an algorithm to manage talent?

I picked this one up from ZDNet.Com on algorithms being used by the search giant to stop their brain drain.  It quotes WSJ:

The Internet search giant recently began crunching data from employee reviews and promotion and pay histories in a mathematical formula Google says can identify which of its 20,000 employees are most likely to quit.

I am not entirely surprised.

Psychometrics and organizational psychology have long used personality tests to predict who can do a certain job better and who can fit in better in a certain corporate culture. 

With Google's penchant for algorithms which I am sure incorporates more than just psychometrics and tests, but also behaviors - both observed by others and self-reported - they can come up with something.

They are - after all - aiming to "organize the world's information" - so why not start at home, right?

I don't also think that this is not something that's new (perhaps, the algorithm is new and unique to Google - who knows?).  But erudite and astute talent managers use techniques not dissimilar to what psychometricians and organizational psychologists use to identify "at-risk talents".

What is more interesting is what Google will do with the results - and if they indeed are successful to reverse the braindrain.

Surely, they can find the at-risk 2'000 talents inside their company.  More importantly though is, how will they address these talents' concerns.

If career planning is the core issue, then algorithms won't provide the solution.

Leadership and astute management will.

Comments

[William Chin]

Interesting write up!

I recently ran an event on Sales Metrics. Below is an abstract of the article written up on it.

Is Selling an art or science? Let me know your views. Chow and Leslie are both from list organisations.

Chow’s presentation revolved around the premise “Is selling an
art, or a science?” Art, she explained, implied qualities intrinsic to the
individual, that could not be learned by everyone else. Therefore, an
‘artist’ might be brilliant at sales themselves, but unable to impart
their success to their officers. A ‘scientist,’ on the other hand, would
employ ‘proven’ methods and practices that any individual, regardless
of their ‘artistry’ could adopt successfully, given proper training
in those methods and practices. Clarifying that while she knew not all
members of the audience would agree with her, Chow expressed her
personal opinion that sales was 5% art, and 95% science. Elaborating
on the tools and processes she employed on a quotidian basis with
her own sales people, Chow explained how sales metrics served as
the foundation and justification for her scientific approach to sales.

The final presentation saw Kelly profess herself as a hardcore artist.
“Alyce, I just want you to know that we use XXXX, so
please bear that in mind when I say what I’m about to say.” She then
proceeded to express her personal belief that not everyone could be
a good sales person, that they indeed required certain innate traits,
such as optimism, passion, competitiveness, and trustworthiness, in order for them to thrive under the face of rejection and pressure to
meet their targets. But, she went on, even if those qualities are there,
it is still the responsibility of their manager to bring the best out of
them. This included things like on the job training, a transparent view
of the company to help them trust and sell their products, minimizing
the amount of administrative tasks they had to do each day, and motivating
them properly with the right combination of recognition and
rewards.