leader. The open and lateral nature of collaborative work requires that most workers be
able to understand what motivates all those people with whom they work with.
It is common-place to defend merit as a structural principle of power relationships and
authority within organizations. The problem lies with defining "merit". With some irony,
we might say that "merit" resides in the behaviours and attitudes prized by the
managing elite and which derive directly from objective contribution to the creation of
value and "dedication to the company" (to be read as "number of work hours"), loyalty
to certain circles, and unquestionable obedience to their superiors. However, this is not
true, as the fundamentals of merit are one of the most powerful factors of
attractiveness of an organization: where merit lies in affinity with the elite, you will only
find their friends; and where there is unquestionable obedience, only the "yes men" will
be attracted to and retained.
The organization of the future will be more demanding regarding the fundamentals of
merit. In first place is, obviously, the creation of value. However, right along with it,
are the behaviours and attitudes required by its operation: tolerance and valuing
differences, communication capacity in any context, autonomy and initiative, quest for
mutual benefit, curiosity and continuing learning, ethics, etc. Without these, value
cannot be created. (And for many, it is not worth creating.)
l. Aging the flow of talent, rather than stocks
The conventional model of talent management follows the principle of accumulation.
Once acquired, talent must be preserved and retained at all costs - including several
somewhat displayed forms of enticement and blackmail - and the loss to the outside is
perceived as a contentious separation between the organization and the worker. Under
these circumstances, it is legitimate to keep the worker out of sight to avoid interest by
outside parties: participation in meetings, conferences and like events, such as
participation in professional associations and social networks, constitutes grounds for
disapproval. Even professional development training is usually held within the
organization to minimize the risk of contact with outside elements.
Obviously, this model does not support the needs of the knowledge economy.
Nowadays, it is not possible to conceive talent development in a closed environment.
For reasons mentioned above, enhancing and keeping the skills of the knowledge
worker updated requires his remaining in constant contact with a network that extends
far beyond the frontiers of his organization.
On the other hand, the new terms of the psychological contract - which, by the way,
derive partly from a reaction against the paternalistic view - take away all meaning
from the strategies of talent accumulation and preservation.
The new models of people management must, therefore, start to incorporate talent
management beyond the frontiers of the organization - a radical change of mentality,
since the contentious separation must be replaced by a friendly departure and, in
certain cases, even recommended by the organization. In the organization of the
future, the existence of available, beneficent, and recognized talent for the organization
is an active asset of great value and easily superior to that of its eventual retention.
The preservation of a good relationship between the parties allows the worker to participate in the organization's networks, to be a partner in the sharing of knowledge,
the source of opportunities for business and innovative ideas, and to contribute with
technical solutions within his/her specialty.
Therefore, to manage the flow of talent means the following, in this order:
1. To understand the times, rhythm, and career motivations of each knowledge worker
and to detect the moment when a transition makes sense to him/her.8
2. If necessary, take the initiative to recommend that transition: a well-founded and
coherent recommendation, adjusted to the worker's projects, will reinforce the
worker's gratitude and future good will, even if it does not materialize; besides, it
allows more effective control of a direct loss in favour of competitors, which may
rise obstacles for future cooperation;
3. Maintain and foster the relationship beyond the frontiers of the organization.