According to my sources at the CDC (The Center for Disruptive Consulting), we have a potential language pandemic on our hands. Now don’t start rushing to your HR association to download instructions on combating the spread of a sixteen letter virus. Instead, let’s see if we can trace this horrific problem back to its origins in order to understand how things have gotten so out of hand.
Case Zero – How It All Began
In his 2008 HR Executive article, columnist Bill Kutik unleashed his inner Indiana Jones to discover anthropological evidence supporting the first documented case of this seemingly benign term. After some field work, Bill uncovered a 1998 piece of collateral authored by the software firm Softscape. Said Kutik about the find:
“The graphic is a delightful historical artifact, an antique really by computer industry standards.”
Oh 1998, you quiet breeder of verbal misanthropes. In so many ways those were much simpler times, as little did we know what had been unleashed in that innocuous one-page document.
Eleven Years Later – A Global Pandemic
Although modern technology still lacks the tools to measure the pervasiveness of this crisis, we do know a few things for certain:
- A Google search results in 6.25M links referencing this disease.
- Many who employ the term – let’s call them “term-ites” – are consciously and overtly promoting adoption, thus perpetuating the spread.Â
- Small, medium and large organizations in virtually every industry and geography have embraced the phrase.
- It supports billions of dollars in revenue and may be difficult to stop.
- Most don’t realize that we even have a problem.
The Frightening Precedent
HR in particular is highly susceptible to the spread of language flu. A few examples include:
- “Personnel” – According to one account, it began in the late 1800s and continued into the late 1970s/early 1980s. Fortunately, a series of “human resources” injections did eventually stem the tide. Yet much to our dismay, in some organizations “personnel departments” still exist without an appropriate quarantine.
- “A Seat at the Table” – For at least twenty years, HR has parroted this phase and clamored for this elusive chair. The saddest cases involve the patient’s inability to appropriately secure the seat or locate the table. The only known cure involves HR embracing their business leadership position without the need for absurd monikers.
Why It’s So Scary
Many of you may be asking yourself:
“So what’s the big deal about talent management?”
Other than your obvious need for immediate medical attention, let me attempt to explain:
- Employees Are Not “Talent” – For most of us, work isn’t a strip club, so identifying our workers as “the talent” is a bit of a non-starter. And like it or not, many of our organization’s positions neither require a significant amount of talent nor reward the application of said talent.Â
- The Invention of Language – As a society, we typically adopt new terms when we believe that the existing body of knowledge fails to adequately carry meaning. So why have we distinguished ”talent management” from “human resources”? Did HR fail to appropriately address comp, performance, learning, etc.? Couldn’t you argue that everything HR does is for the purpose of securing, managing, measuring, rewarding and sustaining so-called “talent”?Â
- Vendor Differentiation – Believe what I’m about to tell you as the gospel… The holy grail of vendor marketing is the creation and invention of a new business category or phrase. Perhaps more important is that only your firm supports the core features and capabilities of this new term. Why did Softscape invent “talent management”? Because it gave them the opportunity to define what it is and thereby force other vendors to be compared against that definition. Keep this in the back of your mind when you read about HR 2.0 (or some fool’s blog post about HR 3.0).
The Race For The Cure
I’m not going to lie to you – knowing that this disease has progressed for this long creates quite a challenge. However, with the right level of education, focus, support and treatment, I believe we can rally together and survive this language pandemic.
Do you think you have the cure? If so, please be sure to post your comments and thoughts, and let’s keep the conversation going.Â
7 Comments
Splendid confirmation that all that is generated from Madison Avenue is not gold. In addition to the obnoxious term, “talent management,” we also have suffered through some other doozies that convey a meaning and approach that is highly offensive to users. For instance, there is “managed care,” “disease management,” and “psychiatric fill-in-the-blank.” When consumers (rather than PATIENTS) hear these terms, they run for the exits. This is precisely why Reagan’s first OMB Director, David Stockman, referred to “revenue enhancements” when discussing taxes. It’s the meaning, not the word that matters. If we could just get some smart people to form a committee — no, no, just kidding — and rule on category/movement titles before they fall into the everyday vernacular, then we wouldn’t be having these kinds of problems.
While the point about jargon being bandied about might be a cogent one, the post is ruined in my view to the comparison to a disease which has killed people in Mexico and one infant in the US. This isn’t funny stuff.
Well, Mark, if that got your knickers in a twist, you’ll probably just love this definition courtesy of ASTD:
“Developing consensus on a valid definition of talent management was a priority for ASTD because past research has revealed that common, agreed-upon definitions are scarce. After considerable review by a panel of experts, the following definition was adopted: a holistic approach to optimizing human capital, which enables an organization to drive short- and long-term results by building culture, engagement, capability, and capacity through integrated talent acquisition, development, and deployment processes that are aligned to business goals.”
And now for my unsolicited opinions:
A. It took a panel of experts to conjure this mess into existence? Egads!
B. If they added just one more nebulous term to the definition, I would likely have won my buzzword bingo league.
C. I still don’t know what they hell this definition means. Nothing like a bunch of stuffed shirts sucking all the joy out of something by beating it senseless with silly language.
My friend, if you’re going down in flames, I’ll come along for the ride.
Very nicely done!
@Rick Lee – I think we all have suffered under the reign of a semantic monarchy in one way or another. How do we break free (more committees??)?
@Lisa Rowan – Although we may differ here, I do appreciate the opinion.
@Chris Bailey – Ugh…thank you for making my point Chris. Flame on!!
@HR Minion – I take that as quite the compliment from a freshly minted PHR such as yourself! *grin*
I’m not really sure I’d agree with this comparison, either. Obviously HR is going to develop language trends – that’s how proper marketing works. I don’t know if you can really compare it to a global pandemic.
Are you talking about “HR” or “Human Resources?”
One Trackback
[...] and Salary.com go toe-to-toe against SAP and Lawson in the Talent Management Shootout. Although I don’t like the term Talent Management, I’ll still go for the sheer thrill of application engineers and consultants running like [...]