Talent reviews and succession
·
7 min read
Key findings
A talent review population is drawn by decision, using three lists that each carry a written entry test.
Succession names come from a list of critical roles, worked back to people, and not from manager nominations.
A four-hour review of 200 people allows 72 seconds per name, against six minutes for 40 people.
Comparing the reviewed group with the whole workforce shows who the process misses.
Names leaving the list each year show that the review is making judgements.
A four-hour review covering 200 people gives each name 72 seconds, before the opening and the read-back are counted.
Who should be included in a talent review depends on the decisions the review has to make.
The list has three entry routes.
The first is holders of critical roles.
The second is people a named development or deployment decision will affect this year.
The third is people whose departure carries a costed consequence.
Everyone else belongs to the ordinary management cycle, with the reason written down.
Most reviews inherit their population instead of choosing it.
The top eighty were discussed last year, so the top eighty are discussed again, and nobody has asked what the number is for.
The scope decision comes before any grid is filled, and it sets the ceiling on what the review can produce.
Reviewing Managers And Reviewed People
A talent review has two lists of people, and the guides that rank for this question cover only the first.
The first list holds the participants.
They are the direct managers of the people under discussion, other managers who have worked with them recently, a senior executive who decides, and an HR facilitator.
A common rule adds that nobody is discussed by only one manager who has seen their work.
Employees do not attend, and their outcomes reach them through separate conversations.
The second list holds the people discussed, and it decides what the meeting can produce.
How the meeting is run, including what each attendee does, is covered in running a talent review that changes decisions.
The rest of this article deals with the second list.
Starting From Critical Roles
The succession part of the population starts with a list of roles and works back to people.
List the roles where a vacancy would stop revenue, service, a regulatory obligation or a piece of scarce technical work.
Then name who could fill each one within a stated period.
A manager asked to nominate strong people produces a different list.
People who select for a role tend to prefer someone they already know and feel comfortable working with, so a nominated pool fills with the people managers see most often.
In one workforce-planning case, a pilot that labelled a small set of roles as pivotal showed that criticality does not follow seniority.
Once directors understood that calling a role pivotal committed them to filling it quickly, they began correcting the roles they had over-labelled.
That commitment keeps the list short.
It also gives the practitioner a fair answer for the operations director who describes every one of her roles as critical.
The practitioner asks her what she would do in the first week if the role were empty.
Three Lists With Three Entry Tests
Reviews often merge three lists and then argue about the criteria for the merged one.
Successors. A named critical role and a stated readiness horizon
Development. A specific investment decision to be taken this year
Retention risks. A costed consequence if the person leaves
A person can sit on one, two or all three lists, and the reason differs each time.
Each test is written before names are proposed.
Any name that fails its test goes into the ordinary management process.
A costed consequence is a figure the finance partner would recognise, such as lost billings or a project delay that has already been agreed.
A retention concern without one fails the test like any other name.
A Worked Example
Take a distribution division with 600 people, eleven critical roles and twelve places on next year's leadership programme.
The successor list names up to two people for each critical role, which gives at most 22 names.
The development list names the candidates for twelve places, say 24 people, because the executive team will choose among them.
The retention list holds the six people whose departure has an agreed cost.
With overlap between the lists, the review covers about 45 people, which is 7.5 per cent of the division.
At five minutes each, that is just under four hours.
The other 555 people are in the ordinary management cycle.
Whole Workforce Or Nominated Pool
Reviewing the whole workforce turns the meeting into a reading of names.
Reviewing only nominated high potentials narrows the pool to the people managers already know.
Research on high-potential programmes also cautions that an unreasonably narrow definition of success demotivates people outside the pool, some of whom have potential nobody has noticed.
The aim is an assessed pool that matches the actual pool of talent.
The population is therefore drawn by decision.
For each decision the executive team will take this year, the review covers the people that decision affects.
A decision about who receives next year's development budget covers a different set of names from a decision about cover for eleven operations roles.
Grade is the easiest line to draw and the least useful, because it leaves out the specialists and regional roles that criticality brings in.
Individual Contributors And Specialists
Individual contributors enter through the same three tests as everyone else.
A principal engineer who is the only person able to maintain a legacy billing system meets the critical-role test at once, whatever the grade.
For roles below the executive team, succession planning for critical roles applies the same logic.
A specialist qualifies for the development list when the decision concerns a specialist track, such as a technical fellow path, and not a move into management.
Criteria written for management progression screen specialists out, which is why grade-based lists miss them.
Where no specialist route exists, the review finds out when it asks what the development decision for the specialist would be.
Once directors understood that calling a role pivotal committed them to filling it quickly, they began correcting the roles they had over-labelled.
New Starters And People On Leave
A new starter has no record of delivery that the review can check.
Set a threshold in the design, such as six months in role, and state it.
Below the threshold the review treats the person as an integration check, and their hiring manager reports on how the first ninety days are going.
Potential stays unrated until a full cycle of evidence exists.
People on leave are often dropped because nobody holds current examples.
Set the rule in the design instead.
Examples from before the leave count, the manager supplies them in writing, and an absence is never recorded as a low rating.
Population Size And Meeting Time
A review discusses people at the pace the clock allows.
A four-hour review covering 200 people gives each name 72 seconds, before the opening and the read-back are counted.
The same four hours spent on 40 people gives each one six minutes.
Six minutes is enough to state the example behind a rating, name the role and record the decision.
Below the executive review, divisions often repeat the same design at smaller scale and keep the length while losing the focus.
A divisional review works better when it covers critical roles and this year's decisions only.
The business unit holds the meeting, the practitioner runs the discussion, and each person carries three facts instead of a full profile.
Testing For Who Gets Missed
Three groups are absent from most populations.
People in low-visibility roles, who are under-nominated in every cycle
Specialists, because the criteria are written for management progression
People on non-standard patterns, including part-time and returners
The test takes an afternoon.
Compare the reviewed population with the whole workforce by location, function, gender and working pattern, using data the HR information system already holds.
A gap between the two is a finding the business leader can check without trusting the practitioner.
Refreshing The List
Lists grow because adding a name feels generous and removing one feels like a judgement on the person.
Two practices keep the list honest.
Every name is retested each year against its entry test, and failing is recorded as an ordinary outcome.
Every cycle admits at least two people who were not on last year's list, which keeps the nomination route open.
Without both, the list grows every year and the meeting spends its time on people whose evidence is three years old.
Names leaving the list each year show that the process is making judgements.
What To Tell Everyone Else
Most people are in none of the three lists, and the process should say so.
Their development belongs in the ordinary management cycle, so the cycle has to exist.
Three commitments make that position defensible.
Every person has a documented conversation with their manager about the next two years
Internal roles are open to everyone, and appointment data is published
The entry tests are published, so a person can see what a place on each list requires
The conversation with someone who expected to be on a list is covered in telling someone they are not on the high-potential list.
Objections From Operating Leaders
An operations director whose team is under-represented will argue for a wider list.
Three points usually settle it.
The list exists to fill named roles, and a person outside it is not being judged.
A wider list divides the same meeting time among more names, which gives each of the director's people less discussion.
The director's people are in the ordinary process, and the process now carries a written commitment.
Make the argument one to one before the design goes to the executive team, with the director's people mapped against the entry tests.
The third point holds only if the ordinary process exists, so build it before the argument is needed.
Where The Tools Sit
Trusted Talent Advisor covers population design in component 07, Talent Review and Succession, including the critical role definition and the three entry tests.
Its template pack includes the review agenda and the critical role canvas.
Related reading: high potential employees, talent visibility below the top team.
Sources
1. Furnham, A., MacRae, I. and Reed, M. High Potential: How to Spot, Manage and Develop Talented People at Work. Bloomsbury.
2. Edwards, D. The Strategic Workforce Planning Handbook: Design, Implement and Measure Workforce Plans to Drive Business Results. Kogan Page.
From the system
Trusted Talent Advisor sets out the full method: seven components, 51 tools, The Talent Template Pack and The Prompt Library.
See the system
Questions this answers
Who should be included in a talent review?
Holders of critical roles, people a named development or deployment decision will affect this year, and people whose departure carries a costed consequence. Each list needs its own written entry test, and everyone else stays in the ordinary management cycle.
Should talent reviews cover all employees or only high potentials?
Neither. Covering everyone reduces the meeting to reading names, and covering only nominated high potentials narrows the pool to people managers already know. Draw the population by the decisions the executive team will take this year.
Should individual contributors be in the talent review?
Yes, when they pass an entry test. A specialist who holds scarce technical knowledge meets the critical-role test whatever the grade, and a specialist track counts as a development decision. Grade-based lists miss both.
How many people can a talent review meeting realistically discuss?
The clock decides. A four-hour review of 200 people allows 72 seconds per name, while the same time spent on 40 people allows six minutes each, enough to state the evidence, name the role and record the decision.
Who participates in a talent review meeting?
Direct managers of the people discussed, other managers who have worked with them recently, a senior executive who decides, and an HR facilitator. Employees do not attend, and a common rule is that nobody is discussed by only one manager.
How do you handle new starters in a talent review?
Set a threshold, such as six months in role, and state it in the design. Below it, the hiring manager reports on the first ninety days as an integration check, and potential stays unrated until a full cycle of evidence exists.
Keep reading
Measuring HR impact
Internal Mobility Metrics Without A Platform
Seven measures an HR adviser can build from existing records, each with a stated definition, a base and a way to read it.
7 min read
Workforce and future skills
Job Rotation As A Talent Gap Strategy
A job rotation programme closes a talent gap when the role, the person, the cover and the evidence are agreed with both managers before it starts.
8 min read
Talent reviews and succession
Seeing Talent Below The Top Team
Visibility of leadership potential drops below the top team. A cross-unit forum, run on one page per unit and a written evidence standard, is the method for seeing it.
8 min read