Talent Wants To Be Free, Or Does It?

There is quite a debate going on over at the HR Bartender on who “owns” the talent in a company – 1) the organization 2) the managers or 3) the individual employees?

This is an important discussion, so I wanted to weigh in…

Let’s begin by taking Managers out of this conversation entirely. A managers job is to drive business results, and to do that they need to get the best performance out of the people they are leading. So, do they need to influence, direct, coach, and develop the talent they have - yes, but do they own it – no.

So, that leaves the “ownership” of talent to either the organization or the employees themselves.  Here is what Sharlyn the HR Bartender proposed:

It got me thinking…who “owns” talent in a company: is it the organization or the manager? Or maybe it’s neither.

Could it be that the individual employee “owns” their own talent?

Organizations merely rent or lease the talent of their employees.  They do that via compensation and benefits.  Employees bring their talents and, in exchange, they get paid and receive benefits.  Since the employee’s talent is the driver…the employee “owns” what the company wants.

My two cents is that from a true “ownership” perspective – employees “own” their talent. Employees are not forced to work for any one company and can walk away at any time. They bring and take with them their individual competencies, experiences and skills sets whenever they join or leave an organization. While organizations “own” the outputs that their employees produce, they do not “own” their talent as they own assets like buildings, trademarks, and IT equipment. This is true for all talent, but even more so for high performers – watching the Conan O’Brien and Jay Leno succession planning fiasco was a reminder that employees “own” their talent and don’t have to agree with the decisions of management.

The talent ownership post reminded me of a quote that is the unofficial motto of the free content movement. “Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive…That tension will not go away.” – Stewart Brand

Talent is a lot like information. We want to be free. We want freedom over our careers, freedom in how we develop our skills and how we use them. We want freedom in how we work, with whom we work, and where we work. Simply put, we want to “own” our talent.

On the other hand, talent wants stability. We want and need to be compensated for our knowledge, skills, and abilities. We want a role that will be there next year in an organization that is going to last. All of this comes with a price – and a loss of freedom. This is a classic catch 22 – you have to “give” your efforts, skills, and your knowledge to an organization to “get” compensation, a place to hone your skills, and career advancement opportunities.

This is at the heart of the employer and employee value exchange. Value, not ownership is a better framework for thinking about the relationship between organizations and employees. Both the organization and the employee have something of value that each party wants or needs. From this perspective, each has their own unique value proposition.

Organizations offer employees compensation, benefits, a place to use and develop their skills, and the opportunity to become part of something. In return, organizations ask employees to use their skills, knowledge, and abilities in pursuit of the company’s goals. While performance and results are what organization’s value above all else, employees are not as simple. Each of us values the employment relationship differently. Some of us are more motivated by money, some more motivated by working on great projects, while others motivated by working with great people, and some all of the above.

When this value exchange works, it leads to high levels of engagement, productivity, and retention. When it breaks down and either party does not live up to their end of the bargain it leads to disengagement (quitting on the job), dismissal, or voluntary turnover.

So, while we are free to make our own employment choices – those choices are not free, in fact, they might even be expensive.

What are your thoughts on this? Can talent ever really be free? Or does it even need to be?

Photo Credit: Sinha