Language Barriers and Value Models: No Rosetta Stone

After observing and attempting to dialogue at the TalUncon Galactic Assembly of Blogospherians, the barrier to a seat at The Table became more evident:  Their is not a shared common language for Talentism, or Human Resources for that matter. 

The absence of language, prevented the Galactic Assembly from achieving a shared understanding among the participants.  If we do not understand each other, how can we expect the other disciplines of business to understand us?

It is not for a lack of well defined lexicon of terms for practices, processes.  It is from the lack of a core education and discipline.  A Google search: “Bachelors Degree + Human Resources” turned up 3,7M hits a similar search on business degrees produced 33.9M hits.  The lack of a core educational foundation allows people to invent their own terms and definitions.  Or use existing terms in a counterproductive manner.  This leads to confusion and diffusion.

Case in point

In the afternoon session on Value, there was a discussion on variables to consider in a talent value equation.  A long list of items was written to the white board, then most were rejected and a small few remained. What was missing at the beginning was a simple classification system.  There are plenty of examples to draw upon from the human performance science of Industrial Organizational Psychology (IOP).  A common practice in this field is to use two measurement differentiators:

Subjective – that which is based upon observation, opinion, and rating

Objective – that which is counted, measured, or calculated

Inserting these two basic terms might have made the discussion on value variables more productive and focused.  I apologize for having that insight just as the session was ending.

We perpetuate lack of accountability by using terms such as soft skills and soft costs.  The word “soft” is an excuse for the lack of knowledge or discipline required to identify, isolate, and capture a discrete variable.  In the area of human performance this can be difficult.

Difficult does not mean impossible

Developing language, common terms, and definition requires a disciplined approach.  What may be helpful is a form of Rosetta Stone to translate and integrate several critical business languages

Finance – assets, present value (PV) future value (FV)

Industrial Psychology – job relevance of human traits, characteristics and behaviors

Human Resources – core process of talent acquisition and management

Actuary – calculation of resources required based upon values, costs, risks and other variables

The leading–lagging relationship models put forth in the various books on  scorecards (Balanced, HR, and Workforce)can then provide a framework for structuring the value equation in a form which considers the unique elements present in an individual as the drivers of behaviors that produce the business outcome.

Next Steps

What came first and HR Executive with a penchant for measurement and accountability or a CEO that expected accountability and measurement from the resources channeled through the business function known as HR?

Hiring HR talent from degree granting academic programs is one step.  We must stop hiring into HR based on the key criteria – “they are good with people.”  Get HR Talent from the Big Pipe.  But as in all institutional endeavors, performance varies.  Not all HR tracks are created equal.  Thus, buyer beware.  Place demands on the content and quality of the HR curriculum providers.

In terms of finding the value formula, I believe we are closer than we may realize.  The concept of the value of talent has been attracting great thinkers and cipherers for some time.   Great bringing together events such as the TalUncon will eventually provide the vehicle for this synergy.  With thought leaders like Jeff Hunter (mega Kudos to Jeff and his wholehearted support from EA) and the connected nature of Blogospherians, the multi-disciplinarian gathering needed is not only likely, it is highly probable.  Ask an actuary.

Joseph P. Murphy