Talent management: should companies harness the “genius effect”?
Between 1 and 10 per cent of an organization’s workforce is typically selected or identified as ‘talents’’. These high-potential employees often gain access to superior opportunities for training, mentoring, networking, and upward mobility, as they are expected to create high returns on investment. In recent years, however, there have increasingly been calls for more inclusive and transparent talent policies which better reflect the diversity of skills and talents within an organization.
11/26/2024
4 min
Share
A new study by researchers from IÉSEG, the University of Zurich and KU Leuven has explored how managers and employees react to more inclusive or exclusive talent management practices (generally used in large organizations) and the way these practices are communicated to employees.
“Organizations and managers may assume that inclusivity —where a higher proportion of employees are identified as “talents”—can be a more effective strategy because it can buffer negative reactions from those employees that have not been selected. However, our research reveals a more complex reality,” explains Professor Elise MARESCAUX from IÉSEG.
The “genius effect”
The team built their work on the principles of social comparison theory and the “genius effect. The genius effect implies that a very small group of “talents” may be more easily accepted by non-selected employees as they can identify this group as being “geniuses” that are beyond their reach, therefore reducing, for example, envy. Similarly, for those selected into the pool of “talents”, the value of being identified as a “talent or genius” would be higher. In other words, the team hypothesized that both high potential talents and those outside the pool would react more positively to more selective measures.
Their hypothesis was confirmed as the researchers found that employees not identified as talents respond worse to more open and inclusive selection procedures. For example, they displayed higher levels of envy and were more likely to wish to leave the organization when the talent pool was opened to a wider number of employees.
Interestingly, the chosen ‘high potentials’ also felt less valued and were also more likely to leave the organization if the talent pool was more inclusive.
“We observed a form of inclusion paradox, where more inclusive talent practices intended to enhance employees’ sense of belonging might paradoxically make them feel less valued”, adds Professor MARESCAUX.
Around 75% of participants in their study wished to be identified as talents, highlighting the significance of social comparison in workplace dynamics. Overall, the researchers found that reactions to talent practices were stronger among this majority of the workforce population regardless of whether they were actually identified as a talent or not.
Transparency and Communication
The researchers note that there is resistance against the ambiguous or ‘secretive’ nature of talent practices in some organizations. Such policies can be driven by fear that transparent practices may trigger complaints about fairness of selection procedures and create a competitive workplace climate. Some organizations, however, may also decide not to inform their high potentials of their status to avoid perceptions of career guarantees.
So how does employees’ awareness of their status impact perceptions?
To find out, the researchers gauged their reactions by presenting them with a series of fictitious scenarios about talent practices introduced by their employer. Some were aware of their status, while others were not. Employees who were not aware if they had been selected or not – and were explicitly told their organization chose not to communicate about this to employees – reacted less negatively than those who had been informed they had not been nominated.
It would thus appear that secrecy has a buffering effect on negative reactions from employees to talent practices, even when the secrecy is openly admitted to.
In comparison, the study also found that openly communicating the existence of talent practices without naming individuals also buffered negative reactions, supporting the idea that a certain level of “secrecy” or ambiguity works in mitigating negative responses.
Talent management practices and practical applications
Understanding the balance between group sizes and their relative power and status is crucial for organizations, underlines Professor MARESCAUX.
“Our findings suggest that making talent pools more inclusive and transparent will not unequivocally lead to better employee reactions to such practices. In fact, our data indicates – both in experimental settings and in the field – that making talent pools more inclusive may ironically make employees feel more severely excluded, while keeping (non-)talent status a secret may soften the blow for non-selected employees.”
Based on these results, the authors suggest that managers consider implementing talent practices that encompass no more than 5 per cent of an organization’s employees. “This ought to help
maintain a perception in employees’ minds that the talents are the ‘geniuses’ of the organization (Alicke et al., 1997), and ensures that all employees perceive themselves as valuable members of the organization,” the paper notes.
As for the phenomenon of secrecy, the findings seem to suggest that “the most optimal strategy would be to inform talents of their status, but not tell the ‘non-talents’ – which is what most organizations do (Church et al., 2015).”
“When done right, communicating about the existence of talent practices without ‘naming names’ – especially to non-talents – may also buffer the negative effects of unfavourable social comparisons,” the paper notes, while motivating employees and nourishing their hopes of being selected for the talent pool in the future.
Yet, the team also recognizes that there is an inherent ethical dimension to secrecy. Keeping (some) employees in the dark versus communicating openly can be seen as an ethical dilemma where many considerations need to be balanced out, including but not limited to issues of fairness, and employee rights to information.
Methodology:
The researchers carried out three vignette studies and a field study: a first study, in which a sample of managers were asked to rate the expected reactions of talents versus non-talents to a fictitious talent practice; a second study, in which a sample of employees were told they were not selected for a fictitious talent practice, or that they were unaware of their status; a third study, in which respondents were told they were selected as ‘talents’; and a fourth cross-sectional study in the field, in which respondents described their reactions to being in- or excluded from a talent pool within their real-life (non-fictitious) organization.
The Paradox of Inclusion in Elite Workforce Differentiation Practices: Harnessing the Genius Effect, The Journal of Management Studies (2024) Anand P. A. van Zelderen, Nicky Dries, Elise Marescaux.
Photo: Istock. Crédit: putilich
