Ethos Issue 5, Nov 2008

Talent on Demand: Managing Talent
in an Age of Uncertainty
Author: Peter Cappelli
Published by Harvard Business Press, Massachusetts: 2008
Reviewed by Toh Boon Kwan

Instead of attempting to forecast and plan around uncertainty, Cappelli advices a portfolio approach to manage the risk of uncertain demand for talent in future. Instead of having decentralised management development programmes, Cappelli advocates a centralised approach instead. He argues that this is more efficient in allocating talent, since departments that have a surplus of talent may release those talents to departments which are experiencing a shortage. It also reduces costs since duplication of effort is eliminated. Developing talent pools of generalists who can fill a range of jobs rather than training specialists for specific jobs will also help to reduce uncertainty in demand. Skills shortfalls could be met by just-in-time training and coaching. Making shorter forecasts for talent will also reduce uncertainty.

Third, earn a return on investments in developing employees. The huge cost of management development could be reduced by shortening the time employees spend on such training. It is important to identify early the employees who have the potential for advancement and provide them with opportunities to quickly advance to positions where they can contribute significantly to the organisation. Getting employees to share the costs of such training would help improve the rate of return. Asking employees to volunteer for important projects led by senior management over and above their normal workload is one way of meeting organisational goals while providing opportunities for these employees to gain access to senior management. Providing tuition funding for employees who read their courses after office hours is also another way of sharing costs.

Fourth, balance employee interests by using an internal market. Employers who make it easier for employees to switch jobs within the organisation improve their chances of retaining talent rather then losing them. This necessarily involves negotiating a balance between the interests of the employee and the organisation in career advancement, working out compromises that take into account the preferences of both employee and employer.

TALENT ON DEMAND IN SINGAPORE: IMPLICATIONS
How might Cappelli’s framework fare within the context of Singapore? Cappelli notes that larger Singapore companies continue to emphasise internal talent development despite losing a significant amount of talent to smaller companies that focus on outside hiring to meet staffing needs. This practice, he surmises, is due to government influence on listed company boards to ensure a continuous transfer of talent as it benefits the country and society.² He cites the Singapore Public Service’s centralised talent management approach for its Administrative Service in support of his criticism of decentralised talent development models.³ Cappelli also describes the Public Service’s systematic talent development approach in developing a pipeline of leaders to fill senior management positions.⁴ In addition, he also explains the use of bonded full fee government scholarships to protect the Public Service’s talent investments as well as to fill its high-potential programmes.⁵

What remains missing from Cappelli’s references to the talent management strategies of the Singapore Public Service is an assessment of their effectiveness, particularly in terms of talent development. Internal development of talent has been a key to the success of the Public Service, especially when it comes to filling of key positions at the public sector leadership levels. Outside hiring at these levels is very limited due to the specialised needs of the Service.⁶ The use of term appointments has also led to constant rejuvenation of talent at the highest levels. However, this stance assumes that we have a deep bench of talent who are waiting in the wings to step up to fill these positions. If we are unable to fill these positions on a consistent basis, it may be timely to review the need to constantly rejuvenate talent and even consider extending the length of the term appointment.

Similarly, the use of bonded scholarships as a recruitment tool of largely untested fresh recruits into high-potential programmes as distinct from the use of scholarships as a retention tool for high performing serving officers may be contentious. It could in fact undermine morale among serving officers who have not received these scholarships when they were recruited.⁷ Addressing this divide would be one way of building a more cohesive public service. For instance, more emphasis could be placed on the in-service nomination of high-performing serving officers for entry into high-potential programmes and less emphasis given to the automatic placement of scholarship holders on such programmes.

How do we go forward from here? Cappelli has already offered some answers.
Some companies buy talent by recruiting directly from top universities. The Public Service may have to leverage more heavily on this option going forward, in line with the trend of rising numbers of Singaporeans who are able to fund their own education at premier universities independent of government scholarships. Hiring is also immediate, without the need to wait for the inevitable time lag for scholarship holders to graduate.

Buying talent also limits the need to forecast manpower needs years in advance. For instance, the Building and Construction Authority’s release of its graduating scholars from their bonds at the height of the Asian financial crisis in 1998 illustrates how inaccurate manpower forecasting can be in the short span of a few years.

Page 1 I 2 I 3