“Talent” stands out as one of the most frequently used terms in human resources. It permeates all initiatives and spans the entirety of the employee lifecycle. Let’s explore the importance and challenges associated with "talent" in the corporate context.

First, the term “talent” seems to be the most prominent label that influences our progression within a company at every stage of the employee lifecycle…

• "Talent Acquisition" entails a division between “ordinary” and “talented” people, implying that only the “talented” ones stand a chance of joining the company.
• "Talent Development", likewise, implies that only the employees who possess innate “talent” will be considered for development or participation in special “talent” programmes.
• "Talent Reviews" hint at the fact that advancement, strategic roles, and succession planning are reserved for those considered “talented” through internal evaluation mechanisms.
• "Talent Pools" represent  special reservoirs of “talent”, reinforcing the notion of exclusivity—those lacking the right stuff (the “talent”) aren’t invited to the pool party.

But what constitutes “talent”? 

In reality “talent” is nothing more than a designation (a label) as defined by contemporary talent descriptions, mappings, and exercises.

Talent Programmes are Word-Based

“Talent Programme” is just a synonym of “talent categorisation”. Numerous approaches exist to achieve this, but they all try to compartmentalise or position people on imaginary scales, ultimately seeking to establish a word-based comparison among people that appears valuable on paper or a computer screen. Most models, frameworks, and talent programmes heavily rely on keywords, abbreviations, and quantifiers for the purpose of:

• Comparison
• Classification
• Data collection
• Identifying the so-called best talent pools.