The issue of talent management always throws up the obvious question – how do you measure talent? What does it look like? We don’t propose to provide a definitive solution here (as there isn’t one!), but we do propose a number of different factors that together add up to something more than gut feel.

One pragmatic and workable way to identify talent is to consider the two dimensions of performance and potential. To assess talent you would consider both aspects. The diagram below illustrates it well. The difficulty with this is that just because someone is a high performer does not necessarily make them high potential and, quite often, people with potential are not always your highest performers.

On face value this is useful, but it still doesn’t answer the question as we now have to measure someone’s potential. Often in organisations this is down to someone’s judgement – usually the boss of the person who is being discussed. The difficulties with this approach are that it is open to obvious bias based on personal preferences and it can lead to a “if the face fits” approach to promoting people.

Another approach we sometimes encourage leaders to use is to consider their people as A,B or C players. This is similarly pragmatic and each “player” is defined as per the diagram below. The problem still remains though that evaluating people still relies on some kind of personal judgement.

As we have already said there is no single measure for talent or potential. Instead there appear to be a number of factors which talented people seem to share.

1.    Intelligence 

Sounds pretty obvious, but your best people will all be bright. They will be able to solve problems effectively, come up with new ideas, deal with complex issues and make sense of data. As we know intelligence can be measured. We are not necessarily advocating IQ tests, but there are some well validated tests to assess capability in reasoning ability such as numerical, verbal, diagrammatic reasoning etc.

2.    Emotional Intelligence 

We all know bright people who sometimes behave completely inappropriately. Polularised by Daniel Goleman in the early 1990s, but originally coined by Peter Salovey and Jack Mayer there is now a fair degree of research to support the claim that the most effective people display high levels of emotional intelligence (EQ). Essentially your best people will be able to manage their emotions and read the emotions of others to effectively manage their relationships with others. Again there are several well validated measures of emotional intelligence available.

3.   Behavioural style 

What we see in others is essentially down to their behaviour. High levels of EQ allow people to choose the most appropriate way to behave in certain situations. But they still have to do it!

If you think of your ideal employee and list down the attributes you most value we guarantee that 95% of them will be behavioural in nature. A lot of them will also be attitudes, but we cannot observe attitudes – we tend to observe behaviour and make an assumption of what the underlying attitude is. Our attitudes cause us to behave in certain ways, but the output is always behaviour.

Many organisations formalise this thinking and produce competency models. These models aim to capture and describe the kinds of behaviours that a) the organisation values and b) will contribute to its future success. Competency models need to be constructed with care otherwise they can be too simplistic. One criticism is that they can lead organisations to aim to create “clones” rather than valuing the diversity of having different people in the organisation.

In terms of measuring behaviours 360° degree feedback is a good way to do it. There are many personality based instruments available which provide an insight into behavioural style. The most rigorous way to assess behaviour is via an assessment centre. Assessment centres allow people to be observed carrying out simulations of work-based activities. The thinking is that how they behave in the assessment centre will be highly similar to how they behave in real life. The centre might also include some of the other assessments we have mentioned.  

1.    Learning Agility  

The final element to consider is learning agility. First described by Robert Sternberg, learning agility is basically about how quickly successful people are able to adapt to their surroundings. It is not just about intelligence, but it requires people to be open-minded to new challenges and willing to take on change. People with high levels of learning agility have a natural curiosity, they are able to quickly assimilate information and they have a willingness to apply their thinking. They reflect on their performance and their style and display the willingness to change their approach. Children often display high levels of learning agility, but as we grow older our assumptions about the world cause us to think (and behave) in certain ways, but the world of business is constantly changing so your best people will have the ability to recognise this and adapt the fastest.  

Unfortunately there is no real test or instrument to measure learning agility (yet), but a major clue will be found in how people behave. If they are constantly seeking out new possibilities, reflecting on their performance, seeking feedback, helping others see opportunities and adapting their approach they will have a high level of learning agility.

Conclusions