• Kyle Lagunas

    I couldn’t disagree more. The idea that top performers are the only candidates worth pursuing is exactly the kind of rhetoric that is driving the perceived shortage of talent. Perhaps I’m misreading, but the idea that the root of the problem in attracting and retaining top talent is unfair compensation (or poor ROE) is also a major misconception. Comp is certainly important – but opportunity to grow, work/life balance, and company culture are even more so.

    The bigger problem I have with this, though, is that there’s no distinction between performance and potential. To be clear: They’re connected, but not exclusive. Your top salesperson isn’t necessarily going to be your best sales manager. On the contrary, there are many in the other two categories you’ve listed that likely have much higher potential than they are currently exemplifying. If you’re only chasing performers, you’re going to miss out.

    Our research shows that employers are having a very real problem attracting, hiring, and retaining talent. The war for talent is a very real thing, though misconception is running rampant in regards to what it entails. I shared some thoughts on this on my blog earlier this week:

    “One of the key findings from Brandon Hall Group’s Talent Acquisition Benchmarking Survey is a serious disconnect between the goals hiring organizations have set for 2014 and the processes they have in place to achieve them. Hiring better talent was the most important goal for our survey respondents by a long shot, and yet … the majority of these organizations are still beholden to traditional assessment practices with the main objective of screening applicants.

    Consider this: What if the perceived shortage of talent – and even the skills gap at large – is the result of assessment malpractice? What if, by asking the wrong questions, we’re burning the chaff and the wheat? What if we’re over-screening and underestimating candidates?

    Your next rep of the year could very well be the underdog your recruiters would never give the time of day. He or she may be the gray squirrel that was overlooked because you’re still chasing the purple ones. If you subject them to assessment malpractice, they’re very likely to end up gathering nuts for someone else.”

    Full post: http://www.brandonhall.com/blogs/why-you-should-be-assessing-candidates-for-grit/

  • Janine Truitt


    Thanks for chiming in. I point out that the top talent and operational kinds are the people necessary for the efficient run of the company. I also pointed out that those that do the bare minimum are the ones we don’t want to attract and are in fact detracting from the organization. The under-performers are specifically addressed as those not performing up to par.

    I specifically point out in the beginning of the article that companies are ill-equipped in their strategy for not only attracting and retaining, but developing talent.

    There are varied types of professionals in the workforce and not all of them are top talent. The point of my argument for the sake of this particular post is not how the manage and develop laterals, but how and why companies are missing the mark with top performers in my experience.

    You bring up some salient points, but I think you missed the core argument of my post. The discussion of how to properly engage, compensate, reward and retain talent on the whole is a larger-than-life discussion that was not the intention for this one post.

    I appreciate your opinion and reading nevertheless.

    All the best,


    • Kyle Lagunas

      Thanks for clarifying, Janine – it’s definitely a complicated problem!