The 15 big challenges of talent management in 2022


Francisco Loscos is associate professor at EsadeDepartment of People and Organization Management

The major challenge for talent management will be its ability to adapt to changes, both in terms of construction and management, in order to achieve a vision that is closer and more connected to reality. Managing talent competitively today involves, on the one hand, turning away from the unhappy past that we have inherited in the form of HR policies built on strategic myopia and the predominance of control over connection, and on the other part, develop tools and deliver them to artists, people who have talent, so that they can produce something new. From this premise, 15 major challenges emerge:

The first is that talent management must keep in mind that the new war for talent will not be determined, like its predecessor, by the “scarcity” of the market but rather by the inability of organizations to successfully manage their “connection” in terms of context and with the business.

The second consists in interpreting that the the context is a playing field on which to build the organization’s talent map, a playing field that is determined by constraints such as BANI (Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear and Incomprehensible), which Jamais Cascio defines through paradigms ambitious such as Bauman’s ideas of liquid modernity.

The third challenge concerns the ability to build the rules of talent from the point of view of cause and effect relationship in economic models.

The fourth challenge is determined by the need to overcome the mistaken stubbornness in which organizations are entrenched, to continue to manage the realities of today with the instruments of yesterday.

The fifth challenge is to correctly interpret and manage the “New balance” between organizational and personal needs.

The sixth is related to collision that exists between the “limited supply of value” that organizations provide to people and the “insatiable demand for value” that partners place on organizations. This could prove to be the most complex challenge to manage in the times to come.

The seventh challenge is the need to let go of the “unhealthy obsession” with withholding talent and the “absurd blindness” of continuing to work with and from unplanned career paths, and turning “Retain” in “resume”, by facilitating and encouraging talents to come out and exploit their development in the market, with the aim that they can return when the cyclical needs, those of the company and those of the person, cause their paths to cross again .

The eighth challenge aims to prevent the need for diversity from outweighing the need for uniqueness value, understood as the unique and differential value of each of the professionals who are part of an organization.

The ninth challenge is perhaps the most controversial, as it is radical in approach teleworking as an organizational model rather than motivation. Managing it as a motivator and / or remuneration factor is a big mistake which will certainly be the cause of later “organizational regrets”. Teleworking as an organizational model requires an objective reading of the company to people, and therefore of the value chain to emotional considerations, and to determine its use both by the type of “positions and jobs” and the type of “professionals”.

The tenth challenge is to break a historical predominance of cultural orientations towards processes and the power over those of results and people, and this can only be done by promote and develop trust scenarios, scenarios that reduce complexity (Niklas Luhmann) and inject speed into organizational performance (Stephen Covey). Unfortunately, control is, in addition to a flawed “cultural leitmotif”, also an absurd input which is used in an attempt to achieve the desired output (performance).

The eleventh challenge concerns the definitive integration of meritocracy as a decision-making meta-criterion in talent management. I see this as a key issue for the necessary transformation of talent models. If the answer is not yes, we will undoubtedly get stuck on “Groundhog Day”. Compassion, fear, beliefs, “I think…”, “I have a feeling…”, “because I say so…” are criteria too often used in talent management.

The twelfth challenge is based on the following question: Who should adapt to whom? The business to the people or the people to the business? In my opinion, the first option is an unwanted consequence of Stockholm syndrome (“prisoners” of people instead of “drivers” of the business by people), in which the HR field is still trapped.

The thirteenth challenge responds to a whole series of issues arising from the same question: Will we be able to correctly interpret the new talent codes? And on this basis, organizations are going to have to ask themselves if they are clear on all the keys to the talent formula, and if they are aware of the emerging strength of the keys associated with “living” and “connecting”, and if they are. are aware of the exhaustion of certain codes such as know-how and experience and that in the formula of talent the order of the factors in fact modifies the final result.

The fourteenth challenge concerns know how to intelligently use new alternative working methods, who are here to stay. The diversity of models for bringing together talents (in form, in time and in different spaces) is starting to be a variable of recognized strategic value. Talent as a ‘pull’ rather than a ‘role model’ will become one of the great ambitions of organizational change, and as a result, ‘hire versus match’ begins to emerge as one of the major ambitions of organizational change. important dilemmas of the future.

The fifteenth challenge is based on the idea of move away from the intuitive method of making decisions about people and replace it with factual analysis. Managing the entire flow of talent (entry, learning, development, compensation, analysis and evaluation, and exit) through intuition and perception, and therefore with little or no data, has ceased to be an act of heroism and has become professional misconduct. As the British physicist and mathematician William Thomson Kelvin once said many years ago, “What is not measured cannot be improved, and what is not improved will always get worse.”


Comments are closed.