the future of talent management: four imperatives for ...leadership positions were eliminated in the...

© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved

11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED

Jean Martin

CEB Talent Solutions Architect

The Future of Talent

Management: Four

Imperatives for

Innovation in 2017


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED2

b

21%

Where CEOs Begin:

Business as Usual Has Given Way to “Business as Unusual”…

Percentage of Organizations Experiencing Significant Change

91%56%81%

Source: CEB analysis.

Note: Major organizational change is defined as M&A, organizational redesign, or senior leader transition.

2012


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED3

…and Uncertainty Is Expected to Increase

Organizations are experiencing more

change, volatility, and uncertainty than they

did at the peak of the global financial crisis,

and 73% of executives expect the

frequency of change to continue

increasing.



11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED4

Organizations Are Unprepared for This Volatility

Only one-third of organizations

are adapting quickly enough to

meet their goals.



Version: 1.1 Last modified: 11 July 2016

CONFIDENTIAL5

49% Agree

80% Agree

78% Agree

16% Neither

59% Agree

25% Disagree

30% Disagree

7% Disagree

13% Neither

14% Neither

7% Disagree

Leaders indicate that compared to 3 years ago, changes…

…have less clear objectives

…are more likely to cause disagreement among the leadership team

…require employees to learn new skills

…require more cross-functional collaboration

21% Neither

Change Is Increasingly Ambiguous and Demands More of the Workforce


Version: 1.1 Last modified: 11 July 2016

CONFIDENTIAL6

Today’s Changes Are Increasingly Complex:

The New Work Environment

Geographically Dispersed WorkforcesChange in Amount of Work with Coworkers in Another Location in the Past Three Years, by Percentage of Employees

More Matrixed Organization StructuresChange in Number of Individuals Involved in Decisions in the Past Three Years, by Percentage of Employees

57% Increased

38% Stayed the Same

5% Decreased

50% Increased

43% Stayed the Same

7% Decreased

Higher Volume of InformationChange in Time Spent Finding and Reviewing Data and Information in the Past Three Years, by Percentage of Employees

76% Increased

18% Stayed the Same

6% Decreased

n = 23,339 employees. n = 23,339 employees.

n = 23,339 employees.

Source: CEB 2012 High Performance Survey. Source: CEB 2012 High Performance Survey.

Source: CEB 2012 High Performance Survey.

Greater Amount of Collaboration RequiredChange in Amount of Work That Requires Collaboration with Others in the Past Three Years, by Percentage of Employees

3% Decreased

67% Increased

30% Stayed the Same

n = 23,339 employees.

Source: CEB 2012 High Performance Survey.


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED11

What CEOs Want from HR: Strategic Talent Management


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED8

Four Imperatives for Talent Management

Innovation

1. Win the Wars for Talent in the Era of Hyper-

competition

2. Move from Talent Pipeline to Talent Portfolio

3. Guarantee Leaders that Lead Across the Enterprise

4. Capture the Full Value of High Potential Talent


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED

What CEOs Want from

HR: Imperatives for

Innovation in 2017

Imperative 1: Win the Wars for Talent in the

Era of Hyper-Competition


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED10

Convergence of Hiring Needs

The Bulk of Job Postings Are for Just 21 Roles

Breakdown of All S&P100 Job Postings in 2015 by Role

n = 1,677,994 job postings.

Source: CEB TalentNeuron.

Marketing

Managers

Management

Analysts

Software

Developers,

Applications

Customer

Service Reps

Computer

Systems

Analysts

… …

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

… …… …

Industrial

Engineers

…

40% of S&P 100 job postings

in 2015 were for 21 role. 60% were for 899

other roles.


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED11

Job Candidates Forming Views Outside Our Control

Prospective Candidates Crowd Source Details on Employers

Relative Influence of Information on Candidates’ Decision to Apply a

Source: CEB Q3–Q4 2013 Global Labor Market Survey.a “Organizational communication” includes the organization’s careers website, social media presence, and job postings. “Information from other sources” includes friends and family,

current and former employees, and news stories.

Examples of Formal Organizational CommunicationExamples of Informal Communication

n = 708.

Career Website

Official Social Media Accounts

Information Shared by Recruiters

and Hiring Managers

20%

Organizational

Communication80%

Information from

Other Sources

Official Career Pages on

LinkedIn, Glassdoor, etc.

Blogs

Online Forums and Social Media Groups

Feedback from Friends,

Family, and Acquaintances

Press Coverage

Employee Profiles on Online

Professional Networking Sites

Employee and Candidate Comments

on Glassdoor and Similar Platforms


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED12

Recruiters in 2017 Face Many Challenges

Candidate

Experience

Hiring

Efficiency

Hiring

Effectiveness

• Engaging a Millennial

Candidate Pool• High Candidate

Volumes

• Maintaining

Organisational Brand

• Highly Competitive

Recruitment Markets

• Lean Resourcing

Operation

• Pressure to

Reduce Costs

• Candidates as

Customers

• Pressure to Speed

Up Time-to-Hire

• Under Pressure to

Hire the Right People

• Promoting Diversity

and Inclusion

• Reduce Attrition

• Improve New Hire

Performance



11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED13

Impacted Corporate Performance

Hiring

managers

takenew hires leave

within one year.

Source: CEB Q4 2012 Global Labor Market Survey.

Source: CEB 2010 Candidate Rules of Engagement Survey.


of applications do

not meet basic

requirements.

Hiring managers

are satisfied with

the influence

Recruiting has

on the business.

Which Have a Direct Impact on The Business

1 in 4 candidates report

having a negative

recruiting

experience.

1 in 4 65%

longer to review

and select

candidates for

new types of

positions or skills.

30%

How can we

reduce

our turnover?

How can I find

people who will

be successful in

their job?

How can I reduce

the time to hire?

Is our recruiting

process effectively

helping the

business?

How is the

recruiting process

affecting our

candidates?

1 in 3


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED14

Efficiency

Experience

Effectiveness

Why Traditional Approaches Fail to Deliver

Traditional assessment and selection approaches struggle to address all three key

priorities at once and force organisations to compromise

Tension

Engage candidates while accurately

predicting performance

Tension

Achieve valid and accurate

assessment results with

minimal resources

Tension

Manage large application volumes

without impacting quality of hire or speed



11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED15

Reimagine Candidate Selection

Effectively and efficiently hire the best candidates while delivering an engaging

candidate experience to all applicants.

World-Class

Predictive

Assessments

Mobile-First

Technology

Robust and

Flexible

Architecture

Candidate

-Centric

Design



11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED16

Make the right first impression,

and set the right expectation.

Precise Fit: Guide, Engage and Assess Candidates

Highlight minimum

qualifications, and equip

candidates with a

realistic preview of the

job, culture, and

organisation.

Help candidates

decide if the job is

right for them.

Guide


Measure what matters and

easily identify candidates best

suited for the role, company

and culture.

Guide AssessEngage


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED

Imperatives for Talent

Management Innovation

Imperative 2: Move from Talent

Pipeline to Talent Portfolio


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED18

Succession Management is Broken

n = 203 business units.

Source: CEB 2013 Succession Management Survey.

Low Succession Plan Hit Rate

28%Average Percentage of

Current Leaders

Pre-identified in a

Succession Plan

0%

20%

40%

n = 329 HR leaders; n = 895 executives.

Source: CEB 2013 Succession Management Survey.

Dissatisfaction with Current

Succession Management Processes

Percentage of Respondents

38% 36%

HR Leaders Senior Leaders


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED19

Most Common Succession Pipeline Failures

55% of

HIPOs will

exit the

pipeline.

13% of

leadership

positions were

eliminated in

the past year.

31% of

leaders are in

newly created

positions.

Pipelines

to Nowhere

Narrow

Pipelines

Only 25%of leaders

perceive

significant

upward career

opportunities.

Clogged

Pipelines

Rusty

Pipelines

32% of HR

executives

would change

members of

their

leadership

team if

given the

opportunity.


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED20

In Pursuit of Organization-level Agility:

From Managing the Pipeline to Managing a Portfolio

From... To...

Old Approach

Pipeline Management

New Approach

Portfolio Management

Demand-Driven Planning

Assessing leadership needs that will lead to

achievement of strategic goals

Supply-Driven Planning

Assessing current roles and gaps in

leadership supplyNe

ed

s

Assessm

en

t

Broad Sourcing

Selecting successors from across the

enterprise through greater transparency

Avoids:

Narrow

Pipelines

Deep Identification

Early identification of future leaders within

organizational silos

So

urc

ing

Deliberate Diversification

Preparing a leadership bench for a variety

of futures to hedge against uncertainty

Avoids:

Clogged

Pipelines

Vertical Career Paths

Preparing successors through upward

career paths

Div

ers

ific

ati

on

Leadership Team Rebalancing

Rebalancing the senior leadership team

against strategic goals

Avoids:

Rusty

Pipelines

Successor Transition

Concluding succession management at

transition of successor into preidentified role

Reb

ala

ncin

g

Avoids:

Pipelines

to Nowhere


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED21

Reconceiving Leader Programs:

“Future Leader Investing”

Goal Setting

Determine

financial

goalsPortfolio Rebalancing

Reassess investments and allocations given changes in goals or portfolio performance

Managing a Portfolio of Investments

Managing a Portfolio of Leaders

Investment

Selection

Identify the right

investments given

financial goals

Asset

Diversification

Diversify investments

within the portfolio to

mitigate risks

Portfolio

Rebalancing

Reassess

investments

and allocations

given changes in

goals or portfolio

Needs Assessment

Assessing

leadership needs

that will lead to

achievement of

strategic goals

Translation to Succession Management

Sourcing

Selecting successors

who will help the

organization meet

strategic goals

Diversification

Preparing a

leadership bench

for a variety of

futures to hedge

against uncertainty

Rebalancing

Reassessing

current

leaders’ fit given

changes in

strategic goals


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED22

Managing Leaders as a Portfolio Gets Results

? ?

Portfolio management strategies can double the strength of the leadership bench compared to

pipeline strategies. That leads to an extra 2% growth in year-over-year revenue and profit.

Su

pply

-

Drive

n

Pla

nnin

g

De

ma

nd-

Drive

n

Pla

nnin

g

Ve

rtic

al

Ca

ree

r

Pa

thin

g

Div

ers

ific

atio

n

Su

cce

ssor

Tra

nsitio

n

Le

ad

ers

hip

Re

bala

nce

De

ep

Ide

ntifica

tio

n

En

terp

rise-

Wid

e

So

urc

ing

What is the right

needs

assessment

strategy?

What is the right

sourcing strategy?

What is the right

diversification

strategy?

What is the right

rebalancing

strategy?

Pipeline Strategies

Portfolio Strategies

1 2 3 4

Ind

ex

ed

Ma

xim

um

Im

pa

ct

on

Lea

de

rsh

ip B

en

ch

Str

en

gth

1.0x 1.0x1.0x 1.0x

2.0x

2.9x

1.9x 1.7x

3.0

1.5

0.0

Portfolio Management Strategies Are More Effective Than Pipeline StrategiesIndexed Maximum Impact of Pipeline and Portfolio Succession Management Strategies on Leadership Bench Strength


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED

Output: 04:05PM Jun 13 2016

Modified 04:04PM Jun 13 2016

27

Strategic Talent Audit Reports

Access to best practices and self-service tools to manage and sustain the impact of leadership initiatives

27© 2013–2016 CEB. All Rights Reserved. CEB163865PRINT


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED

Imperatives for

Talent Management

Innovation

Imperative 3: Guarantee Leaders that

Lead Across the Enterprise


Version: 1.0 Last modified:06 April 2015

CONFIDENTIAL25

Not Confident in Our Leaders

Percentage of Business Units with Leaders Who Are Equipped to Handle the Future Needs of the Organization, According to Managers

27%

of Business

Units

Organizations Do Not Have the Right

Leaders for the Future

Source: CEB 2014 Enterprise Leadership Survey. n = 142 HR leaders.

Source: CEB 2016 HiPO Survey.

Note: Bench strength refers to organizations’ confidence in the capability of the leadership bench to fill current gas and

evolve to fulfill changing needs.

Confidence in Rising Leaders Has Gone from Bad

to Worse

Percentage of Organizations with a Strong

Leadership Bench

20%

10%

0%

2013 2016

17%

13%



CONFIDENTIAL26

The New Leadership Environment Is Increasingly Complex

61% of leaders have more

stakeholders to consult

85% of leaders have

increased responsibilities

58% of leaders have more

geographically dispersed

teams

50% less time with direct

reports

Implication: Peer Interactions

• Leaders need to consult and build

consensus with more of their peers to make

decisions

• Given larger scope of responsibility, leaders

must rely on peers’ expertise

• Leaders must navigate unfamiliar peer

relationships and new organizational cultures

Implication: Leader-Team Dynamics

• Leaders lack visibility into teams’ day-to-day,

requiring higher levels of trust

• Teams have a greater span of control and must

be more autonomous without constant input

from the leader

• Leaders must build a culture that enables staff

to seek guidance, support and development

from each other



CONFIDENTIAL27

Most Leaders Individually Focused

Individual LeadershipResult82% of leaders are meeting or exceeding

performance objectives, according to heads of HR

"Our leaders are hitting the goals

we've been putting in front of them.

The problem is that we're not seeing

as much of an impact on our

company-wide numbers as we would

have expected."

Chief Executive Officer,

Telecommunications Organization

Source: CEB Enterprise Leadership Survey.

0%

3%

6%

4%

3%

Source: CEB 2014 Enterprise Leadership Survey.

Impact on Business Unit

Revenue Growth

Impact on Business Unit

Profit GrowthM

axim

um

Im

pa

ct

on

Bu

sin

es

s U

nit

Fin

an

cia

l O

utc

om

es

The strongest individual leaders achieve 4% higher business unit revenue growth and 3% higher business unit profit growth than the average individual leader.

Leader’s Impact on RevenueMean to Maximum Impact of Individual Leadership on Business Unit Revenue

Individual leaders aim to improve organizational outcomes by achieving their own business

unit outcomes and helping their teams complete their objectives.



CONFIDENTIAL28

Leaders Struggle to Support Broader Network Outcomes

Leaders Unsupportive of Peer Performance

Leaders Lack Organization-Wide Perspective

Leaders Fail to Drive Cross-Team Collaboration

of Heads of HR rate their leaders as effective at supporting the performance of other leaders

of Heads of HR believe leaders consider organization-wide needs when making decisions

of Heads of HR rate their leaders as effective at creating conditions that facilitate collaboration across teams

13%

38%

10%

Source: CEB 2014 Enterprise Leadership Head of HR Survey



CONFIDENTIAL29

Enterprise Leadership: A New Model to Transform Leader Performance

Leader Network Performance

Improving others’ performance and using others’ contributions to improve own performance

Team Network Performance

Leading teams to be network performers outside the immediate team

Individual Leadership

Leader Task Performance

Achieving own individual tasks and assignments

Team Task Performance

Leading teams to achieve their collective tasks and assignments

+

Network Leadership

Enterprise Outcomes

Enterprise

Leadership

Leader effectiveness at meeting individual objectives, contributing to and leveraging the performance of other teams, and leading their team to do the same

=

Source: CEB 2014 Enterprise Leadership Head of HR Survey



CONFIDENTIAL30

Enterprise Leaders Close Organizational Gaps

Organization WITHOUT

Enterprise Leaders

Strategic

Planning

Conflicting Strategies

Leaders present strategies to maximize

business unit results.

Connected Strategies

Leaders present strategies that incorporate

needs beyond their business unit.

Strategy

Execution

Cross-Functional Projects Deprioritized

Leaders deprioritize cross-functional projects

as side-of-the-desk work.

Cross-Functional Coordination Prioritized

Leaders seek out cross-functional partnerships.

Resource

Allocation

Competition for Resources

Teams allocated resources based on business unit objectives

rather than enterprise objectives.

Strategic Alignment of Resources

Teams allocate resources based on business unit objectives

that align with organizational goals.

Talent

Planning

Talent Hoarding

Leaders reluctantly discuss their top talent

and listen for talent to poach.

Talent Viewed as Corporate Asset

Leaders share opportunities to leverage their

own talent elsewhere and develop others’ talent.

Organization WITH

Enterprise Leaders



CONFIDENTIAL31

Enterprise Leaders Improve Team Outcomes

More Innovative TeamsPercentage of Teams Achieving a High Level of Innovation

Higher Employee Engagement Leader’s Maximum Impact on One-Year Change in Team’s Employee Engagement

More Adaptable TeamsPercentage of Teams Effective at Generating Solutions to New or Unanticipated Problems

Higher Customer SatisfactionLeader’s Maximum Impact on One-Year Change in Satisfaction of Leader’s Customers

34% of

Individual

Leaders’

Teams

72% of

Individual

Leaders’

Teams

57% of

Enterprise

Leader’s

Teams

87% of

Enterprise

Leader’s

Teams

Individual Leader

Enterprise Leader

1.00x

Individual Leader

Enterprise Leader

1.00x

1.35x1.2x

Source: CEB 2014 Enterprise Leadership Survey.



CONFIDENTIAL32

Enterprise Leaders Deliver Higher Performance

Enterprise Leadership Impact

on Own Business Unit: 12%

Enterprise Leadership Impact on

Other Business Units: 5%

Individual

Leadership

Network

Leadership

Spillover on Other

Business Units

12%

6%

0%

Ma

xim

um

Im

pact o

n B

usin

ess

Un

it R

eve

nu

e G

row

th

n = 908 leaders, 362 connections.

Source: CEB 2016 Enterprise Leadership Network analysis.

5%

Impact from

Enterprise

Leaders in

Other Business

Units

The benefit to their own business

unit that leaders achieve through

network Leadership4%

3%

5%

Implication: An Enterprise Leader

creates a spillover effect on other

business units.

Enterprise Leaders increase revenue by up to 12% for their organization and they produce

more effective teams.



CONFIDENTIAL33

Enterprise Leaders Are Few and Far Between

Leader Network

Performance

31%of leaders are

effective at these

types of tasks

Leading Team to

Leverage Other

Units

35%of leaders are

effective at these

types of tasks

Individual Leadership

Leader Task

Performance

77%of leaders are

effective at these

types of tasks

Team Task

Performance

59%of leaders are

effective at these

types of tasks

+

Network Leadership

=

Source: CEB Enterprise Leadership Survey.

Only 12% of leaders meet the

requirements for Enterprise

Leadership

12%



CONFIDENTIAL34

Key Strategies to Reduce These Barriers

1. Lack of Control 2. Incomplete Information 3. Rewards Risk

From: Building new leadership

skills to help leaders adjust to

having less control

From: Updating universal

expectations through new

leadership models

From: Reward leaders for

Enterprise Leadership

behaviors

Talent Management Lever:

Leader Assessment


Leader Development


Leader Rewards

To: Shifting leaders’

mindsets about their roles

To: Increasing transparency

into relative strengths of

peers and teams

To: Reward leaders for

Enterprise Leadership

outcomes



CONFIDENTIAL35

Assessing for Enterprise Leadership



CONFIDENTIAL36

Developing Enterprise Leaders: Enterprise Leadership Academy


Why Enterprise

Leadership Matters

Module 4Module 2 Module 3Module 1

Acting as an

Enterprise Leader

Thinking Like an

Enterprise leaderBuilding an

Enterprise

Leadership climate

Pre-Work 2 Day Session Post-Work


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED

Imperatives for

Talent Management

Innovation

Imperative 4: Capture the Full Value

of High Potential Talent


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED38

Current Challenges of Managing High-Potential Programs26

HIPO Program Manager Perspectives

of HIPO programs fail to drive

development follow-through so

HIPOs reach their potential

“When our HIPOs come back from the formal training

program, they don’t seem to succeed in converting their

learning into improved behaviors in their daily activities”

“I have to show the management team a return on

investment with my HIPO programs or risk losing my budget

and future learning development opportunities”

73% of HIPOs programs

show neither business

outcome nor ROI

HIPO Program Challenges

15%

95%

73%

Only 15% of High Performers

are likely to be High Potential

“I struggle to identify who the true high-potential employees in

the business are. I know managers often get it wrong.”

Source: 1. CEB (2010) The Disengaged Star: Four Imperatives to Reengage High-Potential Employees

2. CEB Succession Strategies for the New Work Environment

3. CEB (2012) HIPO Program Operations and Outcomes Survey


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED39

The Identification Problem: Current Performance Does Not Equal Potential

Only 15% of High Performers

Are High-Potential

High-Potentials

High

Performers

46% of Leaders Lack a

Systematic Process for

Identifying HIPOs

Systematic

Process

HIPO

Identification

Source: 1. CEB The Disengaged Star: Four Imperatives to Reengage High-Potential Employees,

2. Edwards, S. (2012) Maintaining the Delicate Balance When Developing High- Potential Programs. T+D Magazine.

2

1


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED40

A New HIPO Model: Identifying the High-Potential

HIPO

Aspiration

Ability Engagement

High Aspiration: yields 11x higher probability to

achieve executive position. Will they get there?1

3High Engagement: yields 2x higher probability

to stay, put in extra effort and meet performance

goals. Will they remain with your company?

2High Ability: yields 12x higher likelihood of being

effective in senior roles. Will they be effective?

The Challenge: Organizations need to assess for ALL of these distinguishing

characteristics to accurately identify their true HIPOs.

Source: CEB The Disengaged Star: Four Imperatives to Reengage High-Potential Employees, 2010

Three Distinguishing Attributes Are Critical:


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED41

The Development Problem: For HIPOs it’s How Not What

Extract learning

from experience

75%of ability to apply

learning

High-quality

learning experiences

25%of ability to apply

learning

30%in increased

performance

Up to

Extraction PerformanceExposure

From WHAT to Learn to HOW We Learn

Source: CEB L&D Leadership Council. On-the-Job Learning Survey


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED42

How HIPOs Learn

Stop to think about what went well and what didn’tREFLECT

Ask for feedback on your performance and impactGET FEEDBACK

PRACTICE Intentionally practice until you can perform well


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED43

Accurately Identify HIPOs


Aspiration Ability Engagement

• Motivations

• Behavioral Styles

• Cognitive Capabilities

• Competency Potential

• Structured interview oronline engagement survey

Engagement Interview

This assessment is framed by CEB’ s Model of Engagement Capital. This model explores commitment and

outcomes such as intent to stay with the company in terms of the employee’ s engagement with their current

role as well as on-going or future commitment to the organization. It also explores the rational commitment

– does the employee see it as in their best interests to stay with and invest in the organization – and the

emotional commitment of the employee – does the employee believe in the goals and the values of the

organization.

The materials provided are intended to help assess these components of engagement which are critical to

ensuring that those entering development programs will show the commitment to be successful in them as

well as be with the organiz ation to return the investment made in the employee through their future contri -

bution to the organization’ s success.

1. Let’s talk about your current role.

Q1.1 Tell me about the contribution this role makes to the [insert organization’ s name] and how that con -

tribution creates value for the [insert organization’ s name].

Q1.2 What doesn’t energize you about the work that you do?

(Follow up) How do you address those issues yourself?

2. Let’s talk about who you work with.

Q2.1 How do you contribute to the team’ s overall performance?

(Follow up) Can you provide specific examples of how you have made that contribution recently and the

impact that it had?

Q2.2 Are there areas that you think you and your co-workers could improve upon so that they could work

more effectively as a team?

(Follow up) Have you discussed these areas with the team? Can you provide an

example of how you have addressed these issues and improved the team’ s

overall performance?

3. Let’s talk about you immediate career goals in, say , the next 12 months.

Q3.1 What would you say is the most signific

a

nt and recent contribution that you have made in your cur-

rent role?

(Follow up) What was the learning that you have taken away from this experience that

you see as helping you achieve your immediate career goals?

Q3.2 What do you want to achieve in your career over the next year or so?

(Follow up) Why is this important to you?

Engagement Interview

This assessment is framed by CEB’ s Model of Engagement Capital. This model explores commitment and

outcomes such as intent to stay with the company in terms of the employee’ s engagement with their current

role as well as on-going or future commitment to the organization. It also explores the rational commitment

– does the employee see it as in their best interests to stay with and invest in the organization – and the

emotional commitment of the employee – does the employee believe in the goals and the values of the

organization.

The materials provided are intended to help assess these components of engagement which are critical to

ensuring that those entering development programs will show the commitment to be successful in them as

well as be with the organiz ation to return the investment made in the employee through their future contri -

bution to the organization’ s success.

1. Let’s talk about your current role.

Q1.1 Tell me about the contribution this role makes to the [insert organization’ s name] and how that con -

tribution creates value for the [insert organization’ s name].

Q1.2 What doesn’t energize you about the work that you do?

(Follow up) How do you address those issues yourself?

2. Let’s talk about who you work with.

Q2.1 How do you contribute to the team’ s overall performance?

(Follow up) Can you provide specific examples of how you have made that contribution recently and the

impact that it had?

Q2.2 Are there areas that you think you and your co-workers could improve upon so that they could work

more effectively as a team?

(Follow up) Have you discussed these areas with the team? Can you provide an

example of how you have addressed these issues and improved the team’ s

overall performance?

3. Let’s talk about you immediate career goals in, say , the next 12 months.

Q3.1 What would you say is the most signific

a

nt and recent contribution that you have made in your cur-

rent role?

(Follow up) What was the learning that you have taken away from this experience that

you see as helping you achieve your immediate career goals?

Q3.2 What do you want to achieve in your career over the next year or so?

(Follow up) Why is this important to you?


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED23

Support HIPOs’ On the Job Learning Capability

Use scalable, cloud-based

learning and development

support to build high potential

talent


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED45

Imperatives for Talent Management Innovation

1. Win the Wars for Talent in the Era of Hyper-

competition

2. Move from Talent Pipeline to Talent Portfolio

3. Guarantee Leaders that Lead Across the Enterprise

4. Capture the Full Value of High Potential Talent


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED11

What CEOs Want from HR: Strategic Talent Management


11 Nov 2016

RESTRICTED47

CEB Services 2017

Workforce Surveys

CEB Performance

Impact Solutions

Plan Recruit Assess Develop Engage Perform

CEB Leadership Councils

CEB Precise Fit

CEB Strategic Talent Audit

CEB High-Potential Solution

CEB Enterprise Leadership Solution

CEB Talent Assessment

the future of talent management: four imperatives for ...leadership positions were eliminated in the...

Documents