Who needs talented employees anyway?

Source: Mirror Online

One current HR trend is to compete to acquire and retain talented employees. Agreed?

So, how come Leicester City Football Club won the 2016 Premier Title? They have, and I hope they forgive me, an average bunch of guys who were fighting to avoid relegation from the Premier League last year. People had good betting odds that they could win the Premiership. 

There are a few very rich people in Leicester today! Leicester have few players regarded as world talent, so how did it happen?

Where does this leave the view that we must buy talented employees, if we are to be competitive? What did Leicester’s Manager, Claudio Ranieri, do to take this team to the top of the league?

Let’s spend a moment putting things into perspective. Look at the relative cash values spent on each squad. Leicester are worth a fraction of other great teams; at £72m they are easily the least expensive club by a long way.

Place 2015-2016	Team	Squad Cost £M	Games	Won	Lost	Draw	Points
1	Leicester City	£72	38	23	12	3	81
2	Arsenal	£305	38	20	11	7	71
3	Tottenham	£231	38	19	13	16	70
4	Man. City	£560	38	19	9	10	66
5	Man United	£533	38	19	9	10	66

Source: Skysport Review 2016

We cannot always hire the most expensive talent. If you do, then you must be able to justify how this talent has added to the bottom line of profit. 
My guess is that you cannot do this (except in a few obvious sales-driven roles). My other guess is that most of the real value-driving work of meeting client deliveries, getting prototypes to market, solving client problems and making improvements to products or processes is achieved by the more ordinary people in the engine-rooms, getting on with their jobs to the best of their abilities.

So, I am now questioning why we spend so much time and effort on recruiting talent, when good management and leadership of the ‘ordinary’ people who are already in the business would produce a much better result? 

Claudio Ranieri who took an ‘ordinary’ bunch of guys higher than anyone, thought possible. Some of you will say: “oh this is a once-in-a-lifetime event”. In December 2015, you were saying ‘they-will-never-keep-it-up’, well they did, and in what style!

The real question is, if you cannot afford to buy talent, what can you do to lead and manage the resources you already have, to achieve more than anyone thinks they can?

Let’s explore some of the features of Claudio Ranieri’s approach, according to the Leicester supporters I met when on a home visit.

Talent is not always where you expect to find it.

• You have to look in unexpected places, trust your instinct, and have faith in who you find. Take James Vardy, the leading goal-scorer, he was released by another premier side as a junior, and played in local town soccer until Leicester signed him in 2012 for £1M! (source: Daily Telegraph, December 2015). He played with them for the past four years and is still not a household name when compared to other leading strikers.

Resilience is worth more than ability.

• One thing Leicester sport is good at encouraging is determination, no compromise, grit and resilience. This does not mean to say that ability and skill are not important, but what Leicester do well is keep playing, keep players on the pitch and keep coming back. This quality is also seen in Leicester Tigers Rugby, known for tough, combative, tenacious play.

Impending failure can build strength.

• Leicester were almost relegated. The lessons of avoiding defeat can give a sense of relief, but also of confidence that anything is possible, if you stick at it. Ranieri is known for instilling a belief that anything can be achieved and to enjoy playing for that.

No individual is bigger than the team.

• Ranieri builds a culture of serving each other. A big player has a bigger duty to produce results for the others, and nobody is worth more than the others. Ego is not of use, interest or relevance at Leicester.

Build tactics around current strengths.

• Ranieri recognised a fear of different tactics. It can be good to introduce changes, but not if players are unconvinced they have the skill to deploy. Build around what people can do well, and the rest will follow in time.

Let people have a break.

• Leicester have a small squad; they would easily tire out if they played each week. So players were given rest days to help them survive the long season. Often we keep relentless pressure on people, so they never perform at a peak, and get hurt, angry, lonely, tired.

Train at intensity.

• High intensity training sessions build the capacity to work and think at speed. Other sports teams use this idea; often it is not the core skill that is a problem – it is the ability to use core skills at speed.

And nowhere is there any mention of buying inexpensive highly talented players to fill gaps or make a difference. There is a lot of talk about using what you have to the best of their ability. And that is leadership.

About the Author:

Nigel Murphy supports is Director of Portfolio and Capability Development at MCE and he has a background in management in manufacturing, education and training.
For the past 10 years he has worked on leadership programmes across the globe. He is interested in the mentoring of new managers and leaders, and leading remote teams of people in today’s globally dispersed businesses.

                                                                           

Using your talented people for maximum impact

Here are my final thoughts on talent, what do you think? I was watching the Six Nations Rugby Tournament recently, and was fascinated with the way the coaches used the full squad of players. This was no random process, nor was it simply to try out another player. There was a clear plan to bring specific players into the game at a specific time. 
I watched England vs Italy and what I noticed was the strength of the players on the England bench made the difference. There wasn’t much difference in the performance of either side until the England coach started to use his bench strength, then the momentum of the game moved towards England. It got me thinking that most of us in People Development talk about ‘bench-strength’, but we may not be clear what it really means or how to use it.

Players on the bench are there for a purpose. They come into the game at specific planned times:

• Players cannot always play at top speed for a full game, so players come on to keep pressure on. Two players often share the same position and train together, one player starts with the aim of tiring the opponent ready for when his team-mate comes on.

• A key player with a special skill is sent onto the pitch at a specific time and makes a big difference.

• When a new player with high potential needs some experience for a short, managed piece of time.

In the modern game, it is difficult for players to keep up the extreme level of intensity required in a full game, so the starting players are not the same as the finishing players, yet they see themselves as one team squad. They are not first team and reserve players.

In Talent Management we talk about building bench-strength. What often happens is that employees are told they are in the Talent Pool, and then:

• Nothing happens
• Or, they are thrown in with no chance to find their way of working
• Have no access to significant projects where they can learn
• Get sent to a ‘problem area’ to ‘show what they can do’

What we can learn from the Sports Coach is this:

• Bench-players are used as a strategy to maintain performance. Do you consider who to bring in, and when to move someone out of a team, as the conditions change? Or do you leave the same team for continuity – but accept that they get tired and run out of options? Moving people in and out it not about the success and failure of the individual. It is about recognizing an individual has done a job, and needs to move out, ready for the next challenge.

• New, high potential members are given specific experiences for short periods. Do you place new talent into a team for a limited, managed exposure, or do you ‘throw them in, sink or swim’?

• Impact players are saved for when they can make a difference. Do you know who your impact players are, what they can do that makes a difference, and use them carefully but at maximum impact? Often a high performer is given the wrong assignment and does not enjoy it. Impact players are not good at everything, they do have allowable weaknesses. However they are sent in when they can do their special talents.

• Leaders need to know when to pull a player out of the game and use someone from the talent pool. Are you aware of how your team is feeling? Can you monitor their emotional and even physical state? Are you sure you know what exposure your new talent needs?

• The full squad is part of the planning discussions and strategy. Do you included your talented people in the business decision-making processes? When they are moved into a role, they will understand the plan and discussions that led to it.

• Is your bench strong enough to play a strategic role, regularly?

Watch a professional team game, and observe how the coach moves players on and off the pitch, why, when, and with what impact.

About the Author:

Nigel Murphy supports the whole learning experience of MCE delegates across MCE’s wide range of solutions. He has a background in management in manufacturing, education and training. For the past 10 years he has worked on leadership programmes across the globe. He is interested in the mentoring of new managers and leaders, and leading remote teams of people in today’s globally 
dispersed businesses.

Talented or simply good?

Why do you have a talented person?

I bet you are thinking the answer is obvious? But let’s explore what it really means. In the sports arena, the aim of using a talented player is to make a difference. These are the people who can turn a game from a loss to a victory in the blink of an eye. They make a difference when it really matters most. What is also interesting is that the super players are not visible for all the game. They are often only prominent at points when they see the chance to make an impact. They also take periods of rest during the season, and it is a poor manager who wears down his talented players.

Self-check: How many of your talented people are known for making a difference at a critical time, versus, how many are very good, but not game changers?

Does it matter? Do we define ‘talent’ as ‘very good’, rather than ‘very exceptional’? If so, then many Talent schemes are simply schemes to develop very good people. Necessary, admirable, but ultimately may not produce real game changers. Why? Because the definition of talent becomes diluted. Read on.

So who is talented?

It is also interesting to note that Talent becomes internally benchmarked. I had a chat with an HRD who was proud to say that this year over 20% of the workforce were in the Talent category and top box on their talent grid. She told me that next year they would have even more people into the talent category and HQ is so pleased with them. Having met some of these people, nice as they are, they would not even get a job working for another organization I know, and where the label ‘talent’ is reserved for exceptional people. What this suggests is that ‘average for industry’ becomes internally benchmarked as ‘talented around here’.

This leads to another curious effect. Once you tell people they are talented, they believe it, and then a number of very average people are talking about their talents. They become disillusioned when they are not promoted quickly enough. Yet, often they do not look for other jobs. Why? Perhaps it is a fear of finding out that they are really only average.

Self-check: How many people are pushing for the next level because someone has told them they are talented?

How do you compare your definition of talent?

You will have developed sophisticated competency descriptions and measures to give some sense of science behind your definition of talent. Good. However, in most organizations I can find HRBPs who are confused at the list of ‘Talent’ that a line manager offers up. Many line managers do not have the time, or interest, to read the lengthy competency descriptions. They have too many doubts about people who make a difference in their business unit going unrecognized, whilst other business units with ‘inferior’ people do get recognized. Run a calibration meeting between line managers and ask them to justify their selections; there will be a lot of disagreement over perceptions of who is a talented person. Collaborate with your HRBP friends in another business – you could compare your views of talent.

Self-check: would your Talent Pool be in the talent pool in another organization?

We all know that the challenge will be competing for talented people as much as competing for customers. Be sure that you are clear on what players you sign up; exceptional goal scorers or solid performers? You need both, so know what makes the difference.

About the Author:

Nigel Murphy is director of Portfolio and Capability Development at MCE. He has a background in management in manufacturing, education and training. For the past 10 years he has worked on leadership programmes across the globe. He is interested in the mentoring of new managers and leaders, and leading remote teams of people in today’s globally dispersed businesses.