercises, feedback on the assessments and a development interview.
4. Development of an Individual Development Plan (IDP) that plots out the strengths and gaps and conveys the kind of experiences and exposure the talent needs to work on over short and medium term to progress.
5. Mentoring leaders on management and monitoring of the plan.