Organizational Talent Reviews

Most performance reviews try to do two jobs at once: 1️⃣ Pick between people for pay, promotion, and roles. 2️⃣ Develop people by finding strengths and gaps. These goals pull in opposite directions. Why this clash happens (brain + math): 🧠 Brain: When a review affects your pay or job, your brain reads it as a threat. Stress goes up. Learning shuts down. Feedback feels like a warning, not help. 🔢 Math: If you focus on ranking people clearly, everyone’s profile looks the same and you lose detail about strengths and weaknesses. If you focus on rich, detailed feedback, clear rankings get fuzzy. You can’t optimize both at the same time. The fix isn’t “blend them better.” You need a third way. Build two separate tracks with different goals, timing, and rules. Track A — Allocate (between people) - Purpose: pay, promotion, role, and staffing decisions. - Timing: set times (e.g., twice a year). - Evidence: common criteria and comparisons across people. - Norms: fairness, consistency, clear documentation. Track B — Develop (within people) - Purpose: growth, new skills, behavior change. - Timing: ongoing, low‑stakes coaching in regular 1:1s. - Evidence: specific behaviors and goals; focus on the future (“feedforward”). - Norms: psychological safety, curiosity, experimentation. Design moves that make it work: 👉 Separate the moments: Never mix ratings or money talks with coaching time. 👉 Separate the artifacts: Use different forms and language for each track. 👉 Separate the roles: Talent review leaders handle Track A; managers/peers coach in Track B. 👉 Give employees a voice: Enable upward feedback and self‑nominations for growth or promotion. 👉 Aim at behavior and the future: Be specific about what to try next, not who someone “is.” Employee gut‑check: “Is this feedback or a warning?” If people can’t tell, the system isn’t truly separate yet. When we honor the polarity—allocate separately, develop safely—performance management can actually serve both business goals. #EmployeeExperience #PerformanceManagement #Leadership #HR

We NEED to stop using continuous feedback as a substitute for performance management. BACKGROUND: Many of us abandoned traditional reviews for "continuous feedback" when we saw they were broken. But we throw the baby out with the bathwater — both development AND assessment matter. The reality in this is that companies inevitably return to structured reviews because they still need a systematic way to assess talent quality for compensation decisions, promotions, and development. The issue was never the structure. It's always been the DATA. THE REAL PROBLEM: Researcher Maynard Goff found 60% of a manager's rating is what he calls the "idiosyncratic manager rating effect"—fancy academic language for bias. Companies try adding 360 reviews, but: a) People pick friends who'll say nice things. b) 90% of constructive feedback never surfaces because many others who have it aren’t asked for it. This creates two devastating outcomes: 1) Toxic employees who excel at managing up continue advancing. 2) Quiet contributors—often introverts, neurodivergent folks, or underrepresented groups—remain invisible until they leave. That second point costs companies roughly 3x their annual salary to replace. THE WAY FORWARD: I've become obsessed with Organizational Network Analysis (ONA) because it fundamentally changes what's possible. Instead of limiting feedback to manager opinions, we ask EVERYONE four research-backed questions: 1) Who do you go to for help and advice? 2) Who do you see as outstanding? 3) Who needs additional support? 4) Who energizes you at work? The results are transformative. We then surface it to managers before they give their manager ratings. A client recently discovered 2.5X more top performers and 4X more underperformers than their traditional methods had identified. So yes—we need structured performance reviews. Just not the ones we've been doing.

𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡—𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 For many companies, performance reviews are seen as a routine HR requirement. But when structured effectively, they become a powerful tool for employee growth, engagement, and retention. A well-executed review process fosters transparency, aligns individual contributions with company goals, and helps employees see a clear path forward. Here’s how to make them truly valuable: ✅ 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 – Employees should know why reviews matter and how they contribute to professional growth. Make it about development, not just evaluation. ✅ 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚 𝐂𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 – Waiting until the annual review to discuss performance is outdated. Regular check-ins ensure alignment and prevent surprises. ✅ 𝐄𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 – Employees should assess their own progress, strengths, and areas for improvement. This promotes accountability and a proactive approach to development. ✅ 𝐒𝐞𝐭 𝐂𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫, 𝐀𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐚𝐥𝐬 – Align objectives with business needs while considering employees’ aspirations. SMART goals help track progress effectively. ✅ 𝐅𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧, 𝐓𝐰𝐨-𝐖𝐚𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 – Reviews shouldn’t be a one-sided assessment. Encouraging honest dialogue builds trust and engagement. ✅ 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 - Acknowledging accomplishments—big or small—boosts motivation and reinforces a culture of appreciation. ✅ 𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐫 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡 – Employees should walk away with a clear understanding of their growth trajectory within the organization. Development plans should be actionable and supported with the right resources. ✅ 𝐄𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 –Managers must follow up on commitments made during reviews, track progress, and provide the necessary support for success. A strong performance review process isn’t about filling out forms—it’s about investing in your people and setting them up for long-term success. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐬? Let’s share insights and best practices! 👇 #entrepreneur #startup #Leadership

Key Assessment Tools for Identifying High-Potential Employees 1. Blended Assessment & Development Centers These centers combine virtual assessments with human intervention to provide a comprehensive evaluation of employees. They help in understanding both current competencies and future potential, making them suitable for identifying HIPOs across different organizational levels. 2. High Potential Trait Indicator (HPTI) Developed based on the Big Five personality model, the HPTI assesses traits such as conscientiousness, curiosity, and risk acceptance. It helps organizations identify individuals who possess the optimal traits for success in specific roles, thus aiding in succession planning and leadership development 3. 360-Degree Feedback This tool gathers feedback from various stakeholders including peers, subordinates, and supervisors to provide a holistic view of an employee's performance and potential. It is particularly useful for understanding interpersonal skills and leadership capabilities. 4. Learning Agility Assessments Learning agility has emerged as a critical criterion for identifying high-potential talent. Organizations often use specific assessments to measure how well employees learn from experiences and adapt to new situations. This is especially relevant for selecting candidates for senior leadership roles. 5. Behavioral Assessments These assessments evaluate personality traits, motivations, and preferences through psychometric tests. They provide insights into an employee's cultural fit and leadership style, which are essential for predicting future performance in leadership roles 6. Talent Reviews and Calibration Sessions These sessions involve senior leaders discussing and ranking employees based on agreed-upon criteria. This collaborative approach enhances objectivity and reduces biases in identifying high-potential employees. 7. High-Potential Identification Tests Psychometric tests specifically designed to assess cognitive abilities, personality traits, and leadership aptitude can be effective in identifying HIPOs. These tests provide data-driven insights that help organizations make informed decisions about talent management. Organizations looking to identify high-potential employees should consider a combination of these assessment tools tailored to their specific needs. By leveraging scientifically validated methods, companies can ensure they recognize and develop the talent necessary for future leadership roles, ultimately driving organizational success.

Boards often underestimate the strategic impact of human capital oversight. CEO succession is tightly linked to organizational talent. When boards actively evaluate workforce readiness, succession risks, and leadership development, they reduce disruption and strengthen competitive advantage. Where a board is reviewing leadership succession in a tech company, high turnover in middle management signals potential gaps for future CEO candidates. Proactive boards identify development plans for high-potential leaders and ensure retention strategies are in place. ✅ Practical tip:  Require an annual human capital report highlighting talent risks, succession readiness, and leadership development outcomes. 💬 Does your board see human capital as a risk metric or a strategic asset? 🌐 Get frameworks for talent oversight and leadership evaluation: https://lnkd.in/gx6xkUAZ 👥 Connect with Randall on LinkedIn for practical guidance: https://lnkd.in/gY5vZJef ▶️ And watch practical board-human capital discussions on YouTube: https://lnkd.in/dURdpwW7

Most big and complex organizations have a Talent Review process where the leadership potential of individuals is assessed and based on that assessment, the organization differentially invests/rewards in talent. However, through auditing ~50 of the Fortune 200 processes, I'm frequently surprised by how little measurement there is related to the accuracy and impact of this process. I'm sharing two "golden" questions that I require in all audits and/or redesigns of the leadership potential and Talent Review process: (1) Based on the organization's criteria for leadership potential, what is the expected base rate of employees that will meet the proposed criteria and be identified as "High Potential" in status? So often, we don't investigate how the criteria helps to identify this population of talent, resulting in a high base case of High Potentials, decreasing the process efficacy. (2) What is the hit rate and margin of error in the assessment approach? AKA - how predictively accurate is the assessment? I'm constantly surprised how few organizations can produce these figures -- especially given the large investments of time, money, resources that go into the assessment and later investment process. To help with this, I'm sharing a simplified 2x2 matrix that can be used to gather a high-level overview of the assessment approach efficacy. If you found value in this post, let me know by commenting, sharing it, or tagging a colleague who can benefit from this post. #talentmanagement #hr #humanresources #potential

Amazon’s Q3 Talent Review is not for the faint of heart. It's is more than a performance checkpoint — it’s a strategic deep dive into leadership potential, organizational health, and succession readiness. For regions across NACF this cycle offers a powerful opportunity to collaborate cross-functionally, assess the depth of our leadership bench, and align on business-critical priorities heading into peak. For the Matt Harney Region we also leveraged the opportunity to step away from the day-to-day and reconnect in person near our Santa Monica corporate location — creating space for trust-building, open dialogue, and yes, a few laughs along the way. (Because if you can’t team build during the crucible of talent calibration, are you even doing it right?) On a personal level, this year’s review held even more meaning. As a doctoral student at University of Southern California in USC Rossier EdD in Organizational Change & Leadership online program. I had the chance to apply tools from the curriculum — from systems thinking and adaptive leadership to talent development and culture diagnostics. These frameworks helped me go beyond performance ratings and ask better questions about readiness, growth, and potential. Q3 Talent Review isn’t easy — and it shouldn’t be. It demands candor, accountability, and a shared commitment to raising the bar. But when done well, it unlocks untapped leadership capacity and strengthens the foundation for long-term success. Proud of the work the Harney region accomplished and grateful to be part of a team that’s committed to building leaders, not just filling roles. #LeadershipDevelopment #Amazon #TalentReview #USC #EdD #OrganizationalChange #PeopleStrategy #Teamwork #RaisingTheBar #HarneyRegion