No one word demonstrated the shift in corporations' attention in the mid-1900s from processes to people more vividly than the single word" talent". Spurred on by a book called The War for Talent, written by three McKinsey consultants in the late 1900s, the word became common in management speak: We need to cultivate talent"; " Where are we going to find the talent essential to our future success?"
Talent is a subset of what used to be called human resources
- the people who work in organizations. It is , essentially, those individuals among that group who have the potential to add most value.
Behind the word lies the idea that more and more corporate value is going to be created through knowledge and by so-called "knowledge workers". Manual labor is worth less; knowledge (and the right use of it) is worth more. And the people with such knowledge are (so the theory goes) in short supply.
One CEO was reported saying that not only did he have enough talent to carry out the company's strategy. but he did not even have "the talent needed in HR to hire the missing managers".Moreover, the situation is likely to stay that way (and may even get worse) for some time to come.
This has significantly shifted the balance of power in the recruitment process. Companies used to be relaxed about finding enough qualified people to run their operations. What they could not find they would train , was the usual attitude. That might take some time, but in a world where people sought jobs for life (and the pensions that went with them) time was in the company's favor.
But talent is not patient, and it is certainly not faithful. Many companies found themselves training employees only for them to move on and sell their acquired skills to their rivals. So now companies look for talent that is ready-made. In their eagerness to please this talent, companies have gone to considerable lengths to appear especially attractive.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento