The talent agenda has moved on. Most companies recognise that talent is an important issue even if they find it challenging to manage. The focus has moved away from high-potentials who were defined as future leaders, often the top 10%, of an organisation's workforce who were hot-housed for future stardom.

Those identified as talent did not always have an easy time and in some cases chose to return to the mainstream if their personal circumstances changed or the organisations definition of talent had moved on. Focussing development on a small number of individuals ultimately made them more marketable and sometimes more mobile.  In the long run, this approach is unsustainable as it potentially alienates the majority loyal and dependable employees.

Recent research by Deloitte consulting suggests that almost 60% of generation X and generation Y are planning to move role in the next twelve months so this begs the question where are we with the talent agenda? 

We are starting to recognise that talent operates at all levels and that a broader definition of talent Benefits employee engagement. More importantly it has the potential to develop a broader leadership cadre. After the recent financial crisis caused by hubris at the top of some of our financial services organisations the time is right to focus on a more ethical and sustainable model of leadership rather than leaders per se.

Ten years after the original work on talent we need to move on from the ‘war’ for talent based on shortages to playing the ‘talent game’ where we utilise multiple ways to develop an individual eg. job moves, international assignments, development programmes, coaching, mentoring and staff exchanges, like a world-class game of chess.

Talent is often more abundant than we would like to think but some employees often decide to self-select out for personal or family reasons. Limited resources mean fewer people are being developed. It is time for HR to adopt a broader and more radical people development agenda. Investment in the development of human capital focussed exclusively on business strategy could see both short and long term business gains. 

Several companies have demonstrated that this can be done successfully regardless of the company size, structure or nature of business. Google has 21,000 staff and suggests that all are leaders in some way shape or form. GE remains a company that manages talent effectively because they manage performance with a ruthless determination to remove under-performers. Cisco is known to have adopted a similar approach in recent years.

Most organisations find performance management challenging and many of us who coach have prepared senior managers prepare for difficult conversations with underperforming staff. Perhaps we are asking too much of our leaders. 

Executives are conditioned never to turn down an expanding remit or challenging assignment whatever the personal impact. We give more and greater Challenges to those that are successful often until they fail and then ask, often too late, what went wrong? 

For example when we review talent, we say ‘Jim is not quite ready’ for the next promotion but he will be in 12 months. So what focussed development will we offer Jim that will make him ready in a matter of months? 

Research has shown that people learn most when they are in uncertain environments and mostly from peers and subordinates rather than what can be taught in a conventional classroom. We should encourage a learning mindset that focuses on business strategy and innovation which companies say is in short supply. 

The role of leaders is to develop other leaders and to bring on talent of the future. After all, Spelbound has a very talented choreographer who put the team through their paces from 7am most mornings to achieve the success they did. We have talent; we need to develop it in Britain and elsewhere.