Rethinking talent – Who has never been considered?

Professor Binna Kandola begins a three-part series on talent management that examines the ways in which our work and management systems were never intended to include everyone and why we should not assume today’s talent is playing on a level field.

We would like to think that talent management is inclusive and fair – it’s all about finding the right person for the job wherever they are. In reality, most talent frameworks are based on the narrower assumption that only select few people have potential worth investing. Some of the most popular talent models are designed to be exclusive, i.e. they’re meant to elevate and identify high performers within a limited field.

This brings up a fundamental issue: Who was considered a talent to begin with?

Our systems of management and work were never designed to be inclusive. They were created to reward a particular type of person with a particular background.

Talent in the workplace has a history of both exclusion and development. If we want to build more inclusive, high performing organisations, we must understand how these patterns started.

This first of a three part series looks at the evolution of the workplace. The systems that we inherited were not neutral. They were shaped and influenced by the social attitudes of their day. Their legacy still determines who is recognised, invested in and considered as leadership material.

Work is divided and then shared

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, most work was done at home. Women and men worked together in domestic industries, such as agriculture, weaving or other domestic activities. Cracks started to appear with the advent of guilds in medieval cities. The men began to take on more skilled trades. Girls could be apprentices but were only allowed to do a fraction of what boys could.

Honorable work was considered to be done by towns that were governed by guilds. Women who worked at home, and often did so, were not considered to be doing honorable work. This distinction between “serious work” and all other forms of employment still exists today, in attitudes towards working from home or part-time jobs.

The Industrial Revolution fundamentally changed the nature of work. The Industrial Revolution separated paid work from home, and excluded middle class women. A number of new professions, from accounting to engineering, were also created around the same time. They were regulated by professional bodies. Most women were unable to obtain formal education required for these careers, and so they were effectively locked out.

During this period, another profession began to emerge: management. The need for organisation grew as businesses expanded. Early management was influenced by engineering and focused on efficiency, systems, and control. Standardisation was the aim, and anything that did not conform to the standard became disruptive or inefficient.

Henry Ford’s famous quote captures this perfectly: “Anyone can paint a car any color they want, as long as it’s black.” Simplicity was the goal, not individuality. This same mentality shaped how employees were managed.

The rise of Management – and its narrow vision of talent

Interest in management as a field grew rapidly from the late 19th to early 20th centuries. There were many books and courses. In the United States, the number engineers had risen from 3,000 in 1930 to 300,000. Two-thirds would hold management positions. Engineering values such as predictability, uniformity and structure became a part of the hiring, evaluating, and promoting process.

In time, the personnel department evolved to include training and welfare. By the middle of 20th century, an increasing body of psychological research began to explore employee satisfaction and motivation. Human Resource Management is what we call it today. In the 1990s the term “talent-management” was introduced.

Who was allowed to be a talent?

Exclusion has deep roots

The “science” of the 18th century and 19th century led to the classification of people. The pseudo-scientific racial hierarchy justified slavery and colonialism. Homosexuality became a criminal offence and was medicalized. Under “Ugly Laws”, disabled people were forced to leave the public domain. The “Ugly Laws” labeled entire categories of people as unfit, not just for leadership but also for inclusion in the society.

These ideas were not fringe. These ideas influenced the legal system, education, and yes, even the workplace. Early management structures were created in a time when exclusion was not only accepted, but formalised. The “right” people were assumed to be white, able-bodied heterosexual men who possessed the leadership qualities. All others were either absent or ignored.

It wasn’t an error in the system. It was the computer.

Why this history is still important

Conversations about talent today assume that everyone is on an equal footing – as though they have always been able to receive recognition. The way we evaluate potential, select leaders, and assess performance still echoes those early attitudes and exclusions. We risk continuing to view talent as a single type of person if we don’t question these assumptions.

Next in the series, we will examine how subtle forms of exclusion and organisational culture can lead to poor performance – which is then used as a justification for why some people are not considered talent. This cycle is not inevitable, but it does continue.

In order to create more inclusive workplaces we need to first understand who’s talent has never been allowed out.

Personnel Today offers HR business partners opportunities

Browse other HR Business Partner Jobs