I support all the arguments described above. I am fanatical about talent liberation to the extent that I have devoted my working life to promote it. I simply think it is a question of balance.

Of course competence is important. Why would we not want to stop our people making mistakes, especially where there is a significant risk of loss or, worse still, of injury or death?  Take driving a car. If we’re great at accelerating and steering but don’t know how to brake safely, our driving career won’t last very long. We absolutely must take account of our weaknesses. But perhaps we can be creative. Maybe we can safely offload some of our work to others who have talents we do not. Maybe we can manage around our weaknesses or maybe we just have to work really hard and learn to do those parts of the job that we can’t farm out and that just go with the territory.

In recruitment, competency frameworks and role profiles are great for cutting the short list down to an acceptable number of applicants. But if I’m the CEO, I want to ask the applicant that killer question, “What is it that you bring to the party that is unique to you, that is going to add massive value, that will cause me to give you this job?”

I would argue that questions like the one above, asked with a high degree of eye-contact are far more likely to identify the right person for the job than routine profiling - as long as the profiling has been done first of course.

So, my defense of competency frameworks are that they are a necessary means of identifying competence, of securing a good fit for the job, of avoiding error, of minimising loss - but not for pinpointing the potential for top performance.

And, beyond all this, it doesn’t mean that profiling can’t help with the talent spotting and strengths building work too. When an assessment identifies that someone has talent over and above the requirement, we should avoid making the conclusion that its fine and we can ignore the data. Instead we should sit up and take note. If I’m CEO, I want to meet this person that has so much talent, so much gold. I want to develop the hell out of them. I want them to spend all their time doing what they’re best at and making my company great on the back of it. Really, I don’t want my profiling system to be labeled up as a competency framework. I want to change its name to talent profile, skills profile, strengths profile - anything but competence as this label sends the wrong signals. And I want my managers to spend at least as much time looking at what’s above the line as they currently do looking at what’s missing below it.

Please don’t throw those competency frameworks out. Just reinvent them and get the full value out of a wonderful technique.

1. What is your philosophy on talent?
2. What are you doing in talent management that might be considered progressive?
3. What benefits are you seeing as a result?

I have to say that the answers I’ve been getting are not at all what I was expecting.

In answer to the first question, I was expecting a range of answers ranging from “as long as our people are competent in what they do we’re happy” to “it is essential to play to the strengths of individuals”. I have to say how surprised I have been to discover that professionals who think deeply about the subject of talent seem to be very close when it comes to their prevailing philosophy. If I had to sum up the (vast) majority view, it would be something like this:

We recognise that all our people are different, with different talents and strengths. We aim to tap into this gold and put it to good use in our organisation. Of course we also need to make sure people have the essential skills for the job and don’t make costly mistakes but we try to focus on what’s positive and manage round people’s weaknesses rather than trying to create clones. We also believe that our people need to own their own talent and take responsibility for their careers. The organisation will establish processes that support this and we will train our managers to be good facilitators but the responsibility lies with each individual.

In answer to the second question, I was expecting to hear about some pretty classy systems and processes but I have learned that progressive does not mean complex. In fact the things talent managers do that seem to have the most impressive impact seem to be logical and commonsense, although I have learned about some novel approaches too. Key fundamentals seem to be about putting a lot of emphasis on recruiting the best people and investing in their development. There is also a strong effort to promote a talent culture which seems to stem from two key threads: training managers to be great talent facilitators and providing a forum for senior managers to discuss key talent and opportunities to make best use of these people in the corporate interest.

The more novel approaches I have heard about include allowing any member of staff to train others in the things they’re best at (even outside company needs) and staging company end-of-year pantomimes where staff get to demonstrate skills that wouldn’t be seen in their day-to-day work.

To the third question, the answers range from a general raising of the talent profile to concrete performance gains. The two key performance indicators that get quoted most often are a reduction in attrition rates (in other words people are most likely to stay with an employer if their talent is recognised and used) and an increase in internal senior appointments – which seems to stem from the conversations senior managers are having about their talented staff.

I always ask my interviewees if they are happy to express a view about talent liberation, the philosophy which is best described as follows:

Organisations reach prime performance when they recognise, value, develop and use the unique talents of all their people in the delivery of their objectives.

Everyone I have spoken to so far has been very positive and encouraging about the talent liberation philosophy. They like the four stage process for making the most of talent (recognise, value, develop and use). They love the concept of reaching prime performance, suggesting it is right at the heart of their chief executive’s agenda. They like the inclusive reference to “all their people” which is the opposite of many talent management perceptions. And finally, one learning and development director in investment banking said the qualifying words “in the delivery of their objectives” were essential. For him, talent liberation was great as long as it didn’t become “talent anarchy”.

The focus of the discipline of talent liberation on the other hand is on making the most of the talent that everyone brings to the workplace. It is a progressive and emerging discipline and a subset of the positive psychology movement. The underlying philosophy of talent liberation is outlined in the following statement:

Organizations reach prime performance when they recognise, value, develop and use the unique talents of all their people in the delivery of their objectives.

Here the words recognise, value, develop and use are key. My experience is that individuals and organizations must take deliberate steps to -

(a) recognize the talent they bring to the workplace;
(b) value it in terms of a calculated understanding of how each talent adds value;
(c) develop talents into clear strengths rather than focusing too much energy on weaknesses; and
(d) use the unique talents they have consciously to deliver their shared objectives.

For talent liberation to work properly, it must be led from the top and fed into the life blood of the organisation in a systematic way. Every organisation is different and the precise implementation of talent liberation will depend on what else is going on. With this in mind, the following eight-step process is offered, to be moulded as appropriate for particular needs.

1. Confirm direction: Make sure there is clarity of vision in the organization and a good understanding of how value is added. Without this, people will not know how to add value through the best use of their talents.

2. State philosophy: Establish the organization’s philosophy on talent. Could it buy into the statement provided above? What else needs to be said to make it fit for purpose?

3. Align processes: Do the organization’s performance management processes support the philosophy? If not, initiate appropriate changes.

4. Plan: What else will the organization need to do to support talent liberation? Take stock of all the steps in this article.

5. Communicate: Communicate the new philosophy and plan of supporting action via the head of business. Then, establish a clear communications strategy to let people know how talent is being used to support business needs on an ongoing basis.

6. Develop leaders: Provide leadership development for all managers where they can recognise, value, develop and use their talents in the delivery of business objectives. Then, after they have made gains, equip them to do the same for their people.

7. Build talented teams: Provide team development where individuals can acknowledge each other’s talents and commit as a team to improved ways of working that play to their strengths.

8. Review: Review, modify and repeat as required.