Today’s submission is from Jonathan Hilley of The Ascendance Group (TAG).
The Catastrophic Failure of the Talent Management Industry
Today, Dr. Sullivan shared some frightening statistics about the efficacy of the talent management industry on ERE. To put it simply: it appears that the talent management industry is a catastrophic failure.
- 70% dissatisfied — 70% of the external customers (applicants) and 28% of the internal customers (hiring managers) indicate they are dissatisfied with the hiring process (Source: Staffing.org).
- 50% customer regret — 50% of the processes users (both managers and new hires) later regret their “buying” decision (Source: The Recruiting Roundtable). In addition, 25% of new hires later regret taking their new job within one year(Source: Challenger, Gray)
- 46% turnover — 46% of new hires leave their jobs within the first year(Source: eBullpen, LLC) and 50% of current employees are actively seeking or are planning to seek a new job (Source: Deloitte).
- 46% failure rate — 46% of U.S. new hires must be classified as failures within their first 18 months (fired, pressured to quit, required disciplinary action, etc.) (Source: Leadership IQ). In addition, 58% of the highest-priority hires, new executives hired from the outside, fail in their new position within 18 months (Source: Michael Watkins).
- Only a 19% success rate — only one out of five of the process output can be classified as unequivocal successes (Source: Leadership IQ).
- 66% regret hiring decisions — Nearly two-thirds of hiring managers come to regret their interview-based hiring decisions (Source: DDI)
With my hedge fund background, if these statistics represented a publicly traded entity, I’d short the be-jesus out of it. As it stands today, it’s fair to say that the time has come to rethink most talent management processes.
How? What’s the new model? First a bit of background…
My first job was at Goldman Sachs. They are arguably one of the best in the industry in terms of hiring processes. And still their way of doing things is flawed. The hiring process at Goldman goes like this: 1 “super day” of interviews, 10 different people interview you for an hour each = 10 hours of interviews. After that, the employees collectively come together and make a hiring decision that costs the firm $500k over 3 years (that’s training, resources, benefits, salary and more). To me, that process is not the best approach to learn if a candidate is worthy of a job offer.
What if it were like this?
Goldman turns its fast-track employees (note: not HR staff) into mentors. They get matched with a student interested in their line of work and establish relationships with him / her over the course of 6 months or more. Not only will they build a great relationship, but the student will gain industry insight (beneficial to the student) and the company will become really smart about who they are hiring (beneficial to the company).
This new model requires employees to become the first (and best) talent filter.
What value does this add to the company?
Cheaper sourcing of candidates (employees mentor during off hours)
Better employee engagement / knowledge transfer (students, if hired, could immediately “hit the ground running”)
Less frequent hiring mistakes (mis-hiring is costly)
This is TAG’s approach to solving the talent management conundrum. What’s yours?
Here’s the second part of Jonathan Hilley’s submission. – John Sumser
How Could New Ideas Change Education?
Posted by Jonathan Hilley · Topics: Disruptive Ideas, Insights, TAG · 0 Comments
Chris Brogan recently asked a brilliant question. Actually, he asked 5 brilliant questions:
- How could new ideas change education?
- How can younger generations learn from the body of work of their successors?
- How can we marry up all the great resources of people who know something great to those of us who could stand to learn more?
- How can I help those of us who lived in the cubicle farms, and what can I do to share that information in a way that will empower others?
- How can we equip our youth and/or our students and/or our business professionals?
Each of these questions dances around a singular issue: Today’s learning models are inadequate.
This message is similar to one Charlie O’Donnell has been spreading: “Structures for industry specific learning, particularly when it comes from learning from the accumulated wisdom of successful and experienced professionals, is horribly inefficient.”
So, we’ve got two really smart guys highlighting the exact same issue. Could this spell business opportunity? Methinks so…
Note: What you are about to read is a radically different idea. This idea serves as the backbone for my company, a provider of real world education services.
You see, a new model for education is quietly emerging. One fully endorsed – and championed – by my company. This new model definitively solves Chris Brogan’s riddles and answers Charlie O’Donnell’s call by establishing an efficient structure for industry specific learning.
A new idea that will change education
Before unveiling this new education model, we must first review its foundational principles. If these assumptions were to prove false, then the model would fall apart:
- Individual, customized learning is better than a generic, one size fits all approach.
- Adults learn best when they are involved in the diagnosing, planning, implementing, and evaluating of their own learning.
- Life’s reservoir of “experience” is a primary learning resource; the life experiences of others enrich the learning process.
- Distributed learning (learning which occurs over time) is a more efficient learning method than massed learning because it allows for absorption and understanding (note: massed learning is also known as cramming).
- If provided the right tools, anyone can be an educator.
- Note: This is the most critical principle of this new education model. The current model has built invisible barriers of entry around the teaching profession – barriers like certification and credential requirements. This new model assumes no barriers to becoming an educator. This assumption is borne from Malcolm Gladwell’s mismatch hypothesis. He explains:
There is no difference between the performance of credentialed teachers and non-credentialed teachers when it comes to increasing student performance. Whether you have a Master’s Degree or not, whether you scored 1400 on your SAT or 1200 on your SAT, it makes absolutely no difference in how you perform at the task of relating to and teaching kids.
In the name of trying to make a better decision, we’re spending all this money and spending all this time and none of it is having any effect. In fact, we are doing the very thing that actually defeats the cause of finding better teachers. We’re narrowing – what we should be doing is broadening the pool as much as possible – to find as many of these people with this ineffable, elusive gift called “being a good teacher” but instead what we do is narrow the pool.
Founded on the above tenants, the centerpiece for this new education model is the idea of mentorship. Not traditional Boys & Girls Club mentorship, but a radically new kind of mentorship. One that requires accountability, elicits insightful knowledge sharing and helps build deep relationships.
This new education model re-envisions mentorship and calls for real world professionals to become the new class of educators.
How does this model work?
This new model is brilliant in its simplicity. Professionals are given a curriculum – one that facilitates real conversation and real-world knowledge transfer. Students are matched to a professional in their chosen career field (each professional is screened on multiple levels). The pair meets (either in person or via phone) and builds a relationship around the given curriculum. Each side records his / her thoughts following every meeting, and reports relationship progress intermittently. In the event of negative feedback, Mentors are replaced, ensuring only the best “teachers” remain.
Now, for this model to work, an incentive structure must exist. Why? To ensure engagement from both the student and the professional. In this model, students pay the curriculum provider and the curriculum provider pays its Mentors (Professionals) for their time.
Over time, the curriculum provider becomes much smarter about each professional on its platform. And it tests and molds its curriculum based on community feedback. As time passes, the system gets better!
What is required to make this model successful?
For this model to be successful, three things are required:
- A renowned curriculum that guides each relationship.
- Students that understand the importance of professional relationships in the context of their career (and are willing to pay for these relationships).
- Industry professionals that are willing to offer insight and perspective in exchange for monetary compensation.
Why will this model work so well?
This model recognizes the biggest flaw of our current resource constrained model: the number of educators for each student (the student:teacher ratio is one of the keys to delivering quality education). This new education model leverages industry professionals as its force multiplier to dramatically increase the effectiveness and delivery of education. This market-based approach is unlike anything that exists today.
Will this new model work? It already does.
P.S. Thoughts? Please join the conversation!