There seems to be a lot being written these days about the talent wars. “Talent” is in short supply. We’re supposed to hire for “talent”, promote “talent”, and so on. But I’m having difficulty getting a handle on what “talent” actually is. Can you shed some light?

I don’t blame our reader for being uncertain about how to define “talent”. The word is bandied about with some carelessness. So I’m grateful for the chance to try to clear things up.

When I speak to audiences about human resources management issues, I always present this scenario. First, I provide a rough and ready definition of a key employee, or “talent”:

A key employee is any employee you’re not prepared to face the future without.

I then ask managers in the audience to close their eyes for five seconds and picture the faces of employees who report to them that they think fit that definition. After five seconds I ask: “How hard was that?” The answer – every time – is, “It was easy.” (Try this yourself. Close your eyes and conjure up the faces of your key employees. I bet you’ll have no problem.)

Of course, this is a pretty subjective process, so I then go on to suggest some more objective criteria that can be put in place across the organization so that everybody is using the same definition. Here are some of the characteristics that “talent” may have.

Talent produces consistently superior results. A key employee is one to whom you repeatedly assign difficult, important, urgent tasks and projects because you feel confident that they’ll get done, based on past performance. Talent consistently surpasses performance expectations.

Talent seeks out learning and development opportunities. Conversely, employees who don’t seek out these opportunities probably aren’t talent. I was once asked by an executive to speak with three of his senior managers to help them identify areas in which they would like to grow and develop. Each of them said that they had no interest in development; they wanted to stay in their current roles until they retired. They were all under the age of 40!

Talent embraces change that’s necessary for organizational success. When something needs to be done better, or differently, or when it’s never been done before, chances are good that something will need to change. (Someone has defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.) Employees who resist change simply because it’s unfamiliar probably aren’t talent.

Talent expresses an interest in areas outside their immediate roles. Talent has a big picture orientation. Talent wants to know how their work meshes with other people’s work, and how it contributes to something bigger than their particular department.

Talent volunteers for cross-functional teams. Part of the big picture orientation is the willingness of talent to take on roles that aren’t spelled out in their job descriptions. Cross-functional teams are an example of this. You’ve probably noticed that when there’s a special project that requires the cooperation of the whole organization, or much of it, it’s the same people who step up, and, equally, the same people who suddenly disappear.

Talent is favourably known to senior management. When you mention the name of a key employee to an executive, you tend to get a smile of recognition.

Talent actively seeks performance feedback from a variety of sources. Which of your employees ask for feedback on how they’re doing, either in general or on a specific activity? They’re probably talent. Which of your employees would rather not hear anything about their performances? They’re probably not talent.

These are some of the characteristics that organizations can select from to come up with a set of objective criteria for identifying talent. But why bother? Isn’t this a cumbersome, plodding way to interfere with the inherently creative and spontaneous process of spotting talent, otherwise known as “I know it when I see it”?

You bet it is. Because when your strategic plan changes, or when an emergency or a special opportunity pops up, when you need to react to external change, positions in your organization that may not be key today will suddenly be key tomorrow. (Yes, jobs can be key, not just employees.) Are your key positions staffed by key employees? And is everyone who needs to agree that they are staffed by key employees actually in agreement? Without objective criteria for identifying talent there’s no way to know. And if you don’t know, you’re left with subjective criteria, and that means that each manager will have his/her very own take on things. This is a recipe for confusion at the very least.

So, investing time to hammer out objective criteria will result in consistency across the organization, and make it difficult for anybody to apply “I know it when I see it”.

To submit a question for a future column, or to comment on a previous one, please contact editor@charityvillage.com. No identifying information will appear in this column. For paid professional advice about an urgent or complex situation, contact Tim directly.

Tim Rutledge, Ph.D., is a veteran human resources consultant and publisher of Mattanie Press. You can contact him at tim_rutledge@sympatico.ca or visit www.gettingengaged.ca.

Disclaimer: Advice and recommendations are based on limited information provided and should be used as a guideline only. Neither the author nor CharityVillage.com make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information provided in whole or in part within this article.