Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Connecting L&D With Integrated Talent Management
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Connecting L&D With Integrated Talent Management

1,363
views

Published on

In this session, you will hear a combination of the latest research and best and next practices from leading organizations on the role the learning and development staff is increasingly playing in the …

In this session, you will hear a combination of the latest research and best and next practices from leading organizations on the role the learning and development staff is increasingly playing in the integrated talent management movement. As a starting point, the group will discuss the top-level findings from ASTD’s recently published report, “Learning’s Critical Role in Integrated Talent Management,” including information on how high-performing and low-performing organizations use talent management differently. You will also gain information on which organizational roles are primarily responsible for the key elements of talent management: leadership development, individual development, performance management, employee learning, recruitment/selection, employee engagement, compensation and benefits, and succession planning. And you’ll hear about learning’s role in each area.

Published in: Business, Technology

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,363
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
144
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Connecting L&D With Integrated Talent Management Speaker: Kevin Oakes CEO Institute for Corporate Productivity. Moderator: Daniel Margolis Managing Editor Talent Management magazine #TMwebinar
  • 2. •  Q&A –  Click on the Q&A icon on your floating toolbar in the bottom right corner. –  Type in your question in the space at the bottom. –  Click on “Send.” #TMwebinar
  • 3. Tools You Can Use•  Polling –  Polling question will appear in the “Polling” panel. –  Select your response and click on “Submit.” #TMwebinar
  • 4. Frequently Asked Questions1. Will I receive a copy of the slides after the webinar? YES2. Will I receive a copy of the recording after the webinar? YES Please allow up to 2 business days to receive these materials. #TMwebinar
  • 5. Connecting L&D With Integrated Talent Management Daniel Margolis Managing Editor Talent Management magazine #TMwebinar
  • 6. Connecting L&D With Integrated Talent Management Kevin Oakes CEO Institute for Corporate Productivity. #TMwebinar
  • 7. Connecting L&D withIntegrated TalentManagement Kevin Oakes CEO 7  
  • 8. About Kevin OakesBackground  §  Founder, CEO of i4cp§  Former Chairman, Jambok§  Former Chairman, ASTD Board§  Founder, President, SumTotal Systems§  Former CEO, Chair of Click2learn§  Founder, CEO Oakes Interactive Kevin  Oakes   CEO   i4cp   8  
  • 9. Institute for Corporate Productivity i4cp  is  the  fastest  growing  and   largest  corporate  network   focused  on  the  prac8ces  of    high-­‐performance  organiza8ons.   9  
  • 10. Members (partial list) 3M Eli Lilly & Co Pelco 7-Eleven ExxonMobil PETCO Adobe Systems FedEx Express Pfizer Alliance One FedEx Ground Pizza Hut Allstate Federal Reserve PNC Financial Services American Mgt. Assoc. Fidelity Investments Prudential Financial Ameriprise Flextronics Qualcomm Amway General Electric Raytheon Apollo Group General Mills Rio Tinto Group AT&T Home Shopping Network Samsung Boston Scientific ING Americas SaskTel Cameco Intel Shell Oil Catholic Health Jack in the box Starbucks CitiGroup KFC Takeda Pharmaceuticals ConAgra Foods Kraft Tampa Electric Company ConnectiCare LG Electronics T-Mobile Darden Restaurants Lockheed Martin Toyota Motor Sales Deloitte & Touche McDonald’s Corp United States Navy Depository Trust MetLife U.S. OPM drugstore.com Microsoft U.S. SEC Duke Energy MITRE United Water Duke University Northrop Grumman The Y Edwards Lifesciences Olive Garden YUM! Brands 10  
  • 11. Partners 11  
  • 12. Defining High PerformanceHigh-­‐performance  organiza<ons  consistently  outperform  most  of  their  compe<tors  for  extended  periods  of  <me.    These  companies  performed  beBer  over  the  past  five  years,  based  on  these  four  indicators:    1.  Revenue  growth  2.  Market  share  3.  Profitability  4.  Customer  sa8sfac8on   12  
  • 13. The 5 Domains of High Performancei4cp  research  has  shown  that  high  performance  companies  excel  in  five  core  areas:     1.  Strategy   2.  Leadership   3.  Talent   4.  Culture   5.  Market  (customer  focus)   13  
  • 14. What Does i4cp Do?We  help  organiza8ons  leverage  the  core  areas  of  high  performance  through  4  delivery  vehicles:     1.  Research   2.  Peers   3.  Tools   4.  Technology   14  
  • 15. The 5 Domains of High-Performance Organizations And i4cp’s Centers of Knowledge That Support Them 15  
  • 16. Two faces of human resources •  Benefits   •  Time  &  ABendance     Tac8cal   •  Payroll   •  Scheduling   •  Selec8on  &  Assessment     •  Learning  &  Development   Strategic   •  Performance   •  Succession  Planning   •  Compensa8on   Source: i4cp 16   16  
  • 17. HR Continues to Evolve Add Value & Strategic Maximize Talent Upside HR Planning ManagementImpact/Contribution to the Business Culture Organizational & Image Design HR as Survey Action Business Planning Partner EEO/AA Staffing Employee Training & Performance Relations Development Management Labor/Union Relations Compensation Benefits HR Information Systems (HRIS) Limit Safety & Compliance Liability Workers’ & Compensation Protect Downside Labor Employee Personnel Human Organizational Relations Relations Resources Effectiveness A Century of Evolution in the Function 17  
  • 18. Poll§  How  long  has  the  concept  of  talent  management   been  discussed?        (select  one)  a)  Started  about  3  years  ago  b)  No,  more  like  5-­‐7  years  ago  c)  I’m  old.    It’s  been  discussed  for  over  a  decade   18  
  • 19. Talent ManagementNew concept or an old idea whose time has arrived? 19  
  • 20. Predictions There is no bigger problem in the global marketplace today than how to obtain, train and retain knowledge workers.” - Michael Moe, Chairman & CEO , ThinkEquity Partners LLC – 2 bb000 le 999 is talent u n decade om b acquisition and “The killer app for the next 1 d i ot c retention.” lare e d Dec s th bu rst - John Doerr, Partner ju st a out to Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers as ab w 20  
  • 21. An Investment Banker’s Graph rs ago 10 yea lis hed Pub Source: CIBC, February, 2001 21  
  • 22. Uniting the silos 22  
  • 23. A story…From:  Ambi8ous  CEO  Sent:  Thursday,  May  03,  2001  8:02  AM  To:  kevin.oakes@click2learn.com  Subject:  SEIZE  Market  Leadership   …(Together, we) will realize the   market leading vision we have  Thanks  for  your  8me  today.    Please   articulated, and hope we can work together with you to seize this see  aBached  the  drae  presenta8on   compelling opportunity. and  proposed  CAP  chart  regarding   our  joint  opportunity…   If you have additional questions please dont hesitate to contact me directly. I am also prepared to quickly travel to your location to fully articulate the opportunity to you and others. LETS SEIZE THIS OPPORTUNITY NOW, AND DRIVE THE MARKET!!! 23  
  • 24. The Executive Guide to ITM§  Foreword:    Tom  Rath  §  Gurus:    Peter  Cappelli,  John  Sullivan,  Jon  Ingham,  Ed  Lawler,   Marshall  Goldsmith,  Bev  Kaye,  Noel  Tichy,  Dave  Ulrich    §  Prac<<oners:                            Chapters   Agilent,       1.  Overview   Novelis,     2.  Recrui<ng   Hertz,     3.  Benefits   4.  Performance  Mgt.   Cisco,   5.  Succession   Edwards  Lifesciences,     6.  Engagement   3M,     7.  Leadership     DeloiBe,     Development   General  Mills   8.  Conclusion   24  
  • 25. L&D’s Role in Talent Management Recrui8ng   •  Iden8fy  competencies  to  hire  for;  Help  develop  assessments   •  Use  assessment  data  in  craeing  custom  development  programs     Performance  Management   •  Using  performance  data  for  immediate  development  plans   •  Training  managers  on  how  to  give  performance  reviews   Engagement   •  Training  managers  on  how  to  foster  and  improve  engagement   •  Professional  development  opportuni8es  increase  engagement   Succession  Planning   •  HiPo    /  Cri8cal  Role  Development  program   •  Train  managers  on  developing  successors   25  
  • 26. Talent Management Study§  Conducted  jointly  by  i4cp   §  High-­‐level  business,  HR  and   and  ASTD   learning  professional  contacts  §  518  Responses   §  Delineated  between  High  and   Low  Performing  Organiza8ons   30.4% 33.8% 35.8% 26  
  • 27. Integrated Talent Management Model SWP   provides   direc8on   and  ensures   alignment   The  EVP   serves  as  an   anchor   27  
  • 28. Higher Performing Organizations (HPO) Are More Effective At Managing Talent Overall, to what extent is your organization managing talent effectively? 28  
  • 29. Poll§  What  is  the  primary  func8on  high  performing   organiza8ons  include  in  integrated  talent   management?                  (select  one)     a)  Recrui8ng   b)  Succession  Planning   c)  Learning  &  Development   d)  High  Poten8al  Development   e)  Performance  Management   f)  Leadership  Development   29  
  • 30. What Do HPOs Include in Talent Management? 30  
  • 31. Performance Management was found to be the MostIntegrated Component of Talent Management Performance  Management   …and  when  broken  down  by  MPI  scores,  the   integra8on  score  gap  for  Performance  Management   between  high  and  low-­‐performing  organiza8ons  was   one  of  the  largest  found  in  the  study.   419.8   350.1   Market  Performance     Indicator  Score  (MPI)   Higher  Performers  *  Please  see  the  notes  sec8on  for  an  explana8on  of  how  the  Talent  Management   Lower  Performers  Integra8on  Scores  were  calculated.   31  
  • 32. What Do Your Employees Think of YourOrganization’s Performance Management Process? Value provided varies between employees, departments & managers 70% 32  
  • 33. 9 Keys to Performance Management 1.  The  performance  management  process  includes  developmental   plans  for  the  next  work  period     2.  Manager  training  is  provided  on  conduc8ng  a  performance   appraisal  mee8ng     3.  The  quality  of  performance  appraisals  is  measured     4.  There  is  a  system  in  place  to  address  and  resolve  poor   performance   5.  The  appraisal  includes  informa8on  other  than  that  based  on  the   judgment  of  managers     6.  The  performance  management  process  is  consistent  across  the   organiza<on     7.  Employees  can  expect  feedback  on  their  performance  more  o[en   than  once  a  year     8.  360˚  or  mul<-­‐rater  feedback  is  used  to  support  the  performance   management  process     9.  The  performance  management  process  includes  ongoing  goal   review  and  feedback  from  managers   33  
  • 34. No Silver Bullet 34  
  • 35. Talent ManagementResponsibility & Success in High Performing Organizations 35  
  • 36. Higher performing organizations report greater alignment, budget & infrastructure in place 36  
  • 37. High-Performance Organizations Have MoreBacking on Talent Management from Leadership 37  
  • 38. Talent ManagementThe Importance of Integration 38  
  • 39. Effectively Integrating Talent Management is positively correlated with Market Performance Please  state  the  extent  to  which  you  agree  with  the  following  statements:   Correla<on     Percent  indica<ng  high  or  very  high  extent   with  MPI   Our  leaders  see  integrated  talent  mgt.     73.6% .21**   as  vital  to  organiza<onal  success   36.7% My  organiza<on  has  processes  in  place  to   69.4% .20**   align  talent  management  to  business  goals   33.3% My  organiza<on’s  processes  and  policies   65.3% .22**   support  integrated  talent  management   23.3% My  organiza<on  effec<vely  integrates  the   61.1% .23**   components  of  talent  management   20.0%Market  Performance    Indicator  Score  (MPI)   0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Higher  Performers   Lower  Performers   **Correla8ons  with  Market  Performance  Index  are  all  significant  at    p<.01  (2-­‐tailed)   39  
  • 40. Strategies to Integrate TM that are associated with high market performance are not widely utilized Percentage  of  respondents  answering     Correla<on  with   high  extent  &  very  high  extent   Market   Performance  Integra<ng  technologies  and  sharing  data  for  the  various   13.9   .20  talent  management  func<ons  Appoin8ng  a  single  func8onal  owner  of  talent  management  internally   26.5   .14  Standardizing  talent  review  and  feedback  processes   35.9   .10  Ensuring  consistency  among  the  different  TM  ac8vi8es   23.2   .13  Crea8ng  transparency  across  func8onal  silos   15.1   .15  Establishing  organiza<onal  culture  that  supports  TM   25.4   .19  Increasing  visibility  of  talent  management  ini8a8ves   20.8   .16  Expanding  number  of  talent  management  ini8a8ves   18.8   .14  Training  managers  to  enhance  their  talent  management  capabili8es   17.9   .13  Using  technology  to  improve  talent  management   18.4   .18  Gaining  support  from  top  management   40.1   .16   40  
  • 41. Integration Is a Challenge For All Organizations 41  
  • 42. Talent Management Measurement 42  
  • 43. Talent Management Measurement§  Only  12%  of  respondents  said  that  they  have  talent  management   metrics  to  a  high  or  very  high  extent  §  At  the  same  8me,              more  than  seven  out              of  10  organiza8ons              acknowledged  that              they  should  measure              talent  management              to  such  an  extent   43  
  • 44. Research Focus on TM Metrics§  Quality  of  Hire   §  Is  your  organiza8on  acquiring  “beBer”  talent?  §  Quality  of  Separa8on   §  Is  your  organiza8on  losing  valuable  talent?  §  Quality  of  Movement   §  When  talent  moves  in  your  organiza8on  –  what   happens?  §  Time  to  Full  Produc8vity   §  How  long  does  it  take  to  become  “fully  produc8ve”?   44  
  • 45. Talent Management Measurement Study  This  study  sought  to  iden8fy  the  talent  §  Conducted  April  2010   management  measurement  prac8ces  of  high-­‐§  426  responses   performing  organiza8ons    and  to  quan8fy  their   impact  on  organiza8onal  strategy.   Company Size Company  Type 1  -­‐  999  employees   33.8%   Global   27.7%   1,000  -­‐  9,999  employees   31.9%   Multinational 47.4%   10,000+  employees   34.3%   24.9%   National 30.5%   31.5%   32.5%   33.5%   34.5%   45  
  • 46. Talent Management Accelerator Group 46  
  • 47. The Who, How and When of reporting is not asimportant as the actual act of reporting…§  Who  is  responsible  for  calcula8ng  the  workforce  results?   §  HR  Analy8cs  Team  (22.0%)   No   Significant   §  Head  of  HR  (21.2%)   Sta8s8cal   Difference   §  Within  the  Business  (11.4%)  §  What  systems/technology  are  used  to  calculate  the  workforce   results?   No   §  HRIS  system  (41.1%)   Significant   Sta8s8cal   §  “Talent  Management”  System  (15.3%)   Difference     Note:  Spreadsheets  &  Databases  (34.7%)  are  not  correlated  to  TM  Success  §  How  oeen  workforce  results  are  produced?   §  Monthly  (28.5%)   No   Significant   §  Quarterly  (30.2%)   Sta8s8cal   Difference   47  
  • 48. …but Who receives the workforce reports isimportant §  Execu8ve  Team  /   CEO  are  the  only   groups  correlated   to  High  Market   Performance   Q: Who receives the workforce metrics reports? (Select all that apply) 48  
  • 49. Poll§  Which  of  these  metrics  does  your  organiza8on   track?   (select  all  that  apply)  a)  Voluntary  termina8on  rate  b)  Involuntary  termina8on  rate  c)  Total  aBri8on   49  
  • 50. Talent Metrics Survey ResultsFinding:  Organiza8ons  are  more  likely  to  measure  why   employees  separate  or  how  many  employees  leave  the   organiza8on,  but  are  less  likely  to  analyze  who  is  separa8ng   from  the  organiza8on.   50  
  • 51. Talent Metrics Survey Results igh en H twe es? nce s Be pani e Di ormffere ing Com re T her erf A dL ow P anFinding:  Organiza8ons  are  more  likely  to  measure  why   employees  separate  or  how  many  employees  leave  the   organiza8on,  but  are  less  likely  to  analyze  who  is  separa8ng   from  the  organiza8on.   51  
  • 52. Attrition Metrics – Tactical Finding:  When  comparing  large  organiza8ons  (10,000+   employees),  there  is  no  significant  difference  between   Higher  and  Lower  Performers’  likelihood  of  measuring   tac8cal  reten8on  metrics   52  
  • 53. Attrition Metrics – StrategicFinding:  When  comparing  large  organiza8ons  (10,000+   employees)  Higher  Performers  are  more  likely  to  measure   who  is  leaving  the  organiza<on  than  Lower  Performers.   53  
  • 54. § Quality of Attrition 54  
  • 55. What is Quality of Attrition?QoA  describes  who  is  leaving  the  organiza8on  and  answers  the  ques8on  “is  the  firm  losing  its  most  valuable  employees?”   First  Year     72.9%   47.9%   High  Poten<al     51.4%   32.5%   Demographics   52.8%   31.4%   Pivotal  Roles   47.2%   25.9%   Quality  of  Afri<on   36.5%   20.4%   0.0%   10.0%   20.0%   30.0%   40.0%   50.0%   60.0%   70.0%   80.0%   Overall   High  Performers   Low  Performers   55  
  • 56. Quality of Attrition Scorecard 56  
  • 57. Quality of Attrition Scorecard 57  
  • 58. The Should/Do gap on separation metrics §  Again,  not  a  surprise  that   there  are  large  gaps  between   “Should”  and  “Do”.   §  The  smallest  gap  is   §  Uncontrollable  separa8on   rate  ( 25.2)   §  The  3  largest  gaps  are   §  High-­‐performer  separa8on   rate  ( 53.5)   §  Controllable  separa8on  rate   ( 47.6)   §  RegreBable  termina8on  rate     ( 44.3)   Q: To what extent does your organization use the following metrics for the purpose of managing talent better and to what extent do you think it should use these metrics? 58  
  • 59. § Quality of Hire 59  
  • 60. Lower Performers are often more likely to measuretactical recruiting metrics vs. Higher Performers. 60  
  • 61. Higher Performers are more likely to measure qualityof recruiting efforts than Lower Performers 61  
  • 62. Measuring QoH is an opportunity to gain acompetitive advantage.            Correlated  with  High  Market  Performance  .14%  Correlated  with  Talent  Management  Effec8veness  .44%   62  
  • 63. New Hire Information Date   Number  of  New   Number  of   Number  of   Example: Consolidated Hires   Management   Professionals  2010  (YTD)   170   28    (16%)   95      (56%)   Quality of Hire Report2009   549   66    (12%)   346  (63%)  2008   659   119  (18%)   402  (61%)  2007   790   119  (15%)   514  (65%)   To    provide  context  about  hiring  pa3erns    2006   705   99      (14%)   423  (60%)  New Hire FitSurvey  Questions   2010   2009   2008    (sampling)  %  of  Managers  that  would  hire  again   85%   88%   79%  Manager  Satisfied  w/  Candidate  Pool   83%   78%   64%   “Real”  Time  Indicators    %  of  Employees  that  would  accept   89%   75%   81%  the  position  again  Number  of  “bad  hires”   4  (2%)   27  (5%)   16  (10%)  Number  of  “at  risk”  hires   36  (21%)   137  (25%)   48  (29%)  Retention over Time   Population   Overall   Management   Professionals  Term  first  90  days   2010   11%   14%   12%  Term  less  than  one  year   2009   22%   7%   8%   Reten;on  by  Hiring  Class    Term  1-­‐2  Years   2008   14%   3%   7%  Still  with  Organization     2008   65%   72%   68%  In future years, compare the Still with Organization by year – looking for improvementsPerformance over Time   Outstanding/   Needs   Population   Meets   Exceeds   Improvement  With  one  year  of  tenure   2009   2008   5%   85%   2%   83%   10%   15%   Performance  by  Hiring  Class    With  two  years  of   2008   6%   86%   8%  tenure  In future years, compare the tenure bands - looking for improvements 63  
  • 64. Movement Metrics 64  
  • 65. Promotion RatePromo8on  Rate  is  defined  as  a  change  in    job  code  and  an  increase  in  salary  in  the  HRIS  system  of  record  including  progression  promo8ons,  internal  hires,  development  assignments   65  
  • 66. Internal Placement RateInternal  Hire  is  defined  as  a  current  employee  is  selected  for  a  role  that  was  posted  on  an  external  job  board   66  
  • 67. Quality of Movement Scorecard 67  
  • 68. Summary§  Effec8vely  managing  talent  is  a  trait  of  high   performing  organiza8ons  §  Integra8on  of  func8ons  is  difficult,  but  necessary   §  Technology  only  helps  organiza8ons  who  have   already  organized  themselves  to  be  integrated  §  Effec8ve  measurement  can  raise  the  bar  on   talent  management’s  visibility  and  effec8veness  §  Learning  and  Development  can  be  the  glue  in   uni8ng  the  tradi8onal  HR  silos   68  
  • 69. For More Information: kevin.oakes@i4cp.com     Corporate   411  First  Avenue  South  •  Suite  403  •  SeaBle,  WA,  U.S.A.  98104   Telephone  866-­‐375-­‐i4cp  (4427)  •  Fax  206-­‐624-­‐6951     Research  8950  Ninth  Street  North•  Suite  115  •  St.  Petersburg,  FL,  U.S.A.  33702   Telephone  727-­‐345-­‐2226  •  Fax  727-­‐345-­‐1254   www.i4cp.com   © 2011 Institute for Corporate Productivity, Inc. Member companies may reproduce and distribute this file on an unlimited basis to their employees for internal management purposes only. Nonemployees (including outside consultants) may not be given copies of or access to i4cp’s reports, online services or conference materials. 69  
  • 70. Join Our Next TM Webinar Work-Life Balance is NOT a Perk Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2011 • TM Webinars start at 2 p.m. Eastern / 11 a.m. Pacific Register for upcoming TM Webinars at www.talentmgt.com/eventsJoin the Talent Management magazine Network http://network.talentmgt.com/ #TMwebinar