Yes, the differences in performance have to do with technique and method, but also training methods. And the diferences in performace apply to not only sprinting, but almost every Olympic event and field of human endeavor.

Many companies do have extensive employee development programs, with corporate Universities, extensive evaluation and mentoring programs, etc. GE, IBM and 3M are just a few examples.

- Greg

The 1906 Olympics is a bit of a flawed argument, since it has more to do with technique and method. The 1906 runners all started from a standing start pose, these days high-school athletes all start from the crouched position with starter blocks. Have the high school athletes use the same techniques as the 1906 Olympians and their times will be significantly worse.

The “War for Talent” starts with establishing the skill sets needed, the attitude and behavior desired that works within the company culture, and the right reward system (which quite often is less to do with money than other perks). You wouldn’t put a talented software developer in a receptionist position, so attracting talent is maybe a first challenge, but fitting a job around the person rather than shove a person into a job is key.

We have Product Development departments, but don’t seem to have Human Development departments. We have recruiters, but not retainers. We hire from outside rather than grow from within. We hire based on keywords matching in resumes, rather than on personal profiles. We see the desk and chair as an asset, but the employee as an expense and liability.

Until we change how we value people, the “War for Talent” is already lost before it has begun.

Thanks. Best of luck in the New Year to you as well.

- Greg

Thanks. It’s a very good point. Motivation is not a general principle. Goals have to be aligned.

- Greg

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

- Greg

In reading this article, I come to what I will call “default agreement”. Now I’m going to have to qualify that. If people understood and practiced strategic recruitment, then I would contend that your article wouldn’t have the same value. However, strategic recruitment is an oxymoron in most environments. I will give you the first few thoughts of “why” and then focus on some other dynamics.

People don’t understand that recruitment is fundamentally the foundation of your “human system”. I give you the following, not to be self propagating, but to condense things here. The “people flow continuum” is a model I used to explain the life flow of all employees through an organization: http://www.rottmangroup.com/peopleflowcontinuum.html. In short, recruitment, or the assembling of the candidate pool is the first step. Where people go wrong, even when they take sophisticated selection tools, is that they fail to qualify how strategically, how qualitatively those candidates were sourced. If you can’t get to the best candidates and have to live with selecting the best of the worse, then your whole article makes much more sense. You have to make the best with the clay you have. However, I’m going to contend that you can indeed get a better group of candidates, but its harder work for multiple reasons.
1. The best people are currently working, not actively looking. This then gets into a broader discussion on how you reach them with your message….strategic recruitment.
2. Recruitment is a step-child function in most organizations and within most HR departments. It isn’t fun, it isn’t sexy, and because of those two primary reasons, it doesn’t attract the best and brightest to even perform the function. Do you know anyone that went to school to get a BS degree in recruitment? (Now, as a side note, many recruiters could be accused of having a degree in BS though.)
3. The best ways to get the best candidates are many times the most expensive. If you have a piece of the puzzle missing, you are going to spend a bunch of money, not get the best people, then fail do repeat the process, even if it was the right process with the wrong players. You can have a good strategy, be willing to pay the $ to get the best candidates, but not get a good quality recruiter….and end up with a botched process. Good luck with the good recruiter part. To capsulize a longer story, at a national HR conference, I began asking HR leaders this question: “Given your experience, out of 10, how many recruiters to think understand recruitment and how it fits into your human system?” The greatest answer I got was 2, most said none. I’ve never known a more pitiful commentary on an industry than for the ones that most utilize the service to have such little faith in those that provide the service. I then understood why I was so different and why getting into to new doors was so challenging.

Back on topic. If you can’t strategically get the best group of candidates, have a system to select the best of that group, then sure, grow your own is going to be a better program. However, that still doesn’t measure what kind of clay you have to work with. What it does is say that I’m going to work with my clay and invest in it because its at least a known entity and I don’t have to take some of the other risks of dedication, attendance, and other unknown risks hiring a new person brings. So while there is validity in the article, it is secondary vs. primary strategy, but one that must be considered. I would first take and understand the People Flow Continuum (PFC) and make sure I had the best, most strategic recruitment department/function possible. Your risk of making other mistakes along the way go down and your cost of other parts of the PFC go down as well.

If you are going to win the war on talent, have an army of green berets, not wooden soldiers….should I have just said that first?

That’s a very good point. Motivation is crucial.

- Greg