Talent acquisition

Decide, which of the typical statements below are in/correct and why.

“The goal should be hiring the best talents with minimal costs.”

Let’s look at the term “minimal costs” first. It’s a very standard term in practice talking about minimizing or maximizing something, but if we look at it closely, most of the time it doesn’t make much sense because it necessarily leads to extreme situations. That’s why I rather prefer the term “optimal costs” because higher costs than minimal possible are usually a trade-off connected, for instance, to speed. Secondly, the term “best talents”. How would you quantify it? Only people with the highest IQ or the fastest individuals? Or are there more variables? If so, I prefer the term “the most relevant talents” because it reflects the uniqueness of each organization and talent.

With a significant level of generalization, we can often calculate, that if an organization hires more than a few units of talent per year, an internal capable talent acquisition professional may be a cheaper solution. On the other hand, agencies or headhunters may have specialized databases of contacts that are not that easily available or they are focusing on a niche area and can objectively provide better support than an internal partner. Therefore, external partners may be a very valuable talent supplier (often providing even many more types of support) if they are used reasonably, in necessary cases, based on a rational calculation and real business needs.

“An external personal agency is a better solution than an internal TA team (or vice versa).”

“Talent acquisition doesn’t need a connection to the corporate strategy.”

Physics has given us also an important business insight – electricity naturally takes a path of the least resistance. Not surprisingly, human beings will do the same, and hiring talents is not an exemption. What do I mean by that? Internal Talent Acquisition Partners have usually a full plate and there are 1000 and one ways how they can prioritize positions they are working on from simplicity to a cash bonus. And that’s a mistake, but not their mistake. It’s an inevitable consequence of disconnection between the business strategy and hiring. The TA Partner won’t be most likely able to estimate strategically crucial positions and therefore the connection is absolutely fundamental.

It’s smiling, that this statement causes a similar reaction as if you say to a mathematician that something is “most optimal” – you may observe an immediate reaction that you should use the term “optimal”. In the case of Talent Acquisition, we can say that it’s a subset of HR. In other words, the goal of the TA is to secure the most relevant talents flowing into the organization – in the long-term, sustainably. The rest of HR then includes everything from onboarding, through remuneration, until the last day in the organization (and much more in between). Of course, there are many grey zones where TA and HR are overlapping but in general, TA is technically similar to the sales department.

“Talent acquisition means the same as Human resources.”

STRATEGY & MANAGEMENT

PSYCHOLOGY & BRAIN

CHECK OTHER ESSENCES

OF THE SUPERIOR

RESULT.

If there are any questions I can answer

CONTACT ME DIRECTLY

PATRIK BARTKO

The Superior Results.

TOPICS:
TALENT ACQUISITION
STRATEGY & MANAGEMENT
PSYCHOLOGY & BRAIN

MAY BE HELPFUL:
ABOUT ME
MY BOOKS (CZ VERSION)
PRIVACY STATEMENT

Talent acquisition

Decide, which of the typical statements below are in/correct and why.

“The goal should be hiring the best talents with minimal costs.”

Let’s look at the term “minimal costs” first. It’s a very standard term in practice talking about minimizing or maximizing something, but if we look at it closely, most of the time it doesn’t make much sense because it necessarily leads to extreme situations. That’s why I rather prefer the term “optimal costs” because higher costs than minimal possible are usually a trade-off connected, for instance, to speed. Secondly, the term “best talents”. How would you quantify it? Only people with the highest IQ or the fastest individuals? Or are there more variables? If so, I prefer the term “the most relevant talents” because it reflects the uniqueness of each organization and talent.

“An external personal agency is a better solution than an internal TA team (or vice versa).”

With a significant level of generalization, we can often calculate, that if an organization hires more than a few units of talent per year, an internal capable talent acquisition professional may be a cheaper solution. On the other hand, agencies or headhunters may have specialized databases of contacts that are not that easily available or they are focusing on a niche area and can objectively provide better support than an internal partner. Therefore, external partners may be a very valuable talent supplier (often providing even many more types of support) if they are used reasonably, in necessary cases, based on a rational calculation and real business needs.

“Talent acquisition doesn’t need a connection to the corporate strategy.”

Physics has given us also an important business insight – electricity naturally takes a path of the least resistance. Not surprisingly, human beings will do the same, and hiring talents is not an exemption. What do I mean by that? Internal Talent Acquisition Partners have usually a full plate and there are 1000 and one ways how they can prioritize positions they are working on from simplicity to a cash bonus. And that’s a mistake, but not their mistake. It’s an inevitable consequence of disconnection between the business strategy and hiring. The TA Partner won’t be most likely able to estimate strategically crucial positions and therefore the connection is absolutely fundamental.

“Talent acquisition means the same as Human resources.”

It’s smiling, that this statement causes a similar reaction as if you say to a mathematician that something is “most optimal” – you may observe an immediate reaction that you should use the term “optimal”. In the case of Talent Acquisition, we can say that it’s a subset of HR. In other words, the goal of the TA is to secure the most relevant talents flowing into the organization – in the long-term, sustainably. The rest of HR then includes everything from onboarding, through remuneration, until the last day in the organization (and much more in between). Of course, there are many grey zones where TA and HR are overlapping but in general, TA is technically similar to the sales department.

CHECK OTHER ESSENCES OF THE SUPERIOR RESULT.

PSYCHOLOGY & BRAIN

STRATEGY & MANAGEMENT

If there are any questions I can answer

CONTACT ME DIRECTLY

PATRIK BARTKO

The Superior Results.

TOPICS:
TALENT ACQUISITION
STRATEGY & MANAGEMENT
PSYCHOLOGY & BRAIN

MAY BE HELPFUL:
ABOUT ME
MY BOOKS (CZ VERSION)
PRIVACY STATEMENT

Talent acquisition

Decide, which of the typical statements below are in/correct and why.

“The goal should be hiring the best talents with minimal costs.”

Let’s look at the term “minimal costs” first. It’s a very standard term in practice talking about minimizing or maximizing something, but if we look at it closely, most of the time it doesn’t make much sense because it necessarily leads to extreme situations. That’s why I rather prefer the term “optimal costs” because higher costs than minimal possible are usually a trade-off connected, for instance, to speed. Secondly, the term “best talents”. How would you quantify it? Only people with the highest IQ or the fastest individuals? Or are there more variables? If so, I prefer the term “the most relevant talents” because it reflects the uniqueness of each organization and talent.

“An external personal agency is a better solution than an internal TA team (or vice versa).”

With a significant level of generalization, we can often calculate, that if an organization hires more than a few units of talent per year, an internal capable talent acquisition professional may be a cheaper solution. On the other hand, agencies or headhunters may have specialized databases of contacts that are not that easily available or they are focusing on a niche area and can objectively provide better support than an internal partner. Therefore, external partners may be a very valuable talent supplier (often providing even many more types of support) if they are used reasonably, in necessary cases, based on a rational calculation and real business needs.

“Talent acquisition doesn’t need a connection to the corporate strategy.”

Physics has given us also an important business insight – electricity naturally takes a path of the least resistance. Not surprisingly, human beings will do the same, and hiring talents is not an exemption. What do I mean by that? Internal Talent Acquisition Partners have usually a full plate and there are 1000 and one ways how they can prioritize positions they are working on from simplicity to a cash bonus. And that’s a mistake, but not their mistake. It’s an inevitable consequence of disconnection between the business strategy and hiring. The TA Partner won’t be most likely able to estimate strategically crucial positions and therefore the connection is absolutely fundamental.

“Talent acquisition means the same as Human resources.”

It’s smiling, that this statement causes a similar reaction as if you say to a mathematician that something is “most optimal” – you may observe an immediate reaction that you should use the term “optimal”. In the case of Talent Acquisition, we can say that it’s a subset of HR. In other words, the goal of the TA is to secure the most relevant talents flowing into the organization – in the long-term, sustainably. The rest of HR then includes everything from onboarding, through remuneration, until the last day in the organization (and much more in between). Of course, there are many grey zones where TA and HR are overlapping but in general, TA is technically similar to the sales department.