I do not think it means what you think it means
SteveVery random and kind of funny tweet that I spotted in my quest to maintain constant vigilance on all things related to the Talent Management systems space, this one from a random Twitter user in an unknown role at an undetermined company:
Announcement from HR re new "Talent Management System." Seriously tried not to snort out loud when I read THAT nomenclature.
— Sally Gore (@mandosally) February 21, 2012
Kind of funny, and I suppose not terribly unfair. Now I realize that our friend Sally here might not represent the majority of individuals at his or any organization that is considering or actively working on Talent Management technology projects, and I also realize that no matter how well planned, how perfectly aligned, and how well the value is communicated to the team that there are always going to be some detractors or nay-sayers in any big tech project. And it could be that for this organization, this opinion and reaction is in the decided minority and the folks driving the talent project would do well to push forward with their plans and not let this kind of thing slow them down.
I don't really highlight this amusing tweet to make a case that everyone in an organization needs to be on board with big changes and major HR technology initiatives, because that simply is not possible. Why the tweet was interesting to me though is how it actually called out the specific terminology used by his organization's HR team - 'Talent Management System' as being almost laughable. And that I think might be a fair point.
While the term might make perfect sense to vendors to describe what they are building and marketing, and resonate with an organization's business and HR leaders as what they need to focus on, I wonder for the average person, (like I am assuming the author of this tweet to be), the terminology at best means almost nothing, and at worst is a little insulting.
I can imagine our friend Sally thinking, 'Wait a minute here. I am the talent. I am not at all sure that I want HR to install a big, new system to manage me.'
I don't know anything about this specific project, but I do know this - if what you decide to call your project, system, initiative - whatever, repels and possibly insults the very people whose buy-in you need to make the entire thing work, well then you are probably in some trouble.
What do you think? Is it time to re-think the phrase 'Talent Management Systems?'
Have a better idea?
Reader Comments (5)
Thanks Steve! This gives me pause to consider how well the initiatives we roll out resonate with our employees. I’m delivering a talent management tech presentation to our executive team next week, and while commonly accepted HR tech terminology will be heard and understood by most of us in attendance, it may very well mean nothing to others in the room – not to mention the perceptions/interpretations that could be held by the masses when we communicate the upcoming changes, conduct training, etc. I don’t think “Talent Management System” would resonate with our employees at all. Would Workforce Alignment be as nebulous a term for the average employee? It’s the first thing that popped into my head…
Hi Ac - thanks for the comments. I think that it is really hard to name or brand these kinds of projects for sure. I think something about 'alignment' might work, although not knowing your culture at all it is hard to say. I guess my larger point is to think about the value prop for the audience, the employees and the front-line managers more so than the macro-value prop. It is not easy for sure.
Some terms used by HR vendors and practitioners create a different feel for the employees than they do for the users of those terms. A system really just creates a way to organize information-it doesn't manage talent (or humans for that matter). What is referred to as a Talent Management System is really a administrative tool for the humans that work in HR and the humans that manage the work of other humans to use to file and sort information and to produce those coveted data filled reports that tell the humans with titles that start with a "C" whatever such data is intended to convey. Those reports need humans to look at the data and use it as one factor in making decisions about what they need to do next.
We call it Talent Management because short hand meant to convey a buzz of actitivity is business speak like-right? We humans are so much more complex than the competencies we use to accomplish our work. And we don't leave that behind during business hours.
Hi Steve - great post. I was just talking to a colleague recently about how the nomenclature around "Talent Management" could be mis-read as negative by employees - ie something that's done TO them, instead of in support of their development, performance and career progression. Since the Talent Management terminology is well understood among corporate leaders and HR as a strategic business driver, I think the onus is on these folks to articulate the intent and the value of the programs being put in place for employees. This takes the focus away from the terminology and the enabling software, and puts it squarely on what's in it for them - each individual who can benefit from the clarity, organizational alignment and development opportunities that programs (and supporting systems) like these can bring. This type of positioning and explanation can help drive internal adoption and success - regardless of what naming convention is used.
Karin - thanks very much. I don't disagree at all. Well said.
Connie - I agree, we need to do a better job articulating the value and the What's In it for Me? on these projects, and if we do, then the terminology won't matter much at all.