How to build (or enhance) your talent reviews
We like the concept of building sustainable and healthy People Ecosystems. You can read more about the benefits of viewing organizations as complex ecosystemshere. We need to see HR as People Ecosystem architects. Like any architect, it helps to have a design brief BEFORE you start the design process.
The design brief has to come from the business. The following questions help guide what information you need from the business to help you design talent review guidelines. If you already have a talent review process in place, make sure your current process answers them all.
Before designing a talent review, you need to answer these questions.
- What talent development decisions do we need to make?
- Who should make the decisions?
- What information do you need to make the decisions?
- How can the data we have guide them to make the best decisions?
- What are the consequences of the decisions we make?
- Who will allocate the resources required?
- Who will be accountable for executing the decisions?
- What HR processes need to be “activated” as a result of the decisions made?
We unpack each of these questions in more detail below.
What talent development decisions do we need to make?
There are two decisions you need to make about talent development.
- Do you develop someone for their current job or for the job they will have in the future?
- What resources do we need to allocate to do that?
Who should make the decisions?
The direct line manager is the best person to answer the first question. They see the person’s work performance most often and can provide an answer.
To figure out who should make the decision, we must assess how well the person is handling their current job.
There are 3 possible answers to this question:
- They are not coping or they are struggling to deliver.
- They are delivering but cannot take on more.
- They are delivering and can do more.
If the answer is 1 or 2, then we must develop them further in the role they are in. If the answer is 3, then we must develop them for a future role.
Let’s revisit the initial question, which was: who is the best person to make the decisions?
If the person can do more, then the HR Business Partner (HRBP) or line manager’s manager is the best person to make the decision. These individuals understand the current or future needs of the business and the necessary skills and experience. If the person is not ready for promotion, the line manager must determine what development they need.
What information do you need to make the decisions?
To decide how well the person is coping in their current role, the direct line manager must observe:
- How well is the person doing their job (quality of output)?
- How quickly do they complete tasks (speed of delivery)?
- How happy are the recipients of their work (customer satisfaction)?
- How independently can they work (autonomy)?
- Do they find ways to improve how they work (initiative)?
- Do they consistently meet deadlines (reliability)?
These behavioral observations are all indicators that the person is competent, confident and capable of doing their current job. Past performance review outcomes are irrelevant because it depends on what they were facing at the time. They may have had particularly tough or challenging business conditions at the time of their previous review. Despite not meeting performance targets, they may be a good performer.
If the person excels in all the performance questions above, they may be ready for a promotion. To decide on promotion, the HRBP or line manager’s manager should consider the following:
- Is this person a highprofessionalor a highpotential?
A talent review uses potential as one of the axes in a matrix. The options are usually “High” “Medium” or “Low” potential; or “High” “Some” and “At” potential. You might consider low- or at- potential as career-limiting.
This is where the psychology of the decision process has the greatest negative impact. Nobody wants to be in the low- or at-potential box. So how do you overcome the stigma associated with the placement?
Overcoming the stigma of a low-potential rating
Before we jump into the psychology of a low-potential employee, let’s first clarify what a high potential is. A high potential is someone who takes on more complex levels of work faster than most other people.
The most obvious indicator of a high potential is that they are younger than their peers (they got there faster). That’s great, but it has a downside.
The faster you go, the less you can see. You simply cannot gain 7 years of experience in 3 years. You could deliberately design some experiences to accelerate the process, but experience trumps development in this instance.
If a high potential employee is promoted often but has less time to deepen their expertise in their role, then the opposite is not a low or at-potential employee, but rather a high professional.
A high potential isthen nota low or at potential just because they move slower. They have more time to experience different situations, deepen their technical skills and learn from the consequences of their actions. High potentials don’t have to deal with the consequences of their actions because they are usually long gone by the time these issues arise.
The point is, both high potentials and high professionals have value. The performance evaluation process is not about putting someone in the right box. If you make this clear to employees placed in a low potential box, you remove the stigma.
How can the data we have help guide them to make the best decisions?
Let’s get back to what information is needed to answer the question: If the person is ready for more, are they a high professional or high potential?
The data we need is time in the workforce vs. complexity of work. When we map these two data points onto a grid we can see the person’s career trajectory, i.e. how fast they got to where they are.
