Here's a view to 'Why Corporations Are Losing The War For Talent?' Do you agree that the premium talent comes from entrepreneurs who have been involved with innovation and business supremacy ? Tell us how do you see the talent evolving from the current start-up based environment.
Why Corporations Are Losing The War For Talent?
About a decade ago, a book that drew a great deal of attention was The War For Talent written by three consultants with the prominent firm McKinsey & Company. The War For Talent was a manifesto for the belief that the smartest organizations are the ones with the smartest individuals. According to the authors, the best companies were those who relentlessly pursued the very best talent. Until recently, this recruiting strategy seemed to work. By putting a premium on degrees from the top-tier business schools, investing heavily in the individual development of their star performers, and making sure that their top talent was handsomely compensated, the war for talent was a game played almost exclusively among an elite group of corporations. After all, for many years the path to business success was via the corporate ladder.
From India, Mumbai
1856Why Corporations Are Losing The War For Talent?
About a decade ago, a book that drew a great deal of attention was The War For Talent written by three consultants with the prominent firm McKinsey & Company. The War For Talent was a manifesto for the belief that the smartest organizations are the ones with the smartest individuals. According to the authors, the best companies were those who relentlessly pursued the very best talent. Until recently, this recruiting strategy seemed to work. By putting a premium on degrees from the top-tier business schools, investing heavily in the individual development of their star performers, and making sure that their top talent was handsomely compensated, the war for talent was a game played almost exclusively among an elite group of corporations. After all, for many years the path to business success was via the corporate ladder.
From India, Mumbai
I am simply flummoxed by the conclusion - 'networks are smarter and faster than hierarchies'
Sounds great when written and read on a forum or in a magazine. But, the truth is very different.
Maybe network organisations are winning battles for talent, but the war is a long way away from them.
None of these co-called genius organisations are over 10 years old. And, with reference to longevity, credibility, and sustainability, 10 years is too short a time.
Organisations that have lasted for more than 50 years haven't done so on a wing and a prayer. Yes, it is true that they may be slow to change and turn in a different direction. But, that is the consequence of being a behemoth. So, whilst 'networks' may be slithe, sexier, streamlined and nimble, that is where it ends. For them to be counted amongst industry forerunners, they will first have to prove themselves over a minimum of 50 years.
You may think this is hogwash. But nothing could be further from the truth. To survive 50 years and beyond is the sign of a true champion organisation. Of one that knows how to respond to change. In fact, mostly, they are the harbingers of change. Because, no organisation can survive that long without learning to, and then excelling at making change a part of their DNA.
Once change is part of an organisation's DNA, it doesn't matter whether it manifests iteself as 'a war for talent' or any other monicker. These organisations know how, when, what, why, how, and where to do what needs to be done.
So, yes, I am in disagreement with the views of this study. And, like I said earlier, whilst the new kids on the block may be grabbing all the headlines and maybe even the talent to a large extent, the 'oldies' still reign supreme. Not because they are better. But, because they know how to deal with change - a concept that the 'newbies' are yet to face - repeatedly!
Thank you for posting (Cite Contribution)
From India, Gurgaon
Sounds great when written and read on a forum or in a magazine. But, the truth is very different.
Maybe network organisations are winning battles for talent, but the war is a long way away from them.
None of these co-called genius organisations are over 10 years old. And, with reference to longevity, credibility, and sustainability, 10 years is too short a time.
Organisations that have lasted for more than 50 years haven't done so on a wing and a prayer. Yes, it is true that they may be slow to change and turn in a different direction. But, that is the consequence of being a behemoth. So, whilst 'networks' may be slithe, sexier, streamlined and nimble, that is where it ends. For them to be counted amongst industry forerunners, they will first have to prove themselves over a minimum of 50 years.
You may think this is hogwash. But nothing could be further from the truth. To survive 50 years and beyond is the sign of a true champion organisation. Of one that knows how to respond to change. In fact, mostly, they are the harbingers of change. Because, no organisation can survive that long without learning to, and then excelling at making change a part of their DNA.
Once change is part of an organisation's DNA, it doesn't matter whether it manifests iteself as 'a war for talent' or any other monicker. These organisations know how, when, what, why, how, and where to do what needs to be done.
So, yes, I am in disagreement with the views of this study. And, like I said earlier, whilst the new kids on the block may be grabbing all the headlines and maybe even the talent to a large extent, the 'oldies' still reign supreme. Not because they are better. But, because they know how to deal with change - a concept that the 'newbies' are yet to face - repeatedly!
Thank you for posting (Cite Contribution)
From India, Gurgaon
We have been at this research for more than 24 years now. We are uploading an account of our experience. Would love to have comments!!
From India, New Delhi
From India, New Delhi
Dear Dhruv,
Thankyou for sharing your research. This must be very interesting. I am looking forward to read this. Requesting members who would view his work to comment and share their views. More brain storming on this , would add to our learning !
From India, Mumbai
Thankyou for sharing your research. This must be very interesting. I am looking forward to read this. Requesting members who would view his work to comment and share their views. More brain storming on this , would add to our learning !
From India, Mumbai
Whatever be the size or the age of the corporation - the question is what kind of talent do you want. Are you after guys who would think and deliver or the guys who'd follow orders (the two are very different).
If you want order followers, recruit guys who show a streak of being order followers and place them in a strict compliance environment.
If you want guys to think on their own and deliver - give them space to think, do, oppose you and even screw up.
You can't expect creative and innovative doers to stick to a hidebound rule book and similarly, you'd overwhelm and confuse the order followers if you don't give them a rule book.
From India, Delhi
If you want order followers, recruit guys who show a streak of being order followers and place them in a strict compliance environment.
If you want guys to think on their own and deliver - give them space to think, do, oppose you and even screw up.
You can't expect creative and innovative doers to stick to a hidebound rule book and similarly, you'd overwhelm and confuse the order followers if you don't give them a rule book.
From India, Delhi
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Why Are We Losing All Our Good People.doc