The Strategic Talent Management Architect: A New Framework for

The Strategic Talent Management Architect A New Framework for Understanding Organizational Effectiveness

By Kim E. Ruyle, Gabriella D. Kilby, Kenneth P. De Meuse and Kevin J. Mlodzik Key Takeaways: • Our goal is to present a new framework for examining organizational performance and success.

• Talent is one of the most critical factors in achieving organizational effectiveness.

• Our new model provides a comprehensive framework for business leaders, as well as academicians, to systematically investigate the internal and external factors influencing the performance of organizations.

B

usinesses in many ways are comparable to machines.

Machines are interconnected assemblies of mechanical

elements operating in a carefully designed manner to accomplish some type of work. Machines move mass through a distance to satisfy a specific need. To operate, machines require a prime source of power. They will fail to perform effectively – or fail completely – if the mechanical elements are not well aligned or there is excessive friction between the moving elements. Consequently, machines must be designed, operated, and maintained if they are to deliver the desired work product. And so it is with a business.

A business is an organization – an assembly of people, raw materials, and capital – designed to deliver something of value to various stakeholders. For example, investors in a business are looking for an adequate financial return on their investment given the perceived risk.

Customers are expecting to receive products or services that meet their needs and satisfy an acceptable value proposition.

Employees hope to receive gainful employment and a meaningful and stable livelihood. Organizational effectiveness (OE) can be conceptualized as the degree to which a business meets the longterm needs of its various stakeholders (Kim & Mauborgne, 2009).

An organization requires a prime mover, the vision, and the drive of one or more leaders who set the goals of the business and the direction it must move to achieve those goals.

A business figuratively moves through a competitive landscape as it positions itself to achieve its strategic intent. An organization requires a prime mover, the vision, and the drive of one or more leaders who set the goals of the business and the direction it must move to achieve those goals. Like a machine, a business will fail to operate successfully if key elements such as processes, systems, and structure are misaligned or hindered by friction between those elements.

And like a machine, a business must be designed, operated, and maintained. These functions are performed by the talent – the human capital employed by the enterprise. Indeed, talent (i.e., an organization’s employees), typically is the single biggest lever for driving improvements in business performance. For most companies, the total cost of human capital is the single biggest expense line in the income statement (Echols, 2008). The collective skills of the talent employed in an organization largely comprise the organization’s core capabilities. An organization’s talent injects a degree of contextual ambiguity that is very difficult for competitors to benchmark and replicate. More than any other asset, talent provides the potential for long-term competitive advantage (Lawler, 2008).

More than any other asset, talent provides the potential for longterm competitive advantage

We assert that leadership and human capital power the business machine. As such, talent becomes the primary driver of organizational effectiveness. In this paper, we begin with a general overview of the theoretical literature on organizational effectiveness.

Subsequently, we propose a new framework for conceptualizing factors that affect the effectiveness of organizations. We refer to our model as the Strategic Talent Management Architect. Finally, we discuss implications of this model for assessing and changing talent management strategies and practices.

Brief Overview of the Organizational Effectiveness Literature

2

Talent management is a strategic human resource discipline that seeks to optimize the performance and contribution of human capital in the business machine. Talent management is concerned with

sourcing talent, integrating and aligning talent, developing talent, engaging and rewarding talent, strategically deploying talent, and assuring there is an adequate talent pipeline to support the business as it moves toward its strategic goals (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005). As essential as talent management is to organizational effectiveness, talent management practices often are viewed by corporate leaders as “necessary but tangential” to the primary business operations that impact the bottom-line. Talent management and human resource (HR) professionals are more likely to refute those views when they achieve the role of credible activist in their organizations and adopt an OE mindset (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Eichinger, Ruyle, & Ulrich, 2007).

Organizational Effectiveness has a long and storied history. Its historical roots appear to stretch as far back as the origins of management itself. Numerous disciplines have investigated OE, resulting in a multitude of perspectives, definitions, models, and assessments. Academicians and practitioners independently have studied the concept and have little agreement on how to conceptualize it or measure it. Further, there is a wide variety of uses for OE data, ranging from high-end analyses of overall corporate performance to less sophisticated reviews of general business unit functioning utilizing qualitative data (see Connolly, Conlon, & Deutsch, 1980). Thus, the state of the literature is complex, dispersed, and frequently confusing. There seems to be little integration of thought in many respects.

Talent management and human resource (HR) professionals are more likely to refute those views when they achieve the role of credible activist in their organizations and adopt an OE mindset

There are several definitions of OE in the literature. For example, Dressler (2004) has defined OE as “the result of effective interplay of a company’s vision and strategic goals with the chosen structural design, processes, assigned responsibilities, available skills, knowledge, and capabilities, and reliable performance management” (p. 43). These goals can be primary (e.g., shareholder returns), or secondary (e.g., the cost reduction and employee satisfaction). Other researchers have examined OE from an open systems perspective, calculating it as the balance of outputs and inputs (Nadler, 1998).

Yet, other scholars have focused on the satisfaction of stakeholder interests, such as employees, investors, and customers (Collins, 2001; Connolly, Conlon, & Deutsch, 1980). In an attempt to integrate

3

and simplify these definitions, we define OE as follows: Organizational Effectiveness is a measure of how well an organization is meeting the long-term goals of its stakeholders.

Organizational Effectiveness is a measure of how well an organization is meeting the long-term goals of its stakeholders.

Similarly, researchers have proposed several models of OE. Some of these models take on a more academic slant while others are more practitioner-related. Perhaps, the two most widely cited models are McKinsey’s 7-S model (Peters & Waterman, 1982) and Kaplan’s Balanced Scorecard approach (Kaplan, 2005; Kaplan & Norton, 2007). Each of these frameworks has its advantages and disadvantages. However, the two models are very different in how they conceptualize OE. It appears that each model neglects to incorporate large bodies of research relevant to the understanding of how organizations operate. Our goal in this paper is to present a new framework for examining organizational performance and success. Our model attempts to integrate both theoretical and applied perspectives. We include factors that interplay both business strategies and talent management strategies. Our hope is that seemingly disjointed viewpoints in the literature can be assimilated to derive a scientifically supported, organizationally relevant OE model.

The Strategic Talent Management Architect Based on a comprehensive review of the scholarly and practitioner literatures, we have developed the Strategic Talent Management Architect. This framework consists of the following two major sources that influence an organization’s performance effectiveness: (a) leadership drivers and (b) organizational enablers. Leadership Drivers are those factors that derive, clarify, motivate, and communicate (i.e., “drive”) the fundamental business of the corporation. There are two different leadership drivers – vision and vigor. Organizational Enablers are those factors that provide structure, talent competencies, and execution in an organization.

Organizational enablers include three key dimensions – capability, architecture, and action. Finally, we identify two additional factors in our model. We call them company-wide Enterprise Accelerators, and they consist of Enterprise Alignment and Enterprise Agility. These latter two factors ensure that leadership drivers and organizational enablers mesh with the external and internal environments relevant to the company, as well as facilitate the adaptability of internal 4

conditions to outside changes. See Figure 1.

In the following section of the article, we define each of these factors e Agility Enterpris

Vision

Enterprise Alignment

Leadership Drivers Vigor

Figure 1. The Strategic Talent Management Architect

Architecture

Organizational Enablers

Action

Enterprise Alignment

Capability

and examine its impact on the operations of an organization. We also contrast our framework of OE with other notable OE models. Talent management implications are discussed in the final section.

Leadership – The Key Driver of Organizational Effectiveness Leadership is a central variable in nearly every model of OE presented in the literature. Senior leaders usually establish the organization’s mission, identify target customers, determine the products and services delivered, hire the managers who execute plans, and create a shared vision that rallies stakeholders to drive toward shared objectives. In many ways, leaders are analogous to the prime mover of a machine. Our model contains two dimensions within the Leadership Drivers factor: (a) Vision and (b) Vigor.

Vision. Vision represents the ability to effectively define the business and set its direction. Leaders clearly articulate the organization’s unique value proposition and craft compelling messages to communicate the strategy. Vision requires a high level of general business acumen, an ability to establish strong, effective governance for the organization, and the willingness and ability to shift course as required by the changing business conditions.

Much has been written about the leaders’ responsibility to develop and modify the organization’s mission and goals and guide the organization’s vision. Porter (2008) contended that understanding the

Overall, the ability to craft and communicate an effective vision has been articulated consistently in the literature as a critical element to achieving organizational effectiveness.

5

forces that shape industry competition is the first key to developing strategy. Lichtenstein and Dade (2007) asserted that delivering the highest shareholder value comes through aligning the leaders’ vision to the goals and strategy, and that this process can be aided or hindered by the extent to which leaders understand each other’s needs and values. Crossan, Vera, and Nanjad (2008) proposed that leaders need to demonstrate a proactive stance in aligning strategy, the environment, and the organization under one vision. Montgomery (2008) emphasized the need for leaders to see strategy and vision as a dynamic process requiring ongoing monitoring and tweaking.

Overall, the ability to craft and communicate an effective vision has been articulated consistently in the literature as a critical element to achieving organizational effectiveness.

The literature suggests that an organization’s effectiveness is significantly hindered when leaders fail at strategy implementation.

Vigor. Vigor represents the ability to drive the enterprise forward. It requires that leaders and employees possess an infectious passion for the business and strategy, unflagging energy and drive, and a relentless, aggressive, and competitive spirit. Vigor also consists of a contextually-appropriate leadership style that inspires confidence with all stakeholders through an unwavering focus on results, measurement, and accountability.

The literature suggests that an organization’s effectiveness is significantly hindered when leaders fail at strategy implementation.

For illustration, Kanji (2008) posited that the ability of leaders to drive the organization toward quality and excellence is the prime aspect of organizational effectiveness. Burke, Sims, Lazzara, and Salas (2007) also argued that a leader’s ability to foster organizational effectiveness is the degree to which subordinates and co-workers trust the leader to get the job done. Paradoxically, effective leaders work to both engender predictability and order as well as to produce organizational change (Yukl & Lepsinger, 2005). The use of language in the literature to describe the competitive characteristics of leaders reinforces the notion of vigor. Smith, Ferrier, and Grimm (2001) described the need for leaders to specify competitive behaviors their firm must perform, using the analogies of prize fighters, chess masters, and American football coaches. Even the term “stretch goals” when used in the context of performance management implies this notion of vigor, in that a manager should motivate his or her employees to perform at an extremely high level (Kerr & Landauer, 2004).

6

Beyond Leadership Drivers – The Organizational Enablers Organizational effectiveness begins with leadership, but leadership must be executed. After defining the business and setting the strategic direction, leaders must drive the organization forward.

Organizational enablers represent the talent, processes, and structures put in place by the leaders to achieve the business goals.

This factor represents the key elements in the business machine that are driven by the prime mover – leadership – to deliver the organization’s work output. The organizational enablers’ factor is comprised of three dimensions: (a) capability, (b) architecture, and (e) action.

Capability. Capability denotes the organization’s capacity to empower it to achieve its strategic objectives. It represents the deep expertise in mission-critical competencies required by the organization’s mission and unique value proposition. Capability includes business systems, such as a well-developed talent management system, the sensible application of technology, and support systems (e.g., supply chain management and customer relationship management).

In the literature, capabilities are recognized as a major source of competitive advantage (Clardy, 2007). Capabilities in this sense are inherent to the organization, not simply the collective aggregate of individuals. According to scholars, capabilities influencing organizational effectiveness can include talent management systems (Bassi & McMurrer, 2008), information technology (Batra, 2006), supply chain management (Carter & Rogers, 2008), and research and development (Tirpak, Miller, Schwartz, & Kashdan, 2007). Ulrich and Smallwood (2004) contended that organizational capabilities are derived (in part) from the manifested abilities of the company’s employees. Becker, Huselid, and Beatty (2009) recommended that companies should focus more energy on developing talent capabilities that promise greater returns on investment (such as highpotential employees).

...companies should focus more energy on developing talent capabilities that promise greater returns on investment

Architecture. Architecture refers to the organization’s hierarchical structure and organizing principles. It includes the structure and design that serves the organization’s business model and unique value proposition. In addition, architecture represents the aspects of a work environment which enable employees to work effectively, such as established relationship norms, meaningful company policies, 7

...leaders are prone to allowing their organization’s structure to be dictated by its environment rather than by strategy.

efficient communication methods, and pleasant and safe work facilities.

The literature clearly conveys the important role of architecture in actualizing an organization’s effectiveness (Flamholtz & Kurland, 2005; Neilson, Martin, & Powers, 2008). In their seminal work, Katz and Kahn (1978) challenged leaders to achieve effectiveness by moving beyond traditional, bureaucratic structures. Kim and Mauborgne (2009) emphasized the role strategy should play in shaping structure. Oftentimes, they noted, leaders are prone to allowing their organization’s structure to be dictated by its environment rather than by strategy. Raisch (2008) also suggested that companies striving for profitable growth need an organizational design that balances mechanistic and organic structures. Many authors assert that organizational culture can be a source of competitive advantage if it is aligned with strategy (e.g., Sadri & Lees, 2001).

Action. Action represents the organization’s ability to develop, implement, and execute tactics that directly serve the strategic goals. It necessitates that the workforce is highly engaged and willingly expends discretionary effort to reach strategic objectives.

Action requires the ability to make decisions and implement difficult strategies rapidly and effectively, as well as managerial ranks that exemplify excellence in operating skills such as planning, organizing, and time management.

...Bossidy and Charan (2002) argued that the biggest obstacle to organizational effectiveness is the absence of execution.

Action is noted repeatedly in the research literature as critical to OE. For example, Bossidy and Charan (2002) argued that the biggest obstacle to organizational effectiveness is the absence of execution.

Mankins and Steele (2005) found that most of the executives they surveyed failed to deliver the financial performance forecasted in their long-range plans. These authors concluded that the gaps between strategy and performance often are not analyzed by typical organizational metrics. Finally, Higgins (2005) viewed execution as so critical that he added “Strategic Performance” to the McKinsey 7-S model to emphasize the effort needed to drive outcomes.

Enterprise Accelerators There needs to be some minimal level of development of the Leadership Drivers and Organizational Enablers for an organization to function at a nominal level. Although these elements may be well 8

developed, an enterprise cannot achieve sustained effectiveness without the power of the Enterprise Accelerators. It serves as a “performance enhancer” for the business machine by enabling the other elements to operate efficiently and responsively. Enterprise accelerators consist of two dimensions: (a) enterprise alignment and (b) enterprise agility.

Proper alignment infers the interrelatedness and interdependency of all the internal and external components salient to the business.

Enterprise Alignment. Enterprise Alignment denotes the interaction and fit of all the elements that drive and enable an organization’s effectiveness. Alignment is achieved to the degree in which the OE Drivers and Enablers are designed with an integrated, comprehensive systems view. Proper alignment infers the interrelatedness and interdependency of all the internal and external components salient to the business. In other words, in addition to the alignment of components within the internal business system, alignment reflects the need for OE components to be synchronized with their external environment. These environmental forces include population demographics, politics, economic conditions, market changes, competitive forces, technology, governmental laws and regulations, as well as consumer preferences.

The literature describes alignment as the relationship between a firm’s internal strategies, capabilities, and systems to its organizational opportunities and possibilities. The effort to align these components always should come from top management (Eichinger et al., 2007).

Scholey (2007) defined alignment as the coordination of an organization’s business units to reach its overriding objective. The strategic fit between strategy and implementation has been found to be strengthened by the positive relationship between HRM effectiveness and labor productivity (Crotts & Ford, 2008). According to Kaliprasad (2006), there are three major inhibitors of sustained organizational performance: (a) inaccurate understanding of the marketplace, (b) misaligned customer strategy, and (c) misaligned systems and processes.

Enterprise Agility. Enterprise Agility represents the organization’s ability to learn and adapt to changes in the competitive landscape.

Every organization needs to be ready to adjust its strategies, structures, and processes to accommodate changing demands in the environment. No organization can survive indefinitely by remaining the same. Enterprise agility implies that an organization 9

No organization can survive indefinitely by remaining the same.

fosters awareness and learning by actively and continuously monitoring both internal and external cues, then carefully choosing appropriate responses. Obviously, this dimension is related to Enterprise Alignment, in that the alignment of OE components must be continually reassessed as components adjust in response to contextual cues.

The literature describes agility as the degree of willingness and readiness to change at the enterprise level (Lawler & Worley, 2006; McCann, 2004). Alternative names for the concept include adaptability, flexibility, learning, resiliency, and responsiveness.

Enterprise Agility demands much more effort than simply having a few nimble departments or divisions that operate in isolation or having pockets of innovative change agents (Breu, Hemingway, Strathern, & Bridger, 2001; Seo & La Paz, 2008). Research indicates that it is a critical source of competitive advantage (Grantham, Ware, & Williamson, 2007). Agility is a required characteristic of organizations that desire to respond quickly to market changes and threats from the business environment (Huang, 1999). Frequent change is required for organizations to effectively manage global competition, technological innovation, e-business, turbulent environments, and new business opportunities (Breu, Hemingway, & Strathern, 2001; Lawler & Worley, 2006). Research supports the notion that possessing a strategic human resources function is essential for achieving agility (Shafer, Dyer, Kilty, Amos, & Ericksen, 2001). Overall, it appears that Enterprise Agility is absolutely critical for transforming companies from average to exceptional effectiveness.

The Strategic Talent Management Architect: How it Compares with Other Prominent OE Models Figure 2 presents the Strategic Talent Management Architect relative to other prominent models of OE presented in the literature.

In general, most models have dimensions specifying the role of strategy, vision, or mission. Further, most models include structure, design, and capabilities. The inclusion of these dimensions is not surprising, since strategy, structure, and design represent the “hard� components common throughout the OE literature (Chandler, 1969).

There appears to be several key differentiators of our new framework.

First, most other models assume a non-directional, relative interaction of the variables. The Strategic Talent Management Architect is linear 10

Figure 2. A Comparison of Prominent OE Models Found in the Literature OE Model

OE is Achieved When…

Major Dimensions Assessed

Implications for Talent Management

McKinsey 7-S (Peters & Waterman, 2004)

The organization develops a high level of alignment between the seven Ss.

(1) Strategy; (2) Structure; (3) Systems; (4) Staff; (5) Style; (6) Skills; and (7) Shared Values.

Includes “soft variables”

Kaplan’s Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 2007)

The organization aligns its management processes and implements long-term strategies.

(1) Financial; (2) Customer; (3) Learning and Growth; and (4) Internal Business Processes.

Includes talent development dimension

Bassi & McMurrer’s Human Capital Capability Scorecard (2008)

The human capital items are (1) Leadership practices; (2) linked to business results Employee engagement; (3) Knowledge accessibility; (4) Workforce optimization; and (5) Learning capacity.

Significant emphasis on talent management

Booz and Co OE Simulator (Neilson, Martin, and Powers, 2008)

As organizations quickly (1) Decision rights; (2) translate important strategic Information; (3) Motivators; and and operational decisions (4) Structure. into action.

Talent management practices impact a number of the model traits.

Quinn & Rohrbaugh’s Competing Values Framework (1983)

When leaders create a balance in key values or come to consensus on how these values are represented in the org.

(1) Internal/external focus; and (2) Organizational preference for structure.

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (2009)

The organization is rated as having made accumulated progress in each of the criteria categories.

(1) Leadership; (2)Strategic Includes dimension on planning; (3) Customer & market workforce focus; (4) Measurement, analysis, & knowledge management; (5) Workforce focus; (6) Process management; and (7) Results.

Strategic Talent Management Architect

When each model component is optimized.

(1) Vision; (2) Vigor; (3) Capability; (4) Architecture; (5) Action; (6) Enterprise Alignment; and (7) Enterprise Agility.

and leader-centric. It directly shows that leaders drive the other components of the organization to achieve effectiveness. Our model also includes Enterprise Alignment and Enterprise Agility as core dimensions to be assessed. The other models either measure these variables indirectly as an output of the data analysis (as in enterprise alignment) or fail to assess them all together (as in enterprise agility).

Another difference is the inclusion of the Vigor and Action dimensions.

Focus on measurement

Less direct impact on talent management

Takes into account talent management implications and solutions for every dimension

11

...our model embeds researchgrounded dimensions within a business-relevant machine analogy.

Theoretically, leaders can select the perfect business strategy and build an organizational structure and capabilities to support this strategy. However, the business will fail with poor execution and implementation. Our OE framework also links each dimension of the model with talent management practices, assessments, and solutions. Such a linkage depicts a clear linkage between talent management and organizational effectiveness. Finally, we believe that our model is simple, straight-forward, and shows the kinetic relationship among all the elements influencing OE. Many models depict complex variables, multiple feedback loops, and interrelationships that do not resonate with business leaders. Most importantly, our model embeds research-grounded dimensions within a business-relevant machine analogy.

Implications for the Practice of Talent Management Thus far, we have investigated the business variables vital for achieving organizational effectiveness. We presented our OE model and defined its components. We also reviewed how our OE framework relates to other popular models in the scholarly and practitioner literature. Nevertheless, questions remain. For example, how do talent management strategies and practices impact the proposed OE Drivers and Enablers? How can talent be employed to contribute to the Enterprise Alignment and Enterprise Agility? How can organizational leaders use our framework to assess, diagnose, and correct inefficiencies and problems in their companies? In this section, we will provide specific implications of our OE framework on talent management strategies and practices.

Without adequate talent to design, operate, and execute the core business processes, the business machine is crippled

12

1. T alent Management is Central to the Success of the Entire Business Machine Based upon the research reviewed in this paper, it becomes clear that talent impacts organizational effectiveness. In fact, much of the literature conveys some aspect of talent as central to achieving OE. Leadership is a factor present in nearly every model of OE, and it is almost impossible to overstate its importance as a prime mover of the business machine. However, leadership is not enough. Without adequate talent to design, operate, and execute the core business processes, the business machine is crippled. Organizations that understand this point are likely to invest in and develop talent (Bassi & McMurrer, 2008; Becker, Huselid, & Beatty, 2009).

Talent is critical to maintaining all of the components of effectiveness.

The facets of talent management impact the OE Drivers and Enablers in different ways. Each Driver and Enabler has direct links with specific talent management practices. See Figure 3.

Figure 3. Talent Implications Gleaned from the Strategic Talent Management Architect

Organizational Effectiveness Dimension

How It is Powered by Talent

Talent Management Systems to Change for Optimal Effectiveness

Leadership Characteristics Required

Vision

Leaders set the vision to define the company and its direction.

• Selection • Training & development • Succession planning • Strategic alignment • Sr. team effectiveness • Coaching

• Understanding the Business • Making Complex Decisions • Creating the New and Different • Focusing on the Bottom Line • Communicating Effectively

Vigor

Leaders foster the drive, energy, and accountability for moving the company forward.

• Performance management • Rewards & compensation • Org culture • Onboarding • Employee engagement • Coaching

• Creating the New and Different • Getting Work Done Through Others • Focusing on the Bottom Line • Inspiring Others

Capability

Refers to competencies at the company level: these are the collective abilities, which includes its talent mgt system.

• Strategic alignment • Capability assessment • Competency modeling • Recruitment & selection • Training & development • Rewards & compensation

• Making Tough People Calls • Being Organizationally Savvy • Managing Work Processes

Architecture

Organization design and structure directly impact and are affected by the talent management system.

Includes org culture.

• Strategic alignment • Org culture • Teams • Employee engagement • Competency modeling & job profiling • Communication

• Understanding the Business • Being Organizationally Savvy • Communicating Effectively • Managing Diverse Relationships

Action

The workforce must be engaged and productive, and manager skills must be honed in order for proper execution of strategy.

• Decision making •M anagement training & development • Succession planning • Employee engagement • Rewards & compensation

•K eeping on Point •G etting Organized •G etting Work Done Through Others •M anaging Work Processes •D ealing with Trouble

13

Figure 3. Talent Implications Gleaned from the Strategic Talent Management Architect Organizational Effectiveness Dimension

How It is Powered by Talent

Talent Management Systems to Change for Optimal Effectiveness

Leadership Characteristics Required

Alignment

All of the OE model dimensions must be aligned with each other and the organization’s environment. In turn, the talent management system must be aligned with these dimensions and environment.

• Strategic alignment • Org culture

• Understanding the Business • Making Complex Decisions •Dealing with Trouble

Agility

The organization must be flexible within the system to changes internally and externally. Likewise, the talent management system must be agile to anticipate and respond to these changes.

• Learning agility

• Making Complex Decisions • Creating the New and Different • Being Organizationally Savvy • Demonstrating Personal Flexibility

Alignment between OE Drivers and Enablers and talent management strategy and practice is imperative.

14

2. Talent Management Strategies and Practices Must be Aligned Just as the parts of a machine need to be aligned in order to prevent mechanical interference, stress, and (ultimately) failure, key business components likewise must be aligned. The business strategy must be aligned to the needs of the marketplace and competitive realities. Organizational capabilities and business processes must be integrated and aligned to support the strategy. Alignment between OE Drivers and Enablers and talent management strategy and practice is imperative. Without alignment, business processes are likely to work at cross-purposes and create friction, heat, and noise that result in organizational dysfunctions. The competent talent management professional will understand all the key elements in the business machine and how they operate together in order to craft a talent management strategy that aligns with and supports the elements.

3. T alent Management Strategies and Practices Also Must Become Agile Business conditions constantly change. The competitive landscape, for instance, continually shifts with new entries and recent departures.

Laws and governmental regulations frequently change, requiring organizations to modify their policies and procedures to remain in compliance. Labor pools and wage rates vary due to economic fluctuations. Resource availability moves with changes in global demographics and trade laws. As a result, the business machine must be adaptive and agile. Enterprise Agility, as represented in our OE model, acts as a lubricant in the business machine to enable it to turn faster, operate more smoothly, and function more efficiently. Talent management practitioners should consider ways to build agility and adaptability directly into their talent processes. Special attention should be paid to recruiting, onboarding, competency development, incentive systems, and talent deployment systems. When these key talent management practices are unencumbered by bureaucracy, rigid budgets, archaic organizational structures, onerous policies, arcane communication methods, and an inflexible staff, they can contribute significantly to an organization’s effectiveness.

Talent management practitioners should consider ways to build agility and adaptability directly into their talent processes

Conclusion Talent management leaders and the HR community have a responsibility to do more than hire, train, and pay employees.

Employees can significantly impact organizational effectiveness, and it is incumbent on these professionals to become familiar with all the elements that drive it. For maximum impact, talent management and HR leaders must cultivate a broad perspective of the competitive landscape, develop a deep knowledge of the business, and become credible activists in the organization. They should become intimately familiar with the elements that impact OE. The Strategic Talent Management Architect can help them do that.

At one time, individuals who had difficulty supervising employees often were funneled into HR roles. At that time, the HR function was called the Personnel Department and most of the duties revolved around simply ensuring vacations were accrued, safety measures were in place, and managers had plenty of job candidates to interview. The understanding and appreciation for the importance of an organization’s human capital was extremely limited. We must remember that at one time employees were referred to as “hired hands!” The cliché was when employees punched in their brains checked out.

15

We believe the most effective leaders of talent management today are those individuals that can combine the art with the science of talent to drive organizational effectiveness.

Nowadays, there is a rapidly evolving science of talent management which is supported by a wealth of theoretical and empirical research.

Tactical tools are giving way to strategic processes. Disciplines such as industrial/organizational psychology, human resource management, and organizational sociology are contributing greatly to our understanding of business and its management. Theoretical frameworks describing environmental contingencies, individual characteristics, and business conditions have been developed to assist our comprehension of how to maximize outcomes and satisfy the numerous organizational stakeholders. Leadership competency models have been carefully formulated to enhance talent management processes that drive financial performance (e.g., Bassi & McMurrer, 2008, Lombardo & Eichinger, 2001). Talent management is augmented by art as well as by science. The contextual ambiguity present in organizations should permit talent management practitioners to exhibit entrepreneurial creativity and innovation, developing systems which are agile, adaptable, and aligned with the strategic needs of the organization. We believe the most effective leaders of talent management today are those individuals who can combine the art with the science of talent to drive organizational effectiveness.

The model we proposed in this paper is based on research. Each component is directly linked to the finding(s) of a scientific study or series of studies. The interactive and dynamic nature of the model should enable business leaders to more effectively understand their organizations and improve their functioning. A key facet of our OE model is the importance of talent. We posit that talent is one of the most critical factors in achieving organizational effectiveness.

The business machine is complex and constantly changing. We believe that the Strategic Talent Management Architect provides a comprehensive framework for business leaders, as well as academicians, to systematically investigate the internal and external factors influencing the performance of organizations.

16

References Baldrige National Quality Program. (2009).

Criteria for performance excellence. Retrieved from http://www.quality.nist.gov.

Bassi, L. J., & McMurrer, D. P. (2008). Toward a human capital measurement methodology.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10, 863-888.

Batra, S. (2006). Impact of information technology on organizational effectiveness: A conceptual framework incorporating organizational flexibility. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 7(1 & 2), 15-25.

Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Beatty, R. W. (2009). The differentiated workforce: Transforming talent into strategic impact. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Birdi, K., Clegg, C., Patterson, M., Robinson, A., Stride, C. B., Wall, T. D., Wood, S. J. (2008).

The impact of human resource and operational management practices on company productivity: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 61, 467-501.

Bossidy, L., & Charan, R. (2002). Execution: The discipline of getting things done. New York: Crown Business.

Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005).

Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource Management, 44, 129-136.

Breu, K., Hemingway, C. J., Strathern, M., & Bridger, D. (2001). Workforce agility: The new employee strategy for the knowledge economy.

Journal of Information Technology, 17, 21-31.

Bruch, H., Gerber, P., & Maier, V. (2005). Strategic change decisions: Doing the right change right.

Journal of Change Management, 5(1), 97-107.

Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 606-632.

Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory.

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5), 360-387.

Chandler, A. (1968). Strategy and structure.

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Clardy, A. (2007). Strategy, core competencies and human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 10(3), 339349.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: HarperCollins.

Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1997). Built to last.

New York: HarperCollins.

Connolly, T., Conlon, E. J., & Deutsch, S. J. (1980). Organizational effectiveness: A multipleconstituency approach. The Academy of Management Review, 5, 211-217.

Crossan, M., Vera, D., & Nanjad, L. (2008).

Transcendent leadership: Strategic leadership in dynamic environments. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 569-581.

Crotts, J. C., & Ford, R. C. (2008). Achieving service excellence by design: the organizational alignment audit. Business Communication Quarterly, 233-240.

Dove, R. (1999). Agility = Knowledge management + response ability. Automotive Manufacturing & Production, 111(3), 16-17.

Dressler, S. (2004). Strategy, organization and performance management: From basics to best practices. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers.

Echols, M. E. (2008). Value creation with human capital investment. Chief Learning Officer, 7(9), 46-51.

Eichinger, R. W., Ruyle, K. E., & Ulrich, D. O. (2007). FYI for Strategic Effectiveness™.

Minneapolis: Lominger International: A Korn/Ferry Company.

17

Flamholtz, E. G., & Kurland, S. (2005). Strategic organizational development, infrastructure, and financial performance: An empirical investigation.

Internal Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 3(2), 117-142.

Kerr, S., & Landauer, S. (2004). Using stretch goals to promote organization effectiveness and personal growth: General Electric and Goldman Sachs. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 134-138.

Grantham, C. E., Ware, J. P., & Williamson, C. (2007). Corporate agility: A revolutionary new model for competing in a flat world. New York: AMACOM.

Khadem, R. (2008). Total alignment: Vision, strategy, and execution. Leadership Excellence, 25(4), 20.

Higgins, J. M. (2005). The eight ‘S’s of successful strategy execution. Journal of Change Management, 5(1), 3-13.

Hugos, M. H. (2009). Business agility: Sustainable prosperity in a relentlessly competitive world. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., Griffith, D. A., Chabowski, B. R., Hamman, M. K., JohnsonDykes, B., Pollitte, W. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2008). An assessment of the measurement of performance in international business research.

Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 1064-1080.

Iman, N., & Hartono, J. (2007). Strategic alignment impacts on organizational performance in Indonesian banking industry. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 9(2), 253-272.

Kaliprasad, M. (2006). The human factor II: Creating a high performance culture in an organization. Cost Engineering, 48(6), 27-34.

Kanji, G. K. (2008). Leadership is prime: How do you measure leadership excellence? Total Quality Management, 19, 417-427.

Kaplan, R. S. (2005). How the balanced scorecard complements the McKinsey 7-S model. Strategy & Leadership, 33(3), 41-46.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2007). Using the Balanced Scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 85, 150-161.

18

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2009). How strategy shapes structure. Harvard Business Review, 87, 72-80.

Lawler, E. E., III. (2003). Treat people right: How organizations and individuals can propel each other into a virtuous spiral of success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E. E., III. (2008). Talent: Making people your competitive advantage. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Lawler, E. E., III, & Worley, C. G. (2006). Built to change: How to achieve sustained organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lichtenstein, S., & Dade, P. (2007). The shareholder value chain: Values, vision and shareholder value creation. Journal of General Management, 33(1), 15-31.

Lo, C.-M., & Wang, J.-R. (2007). The relationships between defender and prospector business strategies and organizational performance in two different industries.

International Journal of Management, 24, 174183.

Mankins, M. C., & Steele, R. (2005). Turning great strategy into great performance. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 64-72.

McCann, J. (2004). Organizational effectiveness: Changing concepts for changing environments.

HR. Human Resource Planning, 27(1), 42-50.

Montgomery, C. A. (2008). Putting leadership back into strategy. Harvard Business Review, January, 54-60.

Nadler, D. A. (1998). Champions of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Neilson, G. L., Martin, K. L., & Powers, E. (2008).

The secrets to successful strategy execution.

Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 60-70.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York: Warner Books.

Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86, 78-93.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363-377.

Raisch, S. (2008). Balanced structures: Designing organizations for profitable growth. Long Range Planning, 41, 483-508.

Robertson, P. J., Roberts, D. R., & Porras, J. I. (1993). Dynamics of planned organizational change: Assessing empirical support for a theoretical model. The Academy of Management Journal, 36, 619-634.

Sadri, G., & Lees, B. (2001). Developing corporate culture as a competitive advantage.

The Journal of Management Development, 20, 853-859.

Scholey, C. (2007). Alignment: Has your organization got it? CMA Management, 81(6), 16-18.

Seo, D., & La Paz, A. I. (2008). Exploring the darkside of IS in achieving organizational agility.

Communications of the ACM, 51, 136-139.

Shafer, R. A., Dyer, L., Kilty, J., Amos, J., & Ericksen, J. (2001). Crafting a human resource strategy to foster organizational agility: A case study. Human Resource Management, 40, 197211.

Smith, K. G., Ferrier, W. J., & Grimm, C. M. (2001). King of the hill: Dethroning the industry leader. Academy of Management Executive, 15(2), 59-70.

Tirpak, T. M., Miller, R., Schwartz, L., & Kashdan, D. (2006). R&D structure in a changing world.

Industrial Research Institute, Inc., 49(5), 19-26.

Ulrich, D., & Brockbank, W. (2005). The HR value proposition. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Johnson, D., & Younger, J. (2007). Human resource competencies: Responding to increased expectations. Employment Relations Today, 34(3), 1-12.

Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2004). Capitalizing on capabilities. Harvard Business Review, 82, 119-127.

Wang, D.-S., & Shyu, C.-L. (2008). Will the strategic fit between business and HRM strategy influence HRM effectiveness and organizational performance? International Journal of Manpower, 29, 92-110.

Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2005). Why integrating the leading and managing roles is essential for organizational effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 34, 361-375.

Zeleny, M. (2008). Strategy and strategic action in the global era: Overcoming the knowingdoing gap. International Journal of Technology Management, 43(1-3), 64-75.

19

Kim E. Ruyle, Ph.D. is the Vice President Product Development with Korn/Ferry Leadership and Talent Consulting, based in Minneapolis.

Gabriella D. Kilby, MBA., is a Principal with Korn/Ferry Leadership and Talent Consulting, based in Toronto.

Ken De Meuse, Ph.D. is the Associate Vice President of Research with Korn/Ferry Leadership and Talent Consulting, based in Minneapolis.

Kevin J. Mlodzik, M.S., is an Intellectual Property Research Assistant with Korn/Ferry Leadership and Talent Consulting, based in Minneapolis.

About The Korn/Ferry Institute

The Korn/Ferry Institute was founded to serve as a premier global voice on a range of talent management and leadership issues. The Institute commissions, originates and publishes groundbreaking research utilizing Korn/Ferry’s unparalleled expertise in executive recruitment and talent development combined with its preeminent behavioral research library. The Institute is dedicated to improving the state of global human capital for businesses of all sizes around the world.

About Korn/Ferry International

Korn/Ferry International, with more than 90 offices in 39 countries, is a premier global provider of talent management solutions. Based in Los Angeles, the firm delivers an array of solutions that help clients to identify, deploy, develop, retain and reward their talent.

For more information on the Korn/Ferry International family of companies, visit www.kornferry.com.

20

Š Copyright 2009 The Korn/Ferry Institute