Welcome to TalentMgt.com, the online home for Talent Management magazine.
Are you transparent in your assessments of top talent?
If so, how you do avoid disengaging valued employees not included in this group? If not, how you do retain high-performers who are likely ambitious and looking for confirmation they've been recognized and are on track for career growth? Share your tactics here:
Views: 214
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Karen Carleton on -
I look forward to reading the posts to this discussion. As someone who was identified as a high performer/hi-po, ambitious and highly qualified, I would point out that recognition is only one thing. Organizations need to put their money where mouth is ans actually invest in engaging and retaining that group of folks (typically knowledge workers). That means: L & D, career opportunities, projects that use their higher knowledge and skills. Otherwise high-value talent will vote with its feet. I have.
-
Permalink Reply by Zeek Swanson on
-
Yes Karen... That is the exact reason my previous employer is just that... I'll expand on new found retention options shortly (@ my new found employer!).
Karen Carleton said:I look forward to reading the posts to this discussion. As someone who was identified as a high performer/hi-po, ambitious and highly qualified, I would point out that recognition is only one thing. Organizations need to put their money where mouth is ans actually invest in engaging and retaining that group of folks (typically knowledge workers). That means: L & D, career opportunities, projects that use their higher knowledge and skills. Otherwise high-value talent will vote with its feet. I have.
-
Permalink Reply by Zeek Swanson on
-
Being in a small company there isn't room for every good performer @ the top. We have added financial increase to the list of retention tools for the workers with the knowledge that didn't have the timing right to have a spot at the top. Projects and ownership of the out come are the newest outlook in our retention drive. There is always room for growth in a company with alot of ambitious and inteligent employees that feel like creating that growth is a rewarding experience. From the ownership of projects we have actually promoted into a new and very nice position that was created by the succuess of the project... the "project manager" got that slot that he created! That alone is reason to stay and apply my talents. The next step to consider is getting our board of directors to allow the departments more governing from within (ownership responsibility) and redifine the scope of our company's from sustaining to succeeding and surpassing.
-
Permalink Reply by Karen Carleton on
-
Indeed small to medium enterprises don't have neat career ladders - even larger ones don't often today. One large and growing corporation I know of has VERY low (or no) turnover despite few career dev't opps. Why? They have a ton of L & D support, project style work and challenging opportunities with change in or between lateral jobs. It's a shame the large organizations have grossly underutilized me, shortchanging both of us.
Wish I was seeing what you are describing here (employee utiopia?), and I live in one of the healthiest economies in North American (western Canada) with a huge skilled, growing labour shortage (114,000 unfilled jobs daily). Still, many corporations are shopping for the "ideal" employee on every level and unwilling to train for fear people will leave. They should fear that they DON"T train them AND they stay - disengaged and less competent while you do have them, given the shorter employee-employer psychological contracts now. Perhaps the skilled labor force shortage will reach a critical point, where employers will see there own mental models are hurting their companies, and give formerly "unsuitable" (younger, or different culture, degree from a different field, etc) a chance, provided they have most the knowledge/skills and are motivated, instead of waiting for perfection to march through the door. It needs to start affecting the bottom-line before companies will change their behavior. Like the parable of the boiled frog, too many will remain complacent until it's too late.
-
Permalink Reply by Zeek Swanson on
-
Yes... The bottom line was the prime motivating factor for my employer. We had one division we called "the door department", despite the fact that they had absolutely nothing to do with doors. There was a revolving door feeling in that dept. and it began to really cost. A young and ambitious new hire wanted to be a part of change, and the company figured that it couldn't cost any more to try this than the failures they were already implementing. That was about a decade ago, and the results have been paying (literally) off ever since. That ambitious young man is still there today, is the primary leader in that dept, and is training a new generation in the field As we speak! I do wish more employers could see this need before they let so much good talent wak out the door without either of them even knowing it.
-
Permalink Reply by Karen Carleton on
-
I've see the revolving door issue before. It's a sign of systemic issues that take more than a simple solution to fix. Unfortunately it takes some digging for employers to determine how the status quo is affecting the bottom-line before they take the initiative to invest money and energy into changing it (value/worth). Retaining innovative high performers means giving them opportunities to add value, recognition, mentoring, investing in their L & D, not leaving it to chance until they are poached away or vote with their feet, including to pursue self-employment for a lot less money.
© 2012 Created by Administrator.
