We have heard alot about the 'war for talent' over the last 5 years, and I suspect that we will continue to hear alot about it in the year ahead. But, has there really been a 'war for talent' or has it been nothing more than an opportunity for the major consulting companies to sugar coat what has always been a dilemma facing companies - getting the best person to fill a role. I can only surmise that the reason for the sugar coated pill is so that the so-called top tier consultants can extendtheir usefulness beyond their use-by-date but mainly so that those executives who continue to fall short of targets can still pay themselves exorbitant salaries or bonuses under the guise of they're the best talent around. It wasn't long before we got the spin that financial institutions had to pay the vast pre-GFC bonuses again to those in charge because they were the best and that they couldn't afford to lose them. I mean - who the hell got us in the mess in the first place. But, I digress.
If there is indeed a war for talent, why are companies still falling short of strategic goals? Why are they still falling short of shareholder expectations?
Let me suggest that there is a 'battle for talent' but the war being waged is not for talent but for employee engagement in the full sense of the word. We have seen 'talent' in roles unable to get results because they just couldn't muster the 'troops'. If employees are not committed, not engaged, disconnected - I don't care how good your talent - the results will not be forthcoming. It worries me how high the number is of people who hate their current job because if they hate their job, how can they be truly engaged.
Companies may well win the 'battle for talent' but still lose the 'war for employee engagement'.
Yours in execution.
ian
Comments