Critical Thinking About HR
Critical Thinking about HR
1. The main purpose of this article is to discuss the talent war, which is currently based on human capital and the talent in which employees possess in the business marketplace. Some are so talented, in fact, they are lured away from their current place of business in an effort to help create success elsewhere. Because the authors are discussing Human Resources, human capital, in this case, refers to talent one can bring to a company or organization or company they work for. The article makes references to LeBron James moving from one team to another, as well as Facebook recruiting Google’s most talented individuals, such as Sheryl Sandberg, their chief operating engineer. Essentially, the article is about recruiting and headhunting human capital, as well as how competitive the market can be. It cites lengthy contracts, pay raises, and other incentives offered in an attempt to encourage talented individuals to stay, or lure them away from their current company.
2. The key question the author is addressing is why the talent war is so important to each company or business, and why human capital is crucial to a company’s success. Businesses thrive on talent to succeed, as it helps them remain on the cutting edge, staying ahead of other businesses. It is so important because everybody is participating, and they are participating aggressively. Moreover, only 10% of companies retain what is considered to be talented human capital in each business, while many companies have what they consider to be expendable human capital. Success in the talent war means a company’s survival, while failure can mean a company’s crash, making it that much more important. Obviously retaining talented human capital is also correlated with high output, as well, generating larger funds, and ensuring a longer life for the company.
3. The most important information in this article is why the talent war is happening, the voracity in which it is happening, and why it is important to businesses. Many do not know, for example, there are four characteristics of the talent war. The characteristics are to retain talent once it is acquired, to hire talent from other companies, to participate on a large and small scale as a company to level the business field, and to anticipate unexpected effects of all previously mentioned characteristics. Important facts also include talent is often lured away from companies due to incentives, rather than a genuine desire to work for the company, and there are plans in place, such as an individualized and meaningful work schedule, to keep human capital engaged in the company, preventing them from leaving, and ensuring the company’s success. Businesses must attempt to lure talent, but must also attempt to keep their own talent engaged once they are acquired.
4. The main inferences or conclusions in this article are that human capital is the basis of a company’s success, human capital can be bought, traded, and manipulated, and they are the cornerstone of competition in business. There is no reference to communication, public relations, or any other aspect of business within the article that would elude to a company succeeding; there is only human capital to rely on. Without talent in an industry, the industry has nothing. LeBron James, though on a team, single-handedly allowed his team to see a superior increase in game attendance and sales before leaving to sign with the Miami Heat. Similarly, though Google offered incentives to its employees who fled like rats on a sinking ship, many high-level executives left for Facebook because company strategies leaned more toward meaningful work and contingent rewards, allowing employees to feel appreciated. Facebook saw a rise in productivity while Google saw a drop, concluding talent is, in fact, the cornerstone to competition in the market.
5. The key concepts to understanding the article are human capital, talent, and competition. By these concepts, the author means competition within a business place or company, and what talented employees, or human capital, can bring to it. Talent (human capital) promise the company success. While employers must use meaningful work and other rewards to ensure employees stay with the company after they sign on, or are poached, at the end of the day they are human capital. They are used for their talents in an effort to help the company succeed. The company deals in numbers, rather than human conscience, allowing human capital to be a fair concept. Human capital also allows competition to take place. The trading, poaching, and incentive programs offered keep businesses competing for talent.
6. The main assumption underlying the author’s thinking is a business’s sole success relies on human capital, or human talent and the exchange of it. It appears, according to the article, that an exponential amount of time is put into capturing new talent, luring away current talent, and keeping talent once it is found. This is all based on the assumption human capital and finding the top talent is the only way to succeed in business. While it is essential to have talented individuals working in each division, it is hardly a necessity to have the most talented, or be forced to face business failure. The author takes for granted mid-level talent who are fully capable of doing their jobs.
7. If we take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are disastrous. An HR manager would have to only cater to the highly talented, while shirking those who were relatively talented, or still nurturing skills. Businesses lacking the 10% of the most talented individuals, i.e. 90% of businesses, would go under immediately due to poor HR service. Employees would quit immediately; businesses would fail on that basis alone. In an effort to quell this reasoning, HR could attempt to cater to all employees, regardless of human capital status, as they are paid to do. This helps ensure they are providing adequate service, and prevents the company from losing potentially valuable members. 8. While it is important not to rely only on the 10% of the most talented human capital available, it is important not to ignore this line of reasoning either. If we fail to take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are also disastrous. A company must have talented employees who are capable of fulfilling their job requirements. They cannot misunderstand their duties, or not know how to do their job. Somebody proficient only in automotive repair cannot be hired to repair a computer, for example. HR must hire individuals suitable for the role they will be filling, who exhibit proficiency, if not talent in the job, otherwise the company will also experience failure.
9. If I had access to the author and were able to ask three questions, I would begin by asking why they wrote an article that assumed a company’s entire success on human capital. The idea is archaic and does not address a full business model. Furthermore, it does not address the entirety of what a Human Resources Manager is in charge of. Capturing human capital and keeping them happy makes an HR manager sound more like a handler, than a manager of work affairs, and I would be curious to know why an article supposedly based on human resources was centered around something so one sided.
After that question was answered, I would like to know what the author considers the HR department to be in charge of, or what they believe the primary goal of HR to be within the company. It appears the role of human resources may be muddles within their mind. At the very least, they place too much emphasis on the idea of human capital in the success if a company, and while it is important, it is unrealistic to think HR employees can be held entirely responsible for the introduction and happiness of every exceedingly talented employee while ignoring the rest of the company. I found much of the article to be fascinating, but confusing when concerning the tasks of an HR employee. Of course, it is the goal of any HR employee to ensure the happiness and overall wellbeing of other employees. However, asserting they are the general handlers, or program designers tasked with caretaking for the 10% of talented individuals in any one division does not account for the rest of the employees in a company. While human capital is important, and the article showed the loss of one extremely talented individual can be detrimental, would it not cause the same impact if all mediocre employees left as if one extremely talented employee were to switch companies? I would be curious to understand if the author believed an HR employee was in charge of all employee’s issues, or just those who possessed above average talent.
Finally, I would want to ask if the author believed supposed mediocre employees could me made into superiorly talented employees. Human capital is very important to any business, and it is clear the battle for such capital is extensive. Perhaps the strain for such capital could be taken off of companies, as well as HR employees if those already working for the company could be groomed into what was needed for their current positions. This would also add to capital in the market. It would, of course, cut down on human capital competition, which could effectively create a drop in diversity or even a different type of competition. Despite this, I would still be interested in the author’s thoughts or opinions on the question, or even the new type of competition that may begin if human capital were removed from the equation.
