Hi Tammy,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I am not sure that I agree with the concept of talent being owned and managed by a central function. I think that if the business isn't leading, owning and driving talent management then it could be doomed to failure. I can see that a central function needs to help and support this in more sophisticated ways but not to own it.

Chris
http://learn2develop.blogspot.com

I agree with you. The Talent Management function has been consistently been evolving over the past several years. I think we have quite some ways to go. We find that the existing practices and models are too inadequate. The systems are also very rigid which adds to the compexity. While we are able to appreciate the end-state model, the architecture to support the model and the practices are unclear. Scale, Globalization and Gen-Y workforce are driving the change.

We started with a total HR function. Then we moved towards a HR function and a separate staffing function. Now we continue to have these two, both of them Global, with the HR function shrinking to 'welfare' management and Staffing function taking more load by way of talent manaagement, maintenance, enhancement and allocation. We as an organization are in the thick of globalization as well as 70% of our workforce are Gen-Y. The social system and structures as it tries to adjust to this model is naturally gravitating to the end-state you had indicated. I can't help being amazed at how Drucker envisaged it such a long time back.

Although I think the changes are real and are putting pressures on organization to change how they manage talent, I think most of the changes have been about bending to employee needs, rather than finding new ways to leverage the employee-employer relationship.

There are also a couple important changes that allowed the types of shifts Drucker envisioned to come to fruition:

- Decreased transaction costs in information flow, allowing for greater flexibility for employees
- An increased democratization of the tools of production, allowing employees to be able to control more of their ability to produce work
- Decreased costs of production and an increased ease in building scale (at least in some sectors)

We are seeing this change not only result in increased flexibility for traditional employees, but also in the contract / outsourced area as well. The increased ability for employees to "go freelance" means employers have to adapt and change their management and organization structure to adapt to these competitive labor market pressures. An increased opportunity and ability to "go solo" will continue to force companies to find new ways to leverage and engage their talent, regardless of the employment relationship.

The more important part of Drucker's concept is lost on most managers/leadership.

In order to have an organization like he envisions, staff must not be treated as just "Human Resources". The change from the "Staffing Department" or other employee-centric names used in the past to the modern "Human Resources" sends a subtle hint to employees every time they hear it, that they're not valued as much as they once were, and they're utterly replaceable. While this may be true to some extent in the global economy, it's the wrong message to send to people for maximum performance and motivation, and has been wrong for a long time now.

People sent that message often don't do "self-management" very well. In order to reach Drucker's utopian view, every individual Staff member has to be understood and handled as an individual. And a centralized organization can never do that.

Additionally, when things are centralized -- corporations today always need everything boiled down to a tidy little set of "procedures", which would make the situation worse than it already is.

Employees with real managers whom they can interact with on a personal level (even if most of the time those conversations start with phrases like "you didn't hear this from me, but as your friend...") will always be here as long as we're human.

The only way this other idea could take place is by lowering employee/leadership relationships and "proceduralizing" them, which won't produce happy or productive people in the company.

Talent management will definitely be more centralized in the future. My vision is one where management does nothing but manage. However, organizations will be so flat there will not be too many managers at all. HR will help coordinate people into teams, but they will be mostly self-assembling. Why? Managers rarely know who the "good people" are, but the workers themselves have the wisdom of crowds to help. The workers can self select into a group they are effective in, and avoid the "bad people".

The added benefit is this: The cream will rise to the top and HR will not have to find these people new projects to work on. Conversely, the Bad will constantly need help from HR to find a new position after a project is completed. This gives HR a very a very clear picture of 'Do people want to work with you or not?'

I am the only Gen Yer in my company. It is very apparent to me that we are still operating in the old world, and are very slow to change. We don't even utilize 360 degree feedback! I have built my political capital within the organization enough that I have secured a meeting with the managing director on people strategy/vision. I am sure the discussion will be excellent, and hope that some changes will ensue.

Bruce
http://www.20somethingsuccess.com

Tammy,

I would like to agree with the idea of talent management, with the role of a line manager being one of continuity - for maintaining the link to the company core values, and the business development plan. This manager may also provide the historical information needed to efficiently enhance a product line. Where I am not so confident however, is with the HR function.

Talent "fit" has not been made a priority, and expense has, resulting in a tremendous disconnect applying qualified and appropriate resources in time to effectively use them. Effective use of talented people requires environment, compatibility, and respect. Self-selection and the "wisdom of the crowds" are ideas that threaten HR empires, and no matter how often we hear "an engineer (programmer, drafter, etc.) is an engineer, is an engineer - they are all interchangeable" those with the talent know this is patently not true.

Some large organizations do allow employees to "bid" on projects, and management selects whom they feel can efficiently do the job. Employees who are interested know their qualifications best anyway. Previous comments also support this idea, so I am not alone.

I'm fortunate to have a flexible working environment and employer trust and respect. When I can't add value, I tell them why and we work to improve the situation. We have no HR "department" at all, managers seek talent through various means external and internal.

Some personal background: I am using my talents and experience choosing to contract my services to places I can make a difference. I completed an advanced degree in management of technology in 2000, at age 54, because it challenged me.

Jim

I've been in a work environment that has not had line managers for almost a decade. Initially, there were enough 'former' line managers around to help provide 'unpaid' advice to new employees. However, most of that line management knowledge has left the company and/or retired.

We are now losing young people because there is no career management advisors to help them decide whether they should stay with the company and/or in what long-term capacity. To complicate matters, I work in a huge corporation where Human Resources is being managed to be minimal expense as possible, making that organization nothing more than paper pushers.

What is being lost with the loss of line managers is the hands-on, personal knowledge of helping one assess career options. Web 2.0 message board resources and advice cannot replace a good line manager.

As usual Peter Drucker provides managers with valuable insight into management. Thank you Tammy for simplifying Peter's vision of the future of management!

I agree with some of the comments about this article that management in some fields will always need an element of face-to-face meetings, but in many industries this is not the case. Especially considering that we are doing business in a global marketplace with a global talent pool.

It is clearly evident that with rising gas prices and travel expenses companies have a need to save costs by creating "virtual offices". These "virtual offices" will need "virtual managers".

Peter Drucker is always (well.. usually) right.

Check out "Post-Capitalist Society" for his vision of where this will all lead. It was written in 1993 but it still ahead of it's time.

As usual, right on Tammy. I think we are seeing Drucker's insights play themselves out. But I would broaden his notion of the 'central function' . . . that function may be internal or external to the organization. Increasingly, organizations have created permable membranes around them . . .using external talent brokers (e.x., Your Encore or Select Mind applications, alumni networks,etc) or open source/social networking communities to identify and deploy key talent. And managers are moving into project/process management roles even in heavy manufacturing . . . particularly at the manager/director career stage.

The challenge in this model are many, for example (1) are talent brokers (internal/external) best positioned to own/develop talent? (2) How to develop senior leaders, when the people management role is so limited early in one's career; (3) where and how do you engage leadership in critical talent conversations in that type of model?

A visionary comment for sure...

The HR function and how it is applied has been cheapened ( in my opinion and experience) to more of someone who administers the benefits and organizes the newsletter and company picnic.

I do agree that much of HR in large corporations (I work for a large global chemical firm) seems bent on tidy little boxes and proceedures. A line manager (ME- I'm a Commercial Sales Manager within NAFTA) often needs to give / receive / interpret information for their direct reports. This can't be reduced to a wiki or some set of FAQs on an HR intranet site.

There are some employees that are hyper motivated and need only the slightest instruction (or none!) to perform their work. Others need constant hand-holding and encouragement. Many fall in the middle somewhere.

So while lock-step chain of command ladders / layers of managers may be dead (We have only a handful of layers from new person to CEO in a 10+ Billion dollar company)- line managers are alive and well.

Certainly there are fewer of us. That is the next point - fewer advancement opportunities, particularly among GenXers like me. In fact I'm one of only a few in my entire division of 2000+ people.

I don't see the function being replaced just yet...Changed, certainly!

I have been researching to support my vision of radical changes needed in the structure of the Criminal Justice System in California. The legislature recently passed a Bill they believe will be a step to reduce the prison population. Of course they handed out billions to implement this Bill.

I have been following the implementation committee efforts. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, they seem to have left probation out of this effort. Instead they are looking at Parole to be the focal point. For those that are unaware of the Criminal Justice system in America, and most other developed countries, Probation provides the pivotal function in the system. I have yet to find a state that does not have more criminals on probation than in the prisons. Yet, Probation has evolved into supervising criminals who would normally be sent to prison. As a result, more emphasis is placed on policing the criminals rather than reforming them. The culture, and the organizational structure, now mirrors Enforcement (Police/Military) structure.

It seems obvious this results in more recidivism, consequently leading to more prison sentences. However, recidivism data is not collected.

I knew Drucker would help me, and I thank you for posting this article

Bill

Tammy, I am just getting familiar with your blog as well as that of your esteemed colleagues.

In theory, the notion of "line manager" may be shedding its skin in the face of flattening organizations. However, my several years in HR tell me that a leadership role in front of employees still has critical value. Well-established patterns and trends in industry say that employees leave their supervisors/managers, they dont' leave their employer/company.

Now with four generations in the workforce, employee retention is increasingly more critical to a company's continued growth and success. Employees are motivated to stay with a company because their work is satisfying and meaningful. They also stay with a company because somehow they know they are valued employees. In my exeperience, that happens only when someone in the leadership chain talks to them and tells them they are valued employees.

Part of my HR role was to coach supervisors/managers to talk to those employees who, because of their talent and potential, were most vulnerable to external poaching.

Going forward, and has been the case in some companies, the "line management" function is morphing into more of a mentoring role.
HR's tactical admin role (benefits, comp, etc.) will remain...either done internally or outsourced.

But what I see as HR's central role is demonstrated by way of executive and management coaching so that the recognized talent and potential of the company is effectively preserved. That in some way is also "talent management".

I work with managers at both ends of the continuum. At one end I work with managers in the health sector where old command and control structure continue to underpin organisational practices, at the other end I work with managers in the non-profit sector which enjoys a much larger freedom of operation built upon a matrix structure and project leadership.

Underneath each of these corporate structures I see good people in line management roles attempting to create self managing teams, often without the support of the executive. This suggests to me that the people doing the work are ahead of those creating the formal structures. It also suggests to me that the people doing the work will almost always have the best knowledge on how to do so most effectively. Is it likely this will lead to a changing role for front line managers?

Will we see the end of the front line manager? I don't believe so. As Carl pointed out earlier, not every employees has the capabilities to work unsupervised. I believe the role of front line manager is changing to become more 'coach' and 'project leader' oriented.

Drucker points to the increasing complexity of the workplace as a driver for a more centralised talent management role. There is no doubt the workplace environment is becoming more complex with greater flows of information in all directions creating the perception of chaos, however I believe talent management to be a responsibility of the work team. Again those doing the work know best what is needed and who has the best abilities to do that work. Nurturing of talent, on the other hand, may be a role for a more centralised function.

Over the next 30 years workforce supply is predicted to tighten. It is much less expensive to hold onto good people than it is to replace them. As the supply tightens the cost of replacement increases. A key strategy for recruiting and retaining good people will be to nurture the talent one has, to develop its inherent qualities so as to maximise the benefit both to the organisation and to the individual and to demonstrate that people are the key resource for an organisation.

I need to be clear here. By nurturing talent I do not refer to the old-style 'corporate ladder' for 'fast-tracked' executives. I refer, instead to the entire organisation having a holistic perspective of the reason for its existance, the contribution it makes to society and good it can deliver through best practices. When that perspective is attained, nurturing talent becomes a strategic outcome for the organisation and responsibility for achieving that outcome may best be managed by a centralised function.