Talent Management magazine is a trademark of MediaTec Publishing Inc. All talentmgt.com and Talent Management magazine content © Copyright 2012 MediaTec Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. It is illegal to copy, reproduce or publish any information contained on talentmgt.com or in Talent Management magazine without express written permission from MediaTec Publishing Inc.
New Year, New Measurement Challenges
- 1/8/11
According to an April 2010 survey, talent management measurement efforts look grim, but there are steps organizations can take to create meaningful, useful data in the new year and beyond.
The definition of talent management has become a bit like Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography: “I know it when I see it.” While reasonable minds can disagree on subtleties, at the core, talent management is about the attraction, retention and development of employees. Measuring talent management effectiveness requires knowing the answer to questions such as “Is the organization attracting better quality applicants?” or “Is the organization retaining its most productive employees?” With this general talent management definition in mind, the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) launched a study in April 2010 to understand how organizations were measuring the effectiveness of their talent management efforts. More than 400 business and HR professionals participated in the Talent Management Measurement survey, which yielded a dreary snapshot of the current state of the field.A Sad State of Measurement Affairs
There is an obvious disconnect within organizations between awareness of the need for good talent management measurements and the willingness to invest what is needed to create actionable measurements. As an example, while 75 percent of respondents reported to a high extent that they should use quality of hire measures to manage talent better, only 16 percent actually do (Figure 1). Looking at high- and low-performing organizations does not change the picture substantively. Seventy-nine percent of high-performing organizations believe they should use quality of hire measures, but only 22 percent are in fact using these measures to a great extent. Examining the retention measurement results reveals a similar picture. Only 27.5 percent of survey participants measure high-performing employee separation rates, while nearly 60 percent believe they should be measuring the rate at which high-performing employees are leaving the organization (Figure 2).On the investment side of the equation, just 26 percent of survey respondents believe their organization has enough personnel dedicated to the measurement of talent outcomes. Roughly 21 percent of participants feel their organizations have adequate infrastructure, technology, budget and time devoted to measure talent management effectiveness (Figure 3).
There is an obvious disconnect within organizations between awareness of the need for good talent management measurements and the willingness to invest what is needed to create actionable measurements. As an example, while 75 percent of respondents reported to a high extent that they should use quality of hire measures to manage talent better, only 16 percent actually do (Figure 1). Looking at high- and low-performing organizations does not change the picture substantively. Seventy-nine percent of high-performing organizations believe they should use quality of hire measures, but only 22 percent are in fact using these measures to a great extent. Examining the retention measurement results reveals a similar picture. Only 27.5 percent of survey participants measure high-performing employee separation rates, while nearly 60 percent believe they should be measuring the rate at which high-performing employees are leaving the organization (Figure 2).On the investment side of the equation, just 26 percent of survey respondents believe their organization has enough personnel dedicated to the measurement of talent outcomes. Roughly 21 percent of participants feel their organizations have adequate infrastructure, technology, budget and time devoted to measure talent management effectiveness (Figure 3).
Related Articles
Most Viewed
- The Four Stages of a Complete ManagerCornerstone OnDemand Announces Net Loss For First QuarterLessons From the Yahoo CEO Scandal
- Virtual Environments: The Future of HR?Steps to Create a Culture of Coaching The Exit Interview: An Engagement Tool? The Four Stages of a Complete ManagerLeadership Development for a Global WorkforceHow to Attract — And Select — Talent Beyond the Job DescriptionEmpower Employees to Take Control of Their SituationThe Age of Agility
Latest Media
Defining the Workplace of the Future, Part 3
Strategies 2012 keynote speaker Don Tapscott explains how the millennial generation is leading the charge of the ultra collaborative workplace, and how traditional models of work might be squandering their strengths.
Defining the Workplace of the Future, Part 2
Strategies 2012 keynote speaker Don Tapscott says the divided workplace of the governed and the governors is fading as technology enables a collaboration-based, peer-to-peer structure.
Defining the Workplace of the Future
Strategies 2012 keynote speaker Don Tapscott describes how the “digital native” generation is changing the composition of the future workplace.
Leo Burnett’s Looming Talent Challenge
Jeff Tritt, executive vice president of people and culture at advertising giant Leo Burnett, talks of the talent challenges the agency faces in 2012 and beyond.
Use Analytics to Impart Change
Data from predictive analytics can help business stakeholders make decisions that positively affect business outcomes. Here’s how.
