BLOG

​Shreya Sarkar-Barney, Ph.D.

Shreya Sarkar-Barney, Ph.D

​In the future, we will see talent analytics efforts pivot in three important ways: (a) mature from lending administration support to augmenting performance, (b) transition from describing the past to providing future-focused insights, (c) evolve managerial decision making about people from intuition-led, to one that is more objective and fact-based. 

According to a 2013 CEB survey, only 18% of business leaders say they trust their talent data. A staggering 82% don’t believe their talent analytics focus on the right issues, and only 15% of HR leaders say they have made a business decision based on insights gleaned from HR analytics. Not much has changed in 2018 according to a survey conducted by consulting firms, DDI, The Conference Board, and Ernst and Young. Yet, investment in talent analytics globally is upwards of 600 million dollars.  How can organizations derive greater value from their people analytics practice?

​In this article, I present the thesis that organizations that avoid some of the common pitfalls associated with talent analytics, adopt an evidence-based focus, and deliver personalized insights will be better positioned to fulfill the promise that the practice has to offer. If done right, it can offer a significant competitive advantage to organizations.  Imagine a learning plan that is automatically created based on the future skill needs and aspirations of an employee.  How about the intelligent identification of rotational opportunities to grow your future leaders. Imagine automatic rescheduling of tasks for optimal time utilization, and intelligent calendar management to promote work-life balance. The possibilities are tremendous, and the journey for most organizations has just begun. 

In the business world, talent management (TM) has been hailed as a pivotal practice that enables firms to compete, reduce costs, and boost performance and profits.  It often is cited among the top 10 priorities of senior leaders and frequently features among the top concerns keeping the organization from achieving their goals (CEB, 2016).  This is a curious situation considering growing investments to advance human capital.  The persisting challenges indicate that talent management, as currently practiced, has done little to drive business outcomes, employee well-being, or meet organizational goals.  This lack of success may in part be due to an inadequate understanding of what talent management is, how it can be best used, or what constitutes good practice.
​
Owing to its emergence in practice rather than science, talent management is often perceived as trendy or fad-based practice rather than rigorous decisions making methodology about talent. Considering the parallels in topical focus with research-based disciplines such as management, industrial-organizational psychology, and strategic human resource management, there is significant potential to advance the practice of talent management as a decision science. This blog reviews the current status of the practice, highlighting gaps and opportunities. Based on this analysis, we present a new definition of integrated talent management. By linking the framework to existing bodies of academic research, we hope that the practice will flourish alongside the advancements in the underlying fields.

​Dr. Shreya Sarkar-Barney
​Founder and CEO

​Former Google employee, James Damore’s leaked memo has sparked a heated debate on the topic of diversity in the tech industry, particularly as it relates to women’s capacity for STEM careers. Many leaders are facing similar discussions in their own organizations and finding themselves untangling the various perspectives presented in the media. In this blog, my goal is to review the available scientific evidence on gender differences as it relates to STEM careers. Following this I will share recommendations for organizations looking to promote gender diversity.
​

​The Chasm
There are three broad camps represented in this vigorous debate. The “biology” camp argues that men and women are biologically different with few social influences causing these variations. The “abilities” camp views women as lacking in abilities and interests that are required for careers in science and engineering.  The “societal influence” camp argues that rather than abilities, it’s the societal conditions that thwart women's’ interests in STEM careers.  Each of these perspectives have received research attention making it possible to evaluate the arguments more objectively.
​
The Science
First, here’s a brief overview of the key perspectives on the root causes for gender differences. For each I highlight where the science supports and refutes specific claims.
​

​Evolutionary theory: Proponents of an evolutionary approach, suggest that selection leads to different adaptive behaviors in men and women.  They argue that thousands of years of biological programming explain why women have greater responsibilities in child bearing and rearing.   They suggest that men, on the other hand, evolved to ensure the physical survival of their mates and off-springs. As a result, their adaptive responses are geared toward survival and protection. Thus far, the science suggests only mixed support for this view.
​

Social-Cognitive learning theory: Originally proposed by Stanford's Albert Bandura, this theory suggests that adults and children learn acceptable behaviors through ongoing reinforcements and punishments, both directly and by observing others. As social beings, humans are programmed to imitate others, particularly those in power.  By observing the action of powerful others, they learn to engage in socially desirable behaviors. This brings positive affirmation from others leading to increased confidence in oneself (self-efficacy). In the case of gender differences, there are culturally acceptable behaviors for males and females.  These are learned early in life by observing others and regulating one's own behaviors to be more in line with acceptable norms.  The science for Social-Cognitive theory is very strong, and supports the idea that traditional gender norms and social processes conspire to account for some of the gender disparity in traditionally male jobs.
​

​Sociocultural theory: According to this theory psychological gender differences are the result of societal segregation of labor by gender. Historically, biological difference between men and women resulted in men doing work requiring strength and women being predominantly focused on home and family care . Studies on vocational interests show sizeable gender differences. Men tend to be more interested in things, and women more on people and relationships. These interests influence the career choices made by each gender. Men and women also pursue different career goals. Men favor opportunities that bring status, success and allow for competition. Women favor opportunities that require working with people, caring for others, and attending to other’s needs.
​

​Expectancy-value theory.  This theory explains a person’s decision to pursue a challenging task. According to the theory, people pursue tasks they expect to succeed in (expectancies) and are aligned with their interest and perceived utility in achieving their goals (value). This theory has received considerable empirical support in explaining gender differences in the pursuit of activities that may be outside of the community’s stereotype for gender roles.
​
While these major theories help us organize our thinking about gender differences, what does the science say about specific capabilities of each gender?  Are they really substantially different, and if so are they the result of biological differences or influenced by socialization?  
​

Ask someone to describe the characteristics of an effective business leader and you are likely to receive an answer that includes self-confidence, dominance, toughness, decisiveness, fearlessness, drive, and accomplishment. In fact, many executive recruiters look for these characteristics when selecting leaders for all levels of their organizations. But do these behaviors make for a more effective leader? Do these behaviors positively impact team performance? A study conducted this past year suggests that an unlikely leader behavior may yield better team and organizational outcomes: that behavior is humility.

            Humility is a misunderstood trait often associated with weakness in the United States. Psychology, however, defines humility as an attribute that occurs in a social context, and it is characterized by a willingness to view one’s own strengths and weaknesses accurately and to judge others’ strengths and shortcomings accurately as well. Being humble also means being teachable and open to growth experiences.[i]

            A leader who demonstrates humility will draw focus to others’ strengths, encourage others to share their perspectives, possess a willingness to acknowledge his/her own limitations, and support others’ growth and achievement. Furthermore, a humble leader will inspire follower loyalty and commitment,[ii] reinforce job satisfaction, work engagement, and employee retention,[iii] and counter the negative effects of leader narcissism, leading to more positive follower outcomes.[iv]

            A non-humble or authoritarian leader, in contrast, will avoid all appearances of being weak. He/she will be over-confident and self-righteous, will not publicly acknowledge mistakes, and will seek personal status above the status of his/her team. These behaviors are contagious and will create teams of competitive individuals vying for individual status instead of focusing on achieving the goals of the team.[v] How does this leader behavior impact team performance?
​
            Last year, a study examining the effects of leader humility on team performance was conducted by Bradley Owens and David Hekman.[vi] Using data from 607 subjects organized into 161 teams, this study induced humility in a laboratory setting, in a longitudinal lab study across six weeks, and in a field study completed in a health services context. Participants in all three studies completed tasks and then rated the humility of their leaders, their teams, or both. The results of this research showed that leaders’ humble behaviors were contagious and that leaders modeling humility inspired team members to be humble as well. In the end, the teams led by the humble leader performed better on all their respective tasks. It is tempting to view these results as representing a best-case scenario that can only exist in rare settings; but the results of each of the three studies augmented one another to demonstrate that these results are consistent across different types of settings and across different spans of time.

In the case of concerning reviews about your organization or its practices, investigate the reported problem and its root causes.  While few negative comments in the midst of positive reviews aren’t likely to do much harm, many negative comments may indicate that there is a greater problem that has to be repaired. For example, repeating comments about lack of opportunities for development may indicate that a company should invest more in training, on-the-job developmental opportunities or mentoring and coaching.  While negative reviews indicate there may be a problem, they are unsubstantiated claims and do not necessarily provide a indication of how widespread the problem is likely to be. Have a qualified talent management practitioner conduct a full blown assessment. Analyses of this type are especially worthwhile when the organization has challenges with hiring or retaining high performing employees.  When claims are carefully investigated and addressed, it becomes the best measure to prevent negative feedback in the future, as well as increase organizational effectiveness. One option is to openly share on the company's career site how the company is addressing concerns highlighted by ex-employees. More often than note candidates will appreciate the transparency believe the company is trustworthy.

In the quest to learn from bad reviews, don’t forget to learn from the positive ones.  Affirmative or unexpected positive reviews can be flattering, but more importantly, they may allow the organization to learn about its strengths and about the aspects of employment brand that has been valued by employees.  Again, communicate this on your careers site.