The Strategic Talent
Management Architect
Key Takeaways:
• Our goal is to present a new
framework for examining
organizational performance
and success.
• Talent is one of the most
critical factors in achieving
organizational effectiveness.
• Our new model provides
a comprehensive framework
for business leaders, as
well as academicians, to
systematically investigate
the internal and external
factors influencing
the performance of
organizations.
A New Framework for Understanding
Organizational Effectiveness
By Kim E. Ruyle, Gabriella D. Kilby, Kenneth P. De Meuse
and Kevin J. Mlodzik
B
usinesses in many ways are comparable to machines.
Machines are interconnected assemblies of mechanical
elements operating in a carefully designed manner to accomplish
some type of work. Machines move mass through a distance to
satisfy a specific need. To operate, machines require a prime source
of power. They will fail to perform effectively – or fail completely – if
the mechanical elements are not well aligned or there is excessive
friction between the moving elements. Consequently, machines
must be designed, operated, and maintained if they are to deliver the
desired work product. And so it is with a business.
A business is an organization – an assembly of people, raw materials,
and capital – designed to deliver something of value to various
stakeholders. For example, investors in a business are looking for an
adequate financial return on their investment given the perceived risk.
Customers are expecting to receive products or services that meet
their needs and satisfy an acceptable value proposition.

An organization requires a prime
mover, the vision, and the drive
of one or more leaders who set
the goals of the business and the
direction it must move to achieve
those goals.
More than any other asset, talent
provides the potential for long-
term competitive advantage
2
Employees hope to receive gainful employment and a meaningful
and stable livelihood. Organizational effectiveness (OE) can be
conceptualized as the degree to which a business meets the long-
term needs of its various stakeholders (Kim & Mauborgne, 2009).
A business figuratively moves through a competitive landscape
as it positions itself to achieve its strategic intent. An organization
requires a prime mover, the vision, and the drive of one or more
leaders who set the goals of the business and the direction it must
move to achieve those goals. Like a machine, a business will fail to
operate successfully if key elements such as processes, systems,
and structure are misaligned or hindered by friction between those
elements.
And like a machine, a business must be designed, operated, and
maintained. These functions are performed by the talent – the
human capital employed by the enterprise. Indeed, talent (i.e.,
an organization’s employees), typically is the single biggest lever
for driving improvements in business performance. For most
companies, the total cost of human capital is the single biggest
expense line in the income statement (Echols, 2008). The collective
skills of the talent employed in an organization largely comprise the
organization’s core capabilities. An organization’s talent injects a
degree of contextual ambiguity that is very difficult for competitors to
benchmark and replicate. More than any other asset, talent provides
the potential for long-term competitive advantage (Lawler, 2008).
We assert that leadership and human capital power the business
machine. As such, talent becomes the primary driver of
organizational effectiveness. In this paper, we begin with a general
overview of the theoretical literature on organizational effectiveness.
Subsequently, we propose a new framework for conceptualizing
factors that affect the effectiveness of organizations. We refer to our
model as the Strategic Talent Management Architect. Finally, we
discuss implications of this model for assessing and changing talent
management strategies and practices.
Brief Overview of the Organizational Effectiveness
Literature
Talent management is a strategic human resource discipline that
seeks to optimize the performance and contribution of human capital
in the business machine. Talent management is concerned with
sourcing talent, integrating and aligning talent, developing talent,
engaging and rewarding talent, strategically deploying talent, and
assuring there is an adequate talent pipeline to support the business
as it moves toward its strategic goals (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005). As
essential as talent management is to organizational effectiveness,
talent management practices often are viewed by corporate leaders
as “necessary but tangential” to the primary business operations that
impact the bottom-line. Talent management and human resource
(HR) professionals are more likely to refute those views when they
achieve the role of credible activist in their organizations and adopt an
OE mindset (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Eichinger, Ruyle, & Ulrich,
2007).

Organizational Effectiveness has a long and storied history. Its

historical roots appear to stretch as far back as the origins of
management itself. Numerous disciplines have investigated OE, Talent management and human
resulting in a multitude of perspectives, definitions, models, and resource (HR) professionals
assessments. Academicians and practitioners independently are more likely to refute those
have studied the concept and have little agreement on how to views when they achieve the
conceptualize it or measure it. Further, there is a wide variety of uses role of credible activist in their
for OE data, ranging from high-end analyses of overall corporate organizations and adopt an OE
performance to less sophisticated reviews of general business unit mindset
functioning utilizing qualitative data (see Connolly, Conlon, & Deutsch,
1980). Thus, the state of the literature is complex, dispersed, and
frequently confusing. There seems to be little integration of thought in
many respects.

There are several definitions of OE in the literature. For example,

Dressler (2004) has defined OE as “the result of effective interplay
of a company’s vision and strategic goals with the chosen structural
design, processes, assigned responsibilities, available skills,
knowledge, and capabilities, and reliable performance management”
(p. 43). These goals can be primary (e.g., shareholder returns), or
secondary (e.g., the cost reduction and employee satisfaction). Other
researchers have examined OE from an open systems perspective,
calculating it as the balance of outputs and inputs (Nadler, 1998).
Yet, other scholars have focused on the satisfaction of stakeholder
interests, such as employees, investors, and customers (Collins,
2001; Connolly, Conlon, & Deutsch, 1980). In an attempt to integrate

3

Organizational Effectiveness
is a measure of how well
an organization is meeting
the long-term goals of its
stakeholders.
4
and simplify these definitions, we define OE as follows:
Organizational Effectiveness is a measure of how well an organization
is meeting the long-term goals of its stakeholders.
Similarly, researchers have proposed several models of OE. Some
of these models take on a more academic slant while others are
more practitioner-related. Perhaps, the two most widely cited
models are McKinsey’s 7-S model (Peters & Waterman, 1982) and
Kaplan’s Balanced Scorecard approach (Kaplan, 2005; Kaplan &
Norton, 2007). Each of these frameworks has its advantages and
disadvantages. However, the two models are very different in how
they conceptualize OE. It appears that each model neglects to
incorporate large bodies of research relevant to the understanding
of how organizations operate. Our goal in this paper is to present
a new framework for examining organizational performance and
success. Our model attempts to integrate both theoretical and
applied perspectives. We include factors that interplay both business
strategies and talent management strategies. Our hope is that
seemingly disjointed viewpoints in the literature can be assimilated to
derive a scientifically supported, organizationally relevant OE model.
The Strategic Talent Management Architect
Based on a comprehensive review of the scholarly and practitioner
literatures, we have developed the Strategic Talent Management
Architect. This framework consists of the following two major
sources that influence an organization’s performance effectiveness:
(a) leadership drivers and (b) organizational enablers. Leadership
Drivers are those factors that derive, clarify, motivate, and
communicate (i.e., “drive”) the fundamental business of the
corporation. There are two different leadership drivers – vision
and vigor. Organizational Enablers are those factors that provide
structure, talent competencies, and execution in an organization.
Organizational enablers include three key dimensions – capability,
architecture, and action. Finally, we identify two additional factors in
our model. We call them company-wide Enterprise Accelerators, and
they consist of Enterprise Alignment and Enterprise Agility. These
latter two factors ensure that leadership drivers and organizational
enablers mesh with the external and internal environments relevant
to the company, as well as facilitate the adaptability of internal
conditions to outside changes. See Figure 1.

In the following section of the article, we define each of these factors

e Agility
Enterpris

Figure 1. The Strategic Talent

Vision Architecture Management Architect
Enterprise Leadership Enterprise
Organizational Action
Alignment Drivers Enablers Alignment

Vigor Capability

and examine its impact on the operations of an organization. We also

contrast our framework of OE with other notable OE models. Talent
management implications are discussed in the final section.

Leadership – The Key Driver of Organizational Effectiveness

Leadership is a central variable in nearly every model of OE presented
in the literature. Senior leaders usually establish the organization’s
mission, identify target customers, determine the products and
services delivered, hire the managers who execute plans, and create
a shared vision that rallies stakeholders to drive toward shared
objectives. In many ways, leaders are analogous to the prime
Overall, the ability to craft and
mover of a machine. Our model contains two dimensions within the
Leadership Drivers factor: (a) Vision and (b) Vigor. communicate an effective
vision has been articulated
Vision. Vision represents the ability to effectively define the business consistently in the literature as
and set its direction. Leaders clearly articulate the organization’s a critical element to achieving
unique value proposition and craft compelling messages to organizational effectiveness.
communicate the strategy. Vision requires a high level of general
business acumen, an ability to establish strong, effective governance
for the organization, and the willingness and ability to shift course as
required by the changing business conditions.

Much has been written about the leaders’ responsibility to develop

and modify the organization’s mission and goals and guide the
organization’s vision. Porter (2008) contended that understanding the
5

The literature suggests
that an organization’s
effectiveness is significantly
hindered when leaders fail at
strategy implementation.
6
forces that shape industry competition is the first key to developing
strategy. Lichtenstein and Dade (2007) asserted that delivering
the highest shareholder value comes through aligning the leaders’
vision to the goals and strategy, and that this process can be aided
or hindered by the extent to which leaders understand each other’s
needs and values. Crossan, Vera, and Nanjad (2008) proposed that
leaders need to demonstrate a proactive stance in aligning strategy,
the environment, and the organization under one vision. Montgomery
(2008) emphasized the need for leaders to see strategy and vision
as a dynamic process requiring ongoing monitoring and tweaking.
Overall, the ability to craft and communicate an effective vision has
been articulated consistently in the literature as a critical element to
achieving organizational effectiveness.
Vigor. Vigor represents the ability to drive the enterprise forward. It
requires that leaders and employees possess an infectious passion
for the business and strategy, unflagging energy and drive, and a
relentless, aggressive, and competitive spirit. Vigor also consists of
a contextually-appropriate leadership style that inspires confidence
with all stakeholders through an unwavering focus on results,
measurement, and accountability.
The literature suggests that an organization’s effectiveness is
significantly hindered when leaders fail at strategy implementation.
For illustration, Kanji (2008) posited that the ability of leaders to drive
the organization toward quality and excellence is the prime aspect of
organizational effectiveness. Burke, Sims, Lazzara, and Salas (2007)
also argued that a leader’s ability to foster organizational effectiveness
is the degree to which subordinates and co-workers trust the leader
to get the job done. Paradoxically, effective leaders work to both
engender predictability and order as well as to produce organizational
change (Yukl & Lepsinger, 2005). The use of language in the literature
to describe the competitive characteristics of leaders reinforces the
notion of vigor. Smith, Ferrier, and Grimm (2001) described the need
for leaders to specify competitive behaviors their firm must perform,
using the analogies of prize fighters, chess masters, and American
football coaches. Even the term “stretch goals” when used in the
context of performance management implies this notion of vigor, in
that a manager should motivate his or her employees to perform at
an extremely high level (Kerr & Landauer, 2004).
Beyond Leadership Drivers – The Organizational Enablers
Organizational effectiveness begins with leadership, but leadership
must be executed. After defining the business and setting the
strategic direction, leaders must drive the organization forward.
Organizational enablers represent the talent, processes, and
structures put in place by the leaders to achieve the business goals.
This factor represents the key elements in the business machine
that are driven by the prime mover – leadership – to deliver the
organization’s work output. The organizational enablers’ factor is
comprised of three dimensions: (a) capability, (b) architecture, and (e)
action.

Capability. Capability denotes the organization’s capacity to

empower it to achieve its strategic objectives. It represents the
deep expertise in mission-critical competencies required by the
organization’s mission and unique value proposition. Capability
includes business systems, such as a well-developed talent
management system, the sensible application of technology, and
support systems (e.g., supply chain management and customer
relationship management).

In the literature, capabilities are recognized as a major source of

competitive advantage (Clardy, 2007). Capabilities in this sense
are inherent to the organization, not simply the collective aggregate
of individuals. According to scholars, capabilities influencing
...companies should focus
organizational effectiveness can include talent management systems
more energy on developing
(Bassi & McMurrer, 2008), information technology (Batra, 2006),
supply chain management (Carter & Rogers, 2008), and research talent capabilities that promise
and development (Tirpak, Miller, Schwartz, & Kashdan, 2007). Ulrich greater returns on investment
and Smallwood (2004) contended that organizational capabilities
are derived (in part) from the manifested abilities of the company’s
employees. Becker, Huselid, and Beatty (2009) recommended
that companies should focus more energy on developing talent
capabilities that promise greater returns on investment (such as high-
potential employees).

Architecture. Architecture refers to the organization’s hierarchical

structure and organizing principles. It includes the structure and
design that serves the organization’s business model and unique
value proposition. In addition, architecture represents the aspects
of a work environment which enable employees to work effectively,
such as established relationship norms, meaningful company policies,
7

...leaders are prone to allowing
their organization’s structure to
be dictated by its environment
rather than by strategy.
...Bossidy and Charan (2002)
argued that the biggest obstacle
to organizational effectiveness is
the absence of execution.
8
efficient communication methods, and pleasant and safe work
facilities.
The literature clearly conveys the important role of architecture in
actualizing an organization’s effectiveness (Flamholtz & Kurland, 2005;
Neilson, Martin, & Powers, 2008). In their seminal work, Katz and
Kahn (1978) challenged leaders to achieve effectiveness by moving
beyond traditional, bureaucratic structures. Kim and Mauborgne
(2009) emphasized the role strategy should play in shaping
structure. Oftentimes, they noted, leaders are prone to allowing their
organization’s structure to be dictated by its environment rather than
by strategy. Raisch (2008) also suggested that companies striving
for profitable growth need an organizational design that balances
mechanistic and organic structures. Many authors assert that
organizational culture can be a source of competitive advantage if it is
aligned with strategy (e.g., Sadri & Lees, 2001).
Action. Action represents the organization’s ability to develop,
implement, and execute tactics that directly serve the strategic
goals. It necessitates that the workforce is highly engaged and
willingly expends discretionary effort to reach strategic objectives.
Action requires the ability to make decisions and implement difficult
strategies rapidly and effectively, as well as managerial ranks that
exemplify excellence in operating skills such as planning, organizing,
and time management.
Action is noted repeatedly in the research literature as critical to OE.
For example, Bossidy and Charan (2002) argued that the biggest
obstacle to organizational effectiveness is the absence of execution.
Mankins and Steele (2005) found that most of the executives they
surveyed failed to deliver the financial performance forecasted in
their long-range plans. These authors concluded that the gaps
between strategy and performance often are not analyzed by typical
organizational metrics. Finally, Higgins (2005) viewed execution as so
critical that he added “Strategic Performance” to the McKinsey 7-S
model to emphasize the effort needed to drive outcomes.
Enterprise Accelerators
There needs to be some minimal level of development of the
Leadership Drivers and Organizational Enablers for an organization
to function at a nominal level. Although these elements may be well
 developed, an enterprise cannot achieve sustained effectiveness
without the power of the Enterprise Accelerators. It serves as a
“performance enhancer” for the business machine by enabling the
other elements to operate efficiently and responsively. Enterprise
accelerators consist of two dimensions: (a) enterprise alignment and
(b) enterprise agility.

Enterprise Alignment. Enterprise Alignment denotes the interaction

and fit of all the elements that drive and enable an organization’s
Proper alignment infers effectiveness. Alignment is achieved to the degree in which the OE
the interrelatedness and Drivers and Enablers are designed with an integrated, comprehensive
interdependency of all systems view. Proper alignment infers the interrelatedness and
the internal and external interdependency of all the internal and external components salient
components salient to the to the business. In other words, in addition to the alignment of
business. components within the internal business system, alignment reflects
the need for OE components to be synchronized with their external
environment. These environmental forces include population
demographics, politics, economic conditions, market changes,
competitive forces, technology, governmental laws and regulations,
as well as consumer preferences.

The literature describes alignment as the relationship between a firm’s

internal strategies, capabilities, and systems to its organizational
opportunities and possibilities. The effort to align these components
always should come from top management (Eichinger et al., 2007).
Scholey (2007) defined alignment as the coordination of an
organization’s business units to reach its overriding objective. The
strategic fit between strategy and implementation has been found
to be strengthened by the positive relationship between HRM
effectiveness and labor productivity (Crotts & Ford, 2008). According
to Kaliprasad (2006), there are three major inhibitors of sustained
organizational performance: (a) inaccurate understanding of the
marketplace, (b) misaligned customer strategy, and (c) misaligned
systems and processes.

Enterprise Agility. Enterprise Agility represents the organization’s

ability to learn and adapt to changes in the competitive landscape.
Every organization needs to be ready to adjust its strategies,
structures, and processes to accommodate changing demands
in the environment. No organization can survive indefinitely by
remaining the same. Enterprise agility implies that an organization
9

No organization can survive
indefinitely by remaining the
same.
10
fosters awareness and learning by actively and continuously
monitoring both internal and external cues, then carefully choosing
appropriate responses. Obviously, this dimension is related to
Enterprise Alignment, in that the alignment of OE components must
be continually reassessed as components adjust in response to
contextual cues.
The literature describes agility as the degree of willingness and
readiness to change at the enterprise level (Lawler & Worley,
2006; McCann, 2004). Alternative names for the concept include
adaptability, flexibility, learning, resiliency, and responsiveness.
Enterprise Agility demands much more effort than simply having a few
nimble departments or divisions that operate in isolation or having
pockets of innovative change agents (Breu, Hemingway, Strathern,
& Bridger, 2001; Seo & La Paz, 2008). Research indicates that it
is a critical source of competitive advantage (Grantham, Ware, &
Williamson, 2007). Agility is a required characteristic of organizations
that desire to respond quickly to market changes and threats from
the business environment (Huang, 1999). Frequent change is
required for organizations to effectively manage global competition,
technological innovation, e-business, turbulent environments,
and new business opportunities (Breu, Hemingway, & Strathern,
2001; Lawler & Worley, 2006). Research supports the notion that
possessing a strategic human resources function is essential for
achieving agility (Shafer, Dyer, Kilty, Amos, & Ericksen, 2001). Overall,
it appears that Enterprise Agility is absolutely critical for transforming
companies from average to exceptional effectiveness.
The Strategic Talent Management Architect:
How it Compares with Other Prominent OE Models
Figure 2 presents the Strategic Talent Management Architect
relative to other prominent models of OE presented in the literature.
In general, most models have dimensions specifying the role of
strategy, vision, or mission. Further, most models include structure,
design, and capabilities. The inclusion of these dimensions is not
surprising, since strategy, structure, and design represent the “hard”
components common throughout the OE literature (Chandler, 1969).
There appears to be several key differentiators of our new framework.
First, most other models assume a non-directional, relative interaction
of the variables. The Strategic Talent Management Architect is linear
Figure 2. A Comparison of Prominent OE Models Found in the Literature
OE Model OE is Achieved When… Major Dimensions Assessed Implications for Talent
Management
McKinsey The organization develops (1) Strategy; (2) Structure; (3) Includes “soft variables”
7-S (Peters & a high level of alignment Systems; (4) Staff; (5) Style; (6)
Waterman, 2004) between the seven Ss. Skills; and (7) Shared Values.
Kaplan’s Balanced The organization aligns its (1) Financial; (2) Customer; (3) Includes talent
Scorecard (Kaplan management processes Learning and Growth; and (4) development dimension
& Norton, 2007) and implements long-term Internal Business Processes. Focus on measurement
strategies.
Bassi & McMurrer’s The human capital items are (1) Leadership practices; (2) Significant emphasis on
Human Capital linked to business results Employee engagement; (3) talent management
Capability Knowledge accessibility; (4)
Scorecard (2008) Workforce optimization; and (5)
Learning capacity.
Booz and Co OE As organizations quickly (1) Decision rights; (2) Talent management
Simulator (Neilson, translate important strategic Information; (3) Motivators; and practices impact a number
Martin, and Powers, and operational decisions (4) Structure. of the model traits.
2008) into action.
Quinn & When leaders create a (1) Internal/external focus; and Less direct impact on
Rohrbaugh’s balance in key values or (2) Organizational preference for talent management
Competing Values come to consensus on structure.
Framework (1983) how these values are
represented in the org.
Malcolm Baldrige The organization is rated as (1) Leadership; (2)Strategic Includes dimension on
National Quality having made accumulated planning; (3) Customer & market workforce
Award (2009) progress in each of the focus; (4) Measurement, analysis,
criteria categories. & knowledge management; (5)
Workforce focus; (6) Process
management; and (7) Results.
Strategic Talent When each model (1) Vision; (2) Vigor; (3) Takes into account talent
Management component is optimized. Capability; (4) Architecture; (5) management implications
Architect Action; (6) Enterprise Alignment; and solutions for every
and (7) Enterprise Agility. dimension
and leader-centric. It directly shows that leaders drive the other
components of the organization to achieve effectiveness. Our model
also includes Enterprise Alignment and Enterprise Agility as core
dimensions to be assessed. The other models either measure these
variables indirectly as an output of the data analysis (as in enterprise
alignment) or fail to assess them all together (as in enterprise agility).
Another difference is the inclusion of the Vigor and Action dimensions.
11

...our model embeds research-
grounded dimensions within
a business-relevant machine
analogy.
Without adequate talent to
design, operate, and execute
the core business processes,
the business machine is
crippled
12
Theoretically, leaders can select the perfect business strategy and
build an organizational structure and capabilities to support this
strategy. However, the business will fail with poor execution and
implementation. Our OE framework also links each dimension
of the model with talent management practices, assessments,
and solutions. Such a linkage depicts a clear linkage between
talent management and organizational effectiveness. Finally, we
believe that our model is simple, straight-forward, and shows the
kinetic relationship among all the elements influencing OE. Many
models depict complex variables, multiple feedback loops, and
interrelationships that do not resonate with business leaders. Most
importantly, our model embeds research-grounded dimensions within
a business-relevant machine analogy.
Implications for the Practice of Talent Management
Thus far, we have investigated the business variables vital for
achieving organizational effectiveness. We presented our OE
model and defined its components. We also reviewed how our
OE framework relates to other popular models in the scholarly and
practitioner literature. Nevertheless, questions remain. For example,
how do talent management strategies and practices impact the
proposed OE Drivers and Enablers? How can talent be employed to
contribute to the Enterprise Alignment and Enterprise Agility? How
can organizational leaders use our framework to assess, diagnose,
and correct inefficiencies and problems in their companies? In this
section, we will provide specific implications of our OE framework on
talent management strategies and practices.
1. T alent Management is Central to the Success of the Entire
Business Machine
Based upon the research reviewed in this paper, it becomes clear
that talent impacts organizational effectiveness. In fact, much of the
literature conveys some aspect of talent as central to achieving OE.
Leadership is a factor present in nearly every model of OE, and it is
almost impossible to overstate its importance as a prime mover of
the business machine. However, leadership is not enough. Without
adequate talent to design, operate, and execute the core business
processes, the business machine is crippled. Organizations that
understand this point are likely to invest in and develop talent (Bassi &
McMurrer, 2008; Becker, Huselid, & Beatty, 2009).
Talent is critical to maintaining all of the components of effectiveness.
The facets of talent management impact the OE Drivers and Enablers
in different ways. Each Driver and Enabler has direct links with specific
talent management practices. See Figure 3.
Organizational How It is Powered by
Effectiveness Talent
Dimension
Vision Leaders set the vision to
define the company and its
direction.
Vigor Leaders foster the drive,
energy, and accountability
for moving the company
forward.
Capability Refers to competencies at
the company level: these
are the collective abilities,
which includes its talent mgt
system.
Architecture Organization design and
structure directly impact
and are affected by the
talent management system.
Includes org culture.
Action The workforce must be
engaged and productive,
and manager skills must be
honed in order for proper
execution of strategy.
Figure 3. Talent Implications
Gleaned from the Strategic
Talent Management Architect
Talent Management Systems
to Change for Optimal
Effectiveness
• Selection
• Training & development
• Succession planning
• Strategic alignment
• Sr. team effectiveness
• Coaching
• Performance management
• Rewards & compensation
• Org culture
• Onboarding
• Employee engagement
• Coaching
• Strategic alignment
• Capability assessment
• Competency modeling
• Recruitment & selection
• Training & development
• Rewards & compensation
• Strategic alignment
• Org culture
• Teams
• Employee engagement
• Competency modeling & job
profiling
• Communication
• Decision making
•M anagement training
& development
• Succession planning
• Employee engagement
• Rewards & compensation
Leadership Characteristics
Required
• Understanding the Business
• Making Complex Decisions
• Creating the New and
Different
• Focusing on the Bottom Line
• Communicating Effectively
• Creating the New and
Different
• Getting Work Done Through
Others
• Focusing on the Bottom Line
• Inspiring Others
• Making Tough People Calls
• Being Organizationally Savvy
• Managing Work Processes
• Understanding the Business
• Being Organizationally Savvy
• Communicating Effectively
• Managing Diverse
Relationships
•K
 eeping on Point
•G
 etting Organized
•G
 etting Work Done Through
Others
•M
 anaging Work Processes
•D
 ealing with Trouble
13
Figure 3. Talent Implications Gleaned from the Strategic Talent Management Architect
Organizational How It is Powered by Talent Management Systems Leadership Characteristics
Effectiveness Talent to Change for Optimal Required
Dimension Effectiveness
Alignment All of the OE model • Strategic alignment • Understanding the Business
dimensions must be • Org culture • Making Complex Decisions
aligned with each other •Dealing with Trouble
and the organization’s
environment. In turn,
the talent management
system must be aligned
with these dimensions and
environment.
Agility The organization must be • Learning agility • Making Complex Decisions
flexible within the system • Creating the New and
to changes internally and Different
externally. Likewise, the • Being Organizationally Savvy
talent management system • Demonstrating Personal
must be agile to anticipate Flexibility
and respond to these
changes.

2. Talent Management Strategies and Practices Must be Aligned

Alignment between OE Drivers
and Enablers and talent
management strategy and
practice is imperative.
Just as the parts of a machine need to be aligned in order to prevent
mechanical interference, stress, and (ultimately) failure, key business
components likewise must be aligned. The business strategy
must be aligned to the needs of the marketplace and competitive
realities. Organizational capabilities and business processes must be
integrated and aligned to support the strategy. Alignment between
OE Drivers and Enablers and talent management strategy and
practice is imperative. Without alignment, business processes are
likely to work at cross-purposes and create friction, heat, and noise
that result in organizational dysfunctions. The competent talent
management professional will understand all the key elements in the
business machine and how they operate together in order to craft
a talent management strategy that aligns with and supports the
elements.

3. T
 alent Management Strategies and Practices Also Must
Become Agile
Business conditions constantly change. The competitive landscape,
for instance, continually shifts with new entries and recent departures.
14
Laws and governmental regulations frequently change, requiring
organizations to modify their policies and procedures to remain in
compliance. Labor pools and wage rates vary due to economic
fluctuations. Resource availability moves with changes in global
demographics and trade laws. As a result, the business machine
must be adaptive and agile. Enterprise Agility, as represented
in our OE model, acts as a lubricant in the business machine
to enable it to turn faster, operate more smoothly, and function
more efficiently. Talent management practitioners should
consider ways to build agility and adaptability directly into their Talent management
talent processes. Special attention should be paid to recruiting, practitioners should consider
onboarding, competency development, incentive systems, and ways to build agility and
talent deployment systems. When these key talent management adaptability directly into their
practices are unencumbered by bureaucracy, rigid budgets, archaic talent processes
organizational structures, onerous policies, arcane communication
methods, and an inflexible staff, they can contribute significantly to
an organization’s effectiveness.

Conclusion
Talent management leaders and the HR community have a
responsibility to do more than hire, train, and pay employees.
Employees can significantly impact organizational effectiveness,
and it is incumbent on these professionals to become familiar
with all the elements that drive it. For maximum impact, talent
management and HR leaders must cultivate a broad perspective
of the competitive landscape, develop a deep knowledge of the
business, and become credible activists in the organization. They
should become intimately familiar with the elements that impact
OE. The Strategic Talent Management Architect can help them do
that.

At one time, individuals who had difficulty supervising employees

often were funneled into HR roles. At that time, the HR function
was called the Personnel Department and most of the duties
revolved around simply ensuring vacations were accrued,
safety measures were in place, and managers had plenty of job
candidates to interview. The understanding and appreciation for
the importance of an organization’s human capital was extremely
limited. We must remember that at one time employees were
referred to as “hired hands!” The cliché was when employees
punched in their brains checked out.
15

We believe the most effective
leaders of talent management
today are those individuals
that can combine the art with
the science of talent to drive
organizational effectiveness.
16
Nowadays, there is a rapidly evolving science of talent management
which is supported by a wealth of theoretical and empirical research.
Tactical tools are giving way to strategic processes. Disciplines
such as industrial/organizational psychology, human resource
management, and organizational sociology are contributing greatly
to our understanding of business and its management. Theoretical
frameworks describing environmental contingencies, individual
characteristics, and business conditions have been developed
to assist our comprehension of how to maximize outcomes and
satisfy the numerous organizational stakeholders. Leadership
competency models have been carefully formulated to enhance talent
management processes that drive financial performance (e.g., Bassi
& McMurrer, 2008, Lombardo & Eichinger, 2001). Talent management
is augmented by art as well as by science. The contextual
ambiguity present in organizations should permit talent management
practitioners to exhibit entrepreneurial creativity and innovation,
developing systems which are agile, adaptable, and aligned with the
strategic needs of the organization. We believe the most effective
leaders of talent management today are those individuals who can
combine the art with the science of talent to drive organizational
effectiveness.
The model we proposed in this paper is based on research. Each
component is directly linked to the finding(s) of a scientific study or
series of studies. The interactive and dynamic nature of the model
should enable business leaders to more effectively understand their
organizations and improve their functioning. A key facet of our OE
model is the importance of talent. We posit that talent is one of
the most critical factors in achieving organizational effectiveness.
The business machine is complex and constantly changing. We
believe that the Strategic Talent Management Architect provides
a comprehensive framework for business leaders, as well as
academicians, to systematically investigate the internal and external
factors influencing the performance of organizations.
References Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A
framework of sustainable supply chain
Baldrige National Quality Program. (2009).
management: Moving toward new theory.
Criteria for performance excellence. Retrieved
International Journal of Physical Distribution &
from http://www.quality.nist.gov.
Logistics Management, 38(5), 360-387.
Bassi, L. J., & McMurrer, D. P. (2008). Toward
Chandler, A. (1968). Strategy and structure.
a human capital measurement methodology.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10,
863-888. Clardy, A. (2007). Strategy, core competencies
and human resource development. Human
Batra, S. (2006). Impact of information
Resource Development International, 10(3), 339-
technology on organizational effectiveness:
349.
A conceptual framework incorporating
organizational flexibility. Global Journal of Flexible Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York:
Systems Management, 7(1 & 2), 15-25. HarperCollins.
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Beatty, R. W. Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1997). Built to last.
(2009). The differentiated workforce: Transforming New York: HarperCollins.
talent into strategic impact. Boston: Harvard
Connolly, T., Conlon, E. J., & Deutsch, S. J.
Business Press.
(1980). Organizational effectiveness: A multiple-
Birdi, K., Clegg, C., Patterson, M., Robinson, constituency approach. The Academy of
A., Stride, C. B., Wall, T. D., Wood, S. J. (2008). Management Review, 5, 211-217.
The impact of human resource and operational
Crossan, M., Vera, D., & Nanjad, L. (2008).
management practices on company productivity:
Transcendent leadership: Strategic leadership in
A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 61,
dynamic environments. Leadership Quarterly, 19,
467-501.
569-581.
Bossidy, L., & Charan, R. (2002). Execution:
Crotts, J. C., & Ford, R. C. (2008). Achieving
The discipline of getting things done. New York:
service excellence by design: the organizational
Crown Business.
alignment audit. Business Communication
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Quarterly, 233-240.
Talentship, talent segmentation, and
Dove, R. (1999). Agility = Knowledge
sustainability: A new HR decision science
management + response ability. Automotive
paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human
Manufacturing & Production, 111(3), 16-17.
Resource Management, 44, 129-136.
Dressler, S. (2004). Strategy, organization and
Breu, K., Hemingway, C. J., Strathern, M., &
performance management: From basics to best
Bridger, D. (2001). Workforce agility: The new
practices. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers.
employee strategy for the knowledge economy.
Journal of Information Technology, 17, 21-31. Echols, M. E. (2008). Value creation with human
capital investment. Chief Learning Officer, 7(9),
Bruch, H., Gerber, P., & Maier, V. (2005). Strategic
46-51.
change decisions: Doing the right change right.
Journal of Change Management, 5(1), 97-107. Eichinger, R. W., Ruyle, K. E., & Ulrich, D.
O. (2007). FYI for Strategic Effectiveness™.
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas,
Minneapolis: Lominger International: A Korn/Ferry
E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review
Company.
and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18,
606-632.
17
 Flamholtz, E. G., & Kurland, S. (2005). Strategic
organizational development, infrastructure, and
financial performance: An empirical investigation.
Internal Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,
3(2), 117-142.
Grantham, C. E., Ware, J. P., & Williamson, C.
(2007). Corporate agility: A revolutionary new
model for competing in a flat world. New York:
AMACOM.
Higgins, J. M. (2005). The eight ‘S’s of
successful strategy execution. Journal of Change
Management, 5(1), 3-13.
Hugos, M. H. (2009). Business agility:
Sustainable prosperity in a relentlessly
competitive world. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., Griffith, D. A.,
Chabowski, B. R., Hamman, M. K., Johnson-
Dykes, B., Pollitte, W. A., & Cavusgil, S. T.
(2008). An assessment of the measurement of
performance in international business research.
Journal of International Business Studies, 39,
1064-1080.
Iman, N., & Hartono, J. (2007). Strategic
alignment impacts on organizational performance
in Indonesian banking industry. Gadjah Mada
International Journal of Business, 9(2), 253-272.
Kaliprasad, M. (2006). The human factor II:
Creating a high performance culture in an
organization. Cost Engineering, 48(6), 27-34.
Kanji, G. K. (2008). Leadership is prime: How do
you measure leadership excellence? Total Quality
Management, 19, 417-427.
Kaplan, R. S. (2005). How the balanced
scorecard complements the McKinsey 7-S
model. Strategy & Leadership, 33(3), 41-46.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2007). Using the
Balanced Scorecard as a strategic management
system. Harvard Business Review, 85, 150-161.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social
psychology of organizations. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
18
Kerr, S., & Landauer, S. (2004). Using stretch
goals to promote organization effectiveness and
personal growth: General Electric and Goldman
Sachs. Academy of Management Executive, 18,
134-138.
Khadem, R. (2008). Total alignment: Vision,
strategy, and execution. Leadership Excellence,
25(4), 20.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2009). How
strategy shapes structure. Harvard Business
Review, 87, 72-80.
Lawler, E. E., III. (2003). Treat people right: How
organizations and individuals can propel each
other into a virtuous spiral of success. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E. E., III. (2008). Talent: Making people
your competitive advantage. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Lawler, E. E., III, & Worley, C. G. (2006). Built to
change: How to achieve sustained organizational
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lichtenstein, S., & Dade, P. (2007). The
shareholder value chain: Values, vision and
shareholder value creation. Journal of General
Management, 33(1), 15-31.
Lo, C.-M., & Wang, J.-R. (2007). The
relationships between defender and prospector
business strategies and organizational
performance in two different industries.
International Journal of Management, 24, 174-
183.
Mankins, M. C., & Steele, R. (2005). Turning
great strategy into great performance. Harvard
Business Review, July-August, 64-72.
McCann, J. (2004). Organizational effectiveness:
Changing concepts for changing environments.
HR. Human Resource Planning, 27(1), 42-50.
Montgomery, C. A. (2008). Putting leadership
back into strategy. Harvard Business Review,
January, 54-60.
Nadler, D. A. (1998). Champions of change. San Shafer, R. A., Dyer, L., Kilty, J., Amos, J., &
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Ericksen, J. (2001). Crafting a human resource
strategy to foster organizational agility: A case
Neilson, G. L., Martin, K. L., & Powers, E. (2008).
study. Human Resource Management, 40, 197-
The secrets to successful strategy execution.
211.
Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 60-70.
Smith, K. G., Ferrier, W. J., & Grimm, C. M.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search
(2001). King of the hill: Dethroning the industry
of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run
leader. Academy of Management Executive,
companies. New York: Warner Books.
15(2), 59-70.
Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces
Tirpak, T. M., Miller, R., Schwartz, L., & Kashdan,
that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review,
D. (2006). R&D structure in a changing world.
86, 78-93.
Industrial Research Institute, Inc., 49(5), 19-26.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial
Ulrich, D., & Brockbank, W. (2005). The HR value
model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a
proposition. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
competing values approach to organizational
analysis. Management Science, 29, 363-377. Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Johnson, D.,
& Younger, J. (2007). Human resource
Raisch, S. (2008). Balanced structures: Designing
competencies: Responding to increased
organizations for profitable growth. Long Range
expectations. Employment Relations Today,
Planning, 41, 483-508.
34(3), 1-12.
Robertson, P. J., Roberts, D. R., & Porras, J.
Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2004). Capitalizing
I. (1993). Dynamics of planned organizational
on capabilities. Harvard Business Review, 82,
change: Assessing empirical support for a
119-127.
theoretical model. The Academy of Management
Journal, 36, 619-634. Wang, D.-S., & Shyu, C.-L. (2008). Will the
strategic fit between business and HRM strategy
Sadri, G., & Lees, B. (2001). Developing
influence HRM effectiveness and organizational
corporate culture as a competitive advantage.
performance? International Journal of Manpower,
The Journal of Management Development, 20,
29, 92-110.
853-859.
Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2005). Why integrating
Scholey, C. (2007). Alignment: Has your
the leading and managing roles is essential
organization got it? CMA Management, 81(6),
for organizational effectiveness. Organizational
16-18.
Dynamics, 34, 361-375.
Seo, D., & La Paz, A. I. (2008). Exploring the
Zeleny, M. (2008). Strategy and strategic action
darkside of IS in achieving organizational agility.
in the global era: Overcoming the knowing-
Communications of the ACM, 51, 136-139.
doing gap. International Journal of Technology
Management, 43(1-3), 64-75.

19
 Kim E. Ruyle, Ph.D. is the Vice President Product
Development with Korn/Ferry Leadership and Talent
Consulting, based in Minneapolis.
Gabriella D. Kilby, MBA., is a Principal with
Korn/Ferry Leadership and Talent Consulting, based
in Toronto.

Ken De Meuse, Ph.D. is the Associate Vice President

of Research with Korn/Ferry Leadership and Talent
Consulting, based in Minneapolis.
Kevin J. Mlodzik, M.S., is an Intellectual Property
Research Assistant with Korn/Ferry Leadership and
Talent Consulting, based in Minneapolis.

About The Korn/Ferry Institute

The Korn/Ferry Institute was founded to serve
as a premier global voice on a range of talent
management and leadership issues. The
Institute commissions, originates and publishes
groundbreaking research utilizing Korn/Ferry’s
unparalleled expertise in executive recruitment and
talent development combined with its preeminent
behavioral research library. The Institute is dedicated
to improving the state of global human capital for
businesses of all sizes around the world.

About Korn/Ferry International

Korn/Ferry International, with more than 90 offices
in 39 countries, is a premier global provider of talent
management solutions. Based in Los Angeles, the
firm delivers an array of solutions that help clients
to identify, deploy, develop, retain and reward their
talent.

For more information on the Korn/Ferry International

family of companies, visit www.kornferry.com.

© Copyright 2009 The Korn/Ferry Institute

20