If you find value in content like this, sign up for my Talent Edge Weekly newsletter.
Two talent practices that enable business strategy execution are performance management (PM) and organizational talent reviews (OTR). On one hand, PM ensures strategy gets translated into the right goals at the right levels and executed with accountability. On the other, OTR identifies those with the greatest potential to take on bigger or more complex roles and puts the right development in place to accelerate their readiness. A new article by Marc Effron offers a candid assessment of both. Among the various insights, two I want to highlight. First, while PM can serve many purposes (development, engagement, compensation decisions), it can only do one thing really well. When PM tries to solve multiple purposes at once, it tends to serve none of them well. Second, on assessing potential, decades of research show consistent findings about high-potentials demonstrated capabilities (e.g. cognitive ability, learning velocity), just grouped and expressed in slightly different language by different firms. As Marc notes, since the science on potential is well established, the bigger challenge for most organizations is often the execution (e.g., developing identified talent, holding managers accountable for their growth) rather than the potential model itself. For those in my private community for internal HR practitioners, Talent Edge Circle, you can also access the replay of our recent performance management discussion with Marc in the private resource library.
