It was worrying, but not altogether surprising to learn that as many as 6/10 major companies don’t have adequate talent planning. Survey findings in People Management revealed this lack of a “systematic or strategic approach” to recruiting, developing and retaining talent to meet future business needs.

Ignorance is surely no excuse in this case. The ‘war for talent’ has been very well documented. It is firmly entrenched on the corporate agenda for big businesses. And with the shortages of skilled workers becoming more acute, now is the time for action. More major companies must now consider a longer term approach to talent planning. Too many still appear to be short-sighted in their approach. This is backed up by the survey findings. Results show that talent programmes focus primarily on experienced executives – only 35% of companies systematically develop younger talent.

As the shortage of skilled workers and business leaders deepens, a more forward-thinking approach is needed. Having established some valid criteria to define and identify talent introducing an automated performance and talent management solution will help to identify the next generation leaders within the organisation.

The way that companies recruit new talent is changing.Companies are moving with the times. Many use the search function on LinkedIn to scour networks for new talent to headhunt or just keep on a watch list.

What's wrong with this? Well, nothing actually. However, the problem is where people land jobs via their social network – simply because of who they know. The old adage it's not what you know but who you know that matters remains true. But there is an argument that social recruiting may be encouraging an old boys and girls club approach to recruitment.

It's true that sites like LinkedIn provide a great forum for jobseekers to promote themselves, for networking with peers and for discussing industry issues.

The line is crossed though where people recruiting for roles look to old friends and colleagues in their network first. Does this mean that people with extensive social networks are better at getting jobs? And conversely, are people who don't use social networks disadvantaged?

It seems that, from a corporate perspective, social recruiting should have clear guidelines. LinkedIn is undoubtedly a great, low-cost way to reach potential talent, but companies must guard against recruiting candidates based on who they know.

The recruitment process will continue to change with the evolution of technology. The job of HR

The way that companies recruit new talent is changing.Companies are moving with the times. Many use the search function on LinkedIn to scour networks for new talent to headhunt or just keep on a watch list.

What's wrong with this? Well, nothing actually. However, the problem is where people land jobs via their social network – simply because of who they know. The old adage it's not what you know but who you know that matters remains true. But there is an argument that social recruiting may be encouraging an old boys and girls club approach to recruitment.

It's true that sites like LinkedIn provide a great forum for jobseekers to promote themselves, for networking with peers and for discussing industry issues.

The line is crossed though where people recruiting for roles look to old friends and colleagues in their network first. Does this mean that people with extensive social networks are better at getting jobs? And conversely, are people who don't use social networks disadvantaged?

It seems that, from a corporate perspective, social recruiting should have clear guidelines. LinkedIn is undoubtedly a great, low-cost way to reach potential talent, but companies must guard against recruiting candidates based on who they know.

The recruitment process will continue to change with the evolution of technology. The job of HR

Reading the winning entry for the HR Excellence award for talent management, has reminded me that it used to be HR’s lodestone back in 2007. Whole HR programmes, conferences (and even vendors) started branding themselves with talent management, whether or not it was warranted.

We all remember how the McKinsey consultancy identified that the top 20% of managers were twice as likely to increase sales, profits and productivity. Anyone seeking to hire and retain these ‘A’ players would reach for the seminal work, ‘‘War for talent’.

How stable is this interpretation of talent? To find out, we surveyed HR directors from large, private-sector firms.

It turns out that the definition has changed considerably in the last decade.

McKinsey focused on high-performers. However, the most common definition of talent among our sample is individuals with high potential (44% of respondents). The shift from performance to potential is important since potential defies simple measurement. I can square the circle a little: high performance is a strong indicator of future potential.

The original McKinsey researchers said that managers were the golden employees. 22% of our respondents see engineers, scientists and other specialists as talent. The ageing demographic means that competition for some specialist skills is heating up as baby boomers retire.

In 20% of the firms we surveyed, talent refers to everyone. Aviva has spoken about “the vital many”. ‘A players’ are no longer “the exclusive focus”. Through applying talent management techniques, 45% of those who were in the wrong job are now thriving.

McKinsey has moved with the times and updated their original work. They now recommend investing in the whole workforce and developing multiple employee value propositions for different groups of employees.

Recently, the debate about talent has been muted. Engagement and then downsizing became more pressing. However, I’m now seeing companies investing again in local and global talent to drive their plans forward.

Congratulations to Indesit for winning the Excellence award (and Bupa for their commendation) and for showing how talent can be retained in these straightened times.

There is often the assumption that compensation is a key driver of engagement. Recent Gallup research in the US suggests otherwise. The survey, which looked at how income is linked to happiness, produced some very surprising results. For people earning up to $60,000 per year, the less money they earned, the more unhappy they were. However for those earning above $60,000, happiness did not increase as income increased. Happiness flat-lined after the $60,000 threshold.

Income and engagement may not be as closely linked as most people think.

Employee engagement expert David Zinger , believes that money does not buy you experiential happiness. Which undermines a lot of the assumptions that have been made for years about compensation.

David McLeod agrees: “If managers rely too much on money to engage employees, there’s a better chance they’ll get it wrong and find the issue of salary disengages staff”

So, how else can organisations improve engagement of top talent? For a start, companies need to consider the employee’s overall experience of work:

1. Career anchorsare an employee’s unique combination of perceived career competences, motives and values. If you can help individuals understand what truly motivates them you will get more from them.

2. Rewards don’t have to be financial. Organisations can look for unique ways to reward people with something that is relevant to what they have achieved. One US law firm rewarded an employee who was able to influence statute in the US by arranging for them to see the law being passed in Washington (also known as a ‘signature experience’).

3. Retain your best people by offering them new roles, encouraging role rotation and putting them onto the most interesting work.

Having said all this, I wonder if we’ll ever see an organisation that uses creative ways to retain top talent while paying a maximum of $60,000.

There is often the assumption that compensation is a key driver of engagement. Recent Gallup research in the US suggests otherwise. The survey, which looked at how income is linked to happiness, produced some very surprising results. For people earning up to $60,000 per year, the less money they earned, the more unhappy they were. However for those earning above $60,000, happiness did not increase as income increased. Happiness flat-lined after the $60,000 threshold.

Income and engagement may not be as closely linked as most people think.

Employee engagement expert David Zinger , believes that money does not buy you experiential happiness. Which undermines a lot of the assumptions that have been made for years about compensation.

David McLeod agrees: “If managers rely too much on money to engage employees, there’s a better chance they’ll get it wrong and find the issue of salary disengages staff”

So, how else can organisations improve engagement of top talent? For a start, companies need to consider the employee’s overall experience of work:

1. Career anchorsare an employee’s unique combination of perceived career competences, motives and values. If you can help individuals understand what truly motivates them you will get more from them.

2. Rewards don’t have to be financial. Organisations can look for unique ways to reward people with something that is relevant to what they have achieved. One US law firm rewarded an employee who was able to influence statute in the US by arranging for them to see the law being passed in Washington (also known as a ‘signature experience’).

3. Retain your best people by offering them new roles, encouraging role rotation and putting them onto the most interesting work.

Having said all this, I wonder if we’ll ever see an organisation that uses creative ways to retain top talent while paying a maximum of $60,000.