75 Talent Management The New Business Imperative

www.hbr.org

Talent Management for the Twenty-First Century

by Peter Cappelli

Every talent management process in use today was developed half a century ago. It’s time for a new model.

Reprint R0803E

Talent Management for the Twenty-First Century

by Peter Cappelli

harvard business review • march 2008 page 1

CO

PYR

IGH

T ©

200

8 H

ARVA

RD

BU

SIN

ESS

SCH

OO

L P

UBL

ISH

ING

CO

RP

OR

ATI

ON

. ALL

RIG

HTS

RES

ERVE

D.

Every talent management process in use today was developed half a century ago. It’s time for a new model.

Failures in talent management are an ongo-ing source of pain for executives in modernorganizations. Over the past generation, talentmanagement practices, especially in theUnited States, have by and large been dysfunc-tional, leading corporations to lurch fromsurpluses of talent to shortfalls to surplusesand back again.

At its heart, talent management is simply amatter of anticipating the need for humancapital and then setting out a plan to meet it.Current responses to this challenge largelyfall into two distinct—and equally ineffective—camps. The first, and by far the most com-mon, is to do nothing: anticipate no needsat all; make no plans for addressing them(rendering the term “talent management”meaningless). This reactive approach reliesoverwhelmingly on outside hiring and has fal-tered now that the surplus of managementtalent has eroded. The second, common onlyamong large, older companies, relies on com-plex and bureaucratic models from the 1950sfor forecasting and succession planning—

legacy systems that grew up in an era whenbusiness was highly predictable and that failnow because they are inaccurate and costly ina more volatile environment.

It’s time for a fundamentally new approachto talent management that takes into accountthe great uncertainty businesses face today.Fortunately, companies already have such amodel, one that has been well honed overdecades to anticipate and meet demand inuncertain environments—supply chain man-agement. By borrowing lessons from opera-tions and supply chain research, firms canforge a new model of talent management bet-ter suited to today’s realities. Before gettinginto the details, let’s look at the context inwhich talent management has evolved overthe past few decades and its current state.

How We Got Here

Internal development was the norm back inthe 1950s, and every management develop-ment practice that seems novel today wascommonplace in those years—from executive

T a l e n t M a n a ge m e n t fo r t h e T w e n t y- F i rst C e n t u r y


coaching to 360-degree feedback to job rota-tion to high-potential programs.

Except at a few very large firms, internaltalent development collapsed in the 1970sbecause it could not address the increasinguncertainties of the marketplace. Businessforecasting had failed to predict the economicdownturn in that decade, and talent pipelinescontinued to churn under outdated assump-tions of growth. The excess supply of manag-ers, combined with no-layoff policies forwhite-collar workers, fed corporate bloat. Thesteep recession of the early 1980s then led towhite-collar layoffs and the demise of lifetimeemployment, as restructuring cut layers ofhierarchy and eliminated many practices andstaffs that developed talent. After all, if thepriority was to cut positions, particularly inmiddle management, why maintain the pro-grams designed to fill the ranks?

The older companies like PepsiCo and GEthat still invested in development becameknown as “academy companies”: breedinggrounds for talent simply by maintainingsome of the practices that nearly all corpo-rations had followed in the past. A numberof such companies managed to ride out therestructurings of the 1980s with their pro-grams intact only to succumb to cost-cuttingpressures later on.

The problems faced by Unilever’s Indianoperations after 2000 are a case in point.Known as a model employer and talent devel-oper since the 1950s, the organization sud-denly found itself top-heavy and stuck whenbusiness declined after the 2001 recession. Itswell-oiled pipeline saddled the company with1,400 well-trained managers in 2004, up 27%from 2000, despite the fact that the demandfor managers had fallen. Unilever’s implicitpromise to avoid layoffs meant the companyhad to find places for them in its other inter-national operations or buy them out.

The alternative to traditional development,outside hiring, worked like a charm throughthe early 1990s, in large measure becauseorganizations were drawing on the big poolof laid-off talent. As the economy continuedto grow, however, companies increasinglyrecruited talent away from their competi-tors, creating retention problems. Watchingthe fruits of their labors walk out the door,employers backed even further away frominvestments in development. I remember a

conversation with a CEO in the medical deviceindustry about a management developmentprogram proposed by his head of human re-sources. The CEO dismissed the proposal bysaying, “Why should we develop people whenour competitors are willing to do it for us?”By the mid-1990s, virtually every major cor-poration asserted the goal of getting betterat recruiting talent away from competitorswhile also getting better at retaining its owntalent—a hopeful dream at the individuallevel, an impossibility in the aggregate.

Outside hiring hit its inevitable limit by theend of the 1990s, after the longest economicexpansion in U.S. history absorbed the supplyof available talent. Companies found theywere attracting experienced candidates andlosing experienced employees to competitorsat the same rate. Outside searches became in-creasingly expensive, particularly when theyinvolved headhunters, and the newcomersblocked prospects for internal promotions, ag-gravating retention problems. The challengeof attracting and retaining the right peoplewent to the very top of the list of executives’business concerns, where it remains today.

The good news is that most companies arefacing the challenge with a pretty clean slate:Little in the way of talent management is actu-ally going on in them. One recent study, forexample, reports that two-thirds of U.S. em-ployers are doing no workforce planning ofany kind. The bad news is that the advice com-panies are getting is to return to the practicesof the 1950s and create long-term successionplans that attempt to map out careers yearsinto the future—even though the stable busi-ness environment and talent pipelines inwhich such practices were born no longer exist.

That simply won’t work. Traditional ap-proaches to succession planning assume amultiyear development process, yet duringthat period, strategies, org charts, and man-agement teams will certainly change, and thegroomed successors may well leave anyway.When an important vacancy occurs, it’s notunusual for companies to conclude that thecandidates identified by the succession planno longer meet the needs of the job, and theylook outside. Such an outcome is worse in sev-eral ways than having no plan. First, the can-didates feel betrayed—succession plans createan implicit promise. Second, investments indeveloping these candidates are essentially

Peter Cappelli

([email protected]) is the George W. Taylor Professor of Management and the director of the Center for Human Re-sources at the University of Pennsylva-nia’s Wharton School in Philadelphia. He is the author of several HBR articles and the book Talent on Demand, forth-coming from Harvard Business School Press, which further develops the ideas presented in this article.



wasted. Third, most companies now have toupdate their succession plans every year asjobs change and individuals leave, wastingtremendous amounts of time and energy. As apractical matter, how useful is a “plan” if ithas to be changed every year?

Talent management is not an end in itself.It is not about developing employees or creat-ing succession plans, nor is it about achievingspecific turnover rates or any other tacticaloutcome. It exists to support the organiza-tion’s overall objectives, which in business es-sentially amount to making money. Makingmoney requires an understanding of the costsas well as the benefits associated with talentmanagement choices. The costs inherent tothe organization-man development modelwere largely irrelevant in the 1950s because,in an era of lifetime employment and a cul-ture in which job-hopping was considered asign of failure, companies that did not de-velop talent in-house would not have any atall. Development practices, such as rotationaljob assignments, were so deeply embeddedthat their costs were rarely questioned(though internal accounting systems wereso poor that it would have been difficult toassess the costs in any case).

That’s no longer true. Today’s rapid-firechanges in customers’ demands and compet-itors’ offerings, executive turnover that caneasily run to 10%, and increased pressure toshow a financial return for every set of busi-ness practices make the develop-from-withinapproach too slow and risky. And yet thehire-from-without models are too expensiveand disruptive to the organization.

A New Way to Think About Talent M anagement

Unlike talent development, models of supplychain management have improved radicallysince the 1950s. No longer do companies ownhuge warehouses where they stockpile thecomponents needed to assemble years’ worthof products they can sell with confidence be-cause competition is muted and demand emi-nently predictable. Since the 1980s, companieshave instituted, and continually refined, just-in-time manufacturing processes and othersupply chain innovations that allow them toanticipate shifts in demand and adapt prod-ucts ever more accurately and quickly. What Iam proposing is something akin to just-in-time

manufacturing for the development realm: atalent-on-demand framework. If you considerfor a moment, you will see how suited thismodel might be to talent development.

Forecasting product demand is comparableto forecasting talent needs; estimating thecheapest and fastest ways to manufactureproducts is the equivalent of cost-effectivelydeveloping talent; outsourcing certain aspectsof manufacturing processes is like hiringoutside; ensuring timely delivery relates toplanning for succession events. The issues andchallenges in managing an internal talentpipeline—how employees advance throughdevelopment jobs and experiences—areremarkably similar to how products movethrough a supply chain: reducing bottle-necks that block advancement, speeding upprocessing time, improving forecasts to avoidmismatches.

The most innovative approaches to manag-ing talent use four particular principles drawnfrom operations and supply chain manage-ment. Two of them address uncertainty onthe demand side: how to balance make-versus-buy decisions and how to reduce the risks inforecasting the demand for talent. The othertwo address uncertainty on the supply side:how to improve the return on investment indevelopment efforts and how to protect thatinvestment by generating internal opportuni-ties that encourage newly trained managersto stick with the firm.

Principle 1: M ake

and

Buy to M anage Risk

Just as a lack of parts was the major concern ofmidcentury manufacturers, a shortfall of tal-ent was the greatest concern of traditionalmanagement development systems of the1950s and 1960s, when all leaders had to behomegrown. If a company did not produceenough skilled project managers, it had topush inexperienced people into new roles orgive up on projects and forgo their revenue.Though forecasting was easier than it is today,it wasn’t perfect, so the only way to avoid ashortfall was to deliberately overshoot talentdemand projections. If the process producedan excess of talent, it was relatively easy topark people on a bench, just as one might putspare parts in a warehouse, until opportuni-ties became available. It may sound absurd tosuggest that an organization would maintain

What I am proposing is something akin to just-in-time manufacturing for the development realm: a talent-on-demand framework.



the equivalent of a human-capital supplycloset, but that was extremely common in theorganization-man period.

Today, a deep bench of talent has becomeexpensive inventory. What’s more, it’s inven-tory that can walk out the door. Ambitious ex-ecutives don’t want to, and don’t have to, sit onthe bench. Worse, studies by the consultingfirm Watson Wyatt show that people who haverecently received training are the most likely todecamp, as they leave for opportunities tomake better use of those new skills.

It still makes sense to develop talent inter-nally where we can because it is cheaper andless disruptive. But outside hiring can befaster and more responsive. So an optimal ap-

proach would be to use a combination of thetwo. The challenge is to figure out how muchof each to use.

To begin, we should give up on the ideathat we can predict talent demand with cer-tainty and instead own up to the fact that ourforecasts, especially the long-range ones, willalmost never be perfect. With the error rateon a one-year forecast of demand for an indi-vidual product hovering around 33%, andwith nonstop organizational restructuringsand changes in corporate strategy, the ideathat we can accurately predict talent demandfor an entire company several years out is amyth. Leading corporations like Capital Oneand Dow Chemical have abandoned long-term talent forecasts and moved toward short-term simulations: Operating executives givetalent planners their best guess as to whatbusiness demands will be over the next fewyears; the planners use sophisticated simula-tion software to tell them what that will re-quire in terms of new talent. Then they repeatthe process with different assumptions to geta sense of how robust the talent predictionsare. The executives often decide to adjusttheir business plans if the associated talentrequirements are too great.

Operations managers know that an integralpart of managing demand uncertainty is un-derstanding the costs involved in over- orunderestimation. But what are the costs ofdeveloping too much talent versus too little?Traditionally, workforce planners have implic-itly assumed that both the costs and the riskseven out: that is, if we forecast we’ll need 100computer programmers in our division nextyear and we end up with 10 too many or 10 toofew, the downsides are the same either way.

In practice, however, that’s rarely the case.And, contrary to the situation in the 1950s,the risks of overshooting are greater thanthose of undershooting, now that workers canleave so easily. If we undershoot, we can al-ways hire on the outside market to make upthe difference. The cost per hire will begreater, and so will the uncertainty about em-ployees’ abilities, but those costs pale in com-parison to retention costs. So, given that thebig costs are from overshooting, we will wantto develop fewer than 100 programmers andexpect to fall somewhat short, hiring on theoutside market to make up the difference. Ifwe think our estimate of 100 is reasonably

Operations Principles Applied to Talent Management

A supp ly chain perspect ive on ta lent management rel ies on four princ ip les, two that address the risks in est imating demand and two that address the un-certainty of supp ly.

Principle 1: M ake

and

Buy to M anage Risk

A deep bench of ta lent is expensive, so companies shou ld undershoot their est imates of what wi ll be needed and p lan to hire from outside to make up for any shortfa ll. Some posi t ions may be easier to fi ll from outside than oth-ers, so firms shou ld be thoughtfu l about where they put prec ious resources in development: Ta lent management is an investment, not an entit lement.

Principle 2: Adapt to the Uncertainty in Talent Demand

Uncertainty in demand is a given , and smart companies find ways to adapt to it. One approach is to break up develop-ment programs into shorter units: Rather than put management trainees through a three-year func t iona l pro-gram , for instance, bring emp loyees from a l l the func t ions together in an 18-month course that teaches genera l management sk i lls, and then send them back to their func t ions to spe-

c ia l ize. Another option is to create an organization-wide ta lent pool that can be a llocated among business units as the need arises.

Principle 3: Improve the Return on Investment in Developing Employees

One way to improve the payoff is to get emp loyees to share in the costs of deve lopment . That m ight mean ask-ing them to take on addit iona l stretch assignments on a vo lunteer basis. An-other approach is to maintain re lation-ships with former emp loyees in the hope that they may return someday, br inging back your investment in their sk i l ls.

Principle 4: Preserve the Investment by Balancing Employee-Employer Interests

Arguably, the main reason good em-p loyees leave an organization is that they find better opportunities else-where. This makes ta lent development a perishable commodity. The key to preserving your investment in develop-ment efforts as long as possible is to ba lance the interests of emp loyees and emp loyer by having them share in ad-vancement dec isions.



accurate, then perhaps we will want to de-velop only 90 internally, just to make sure wedon’t overshoot actual demand, and thenplan to hire about 10. If we think our estimateis closer to a guess, we will want to developfewer, say 60 or so, and plan on hiring therest outside.

Assessing the trade-offs between makingand buying include an educated estimation ofthe following:

• How long will you need the talent? Thelonger the talent is needed, the easier it is tomake investments in internal developmentpay off.

• How accurate is your forecast of thelength of time you will need the talent? Theless certainty about the forecast, the greaterthe risk and cost of internal development—and the greater the appeal of outside hires.

• Is there a hierarchy of skills and jobs thatcan make it possible for candidates who do nothave the requisite competencies to learn themon the job, without resorting to specialized de-velopment roles or other costly investments?This is particularly likely in functional areas.The more it is so, the easier it will be to de-velop talent internally.

• How important is it to maintain the orga-nization’s current culture? Especially at thesenior level, outside hires introduce differentnorms and values, changing the culture. If it isimportant to change the culture, then outsidehiring will do that, though sometimes in un-predictable ways.

The answers to these questions may verywell be different for different functional areasand jobs within the same company. For in-stance, lower-level jobs may be easily andcheaply filled by outsiders because the re-quired competencies are readily available,making the costs of undershooting demandrelatively modest. For more highly skilledjobs, the costs of undershooting are muchhigher—requiring the firm to pay for an out-side search, a market premium, and perhapsalso the costs related to integrating thenew hires and absorbing associated risks,such as misfits.

Principle 2: Adapt to the Uncertainty in Talent Demand

If you buy all of your components in bulk andstore them away in the warehouse, you areprobably buying enough material to produce

years of product and therefore have to forecastdemand years in advance. But if you bring insmall batches of components more often, youdon’t have to predict demand so far out. Thesame principle can be applied to shorteningthe time horizon for talent forecasts in someinteresting, and surprisingly simple, ways.

Consider the problem of bringing a newclass of candidates into an organization. Atcompanies that hire directly out of college,the entire pool of candidates comes in all atonce, typically in June. Let’s assume they gothrough an orientation, spend some time intraining classes, and then move into develop-mental roles. If the new cohort has 100 peo-ple, then the organization has to find 100developmental roles all at once, which can bea challenge for a company under pressure,say, to cut costs or restructure.

But in fact many college graduates don’twant to go directly to work after graduation.It’s not that difficult to split the new group inhalf, taking 50 in June and the other 50 inSeptember. Now the program only needs tofind 50 roles in June and rotate the new hiresthrough them in three months. The June cohortsteps out of those roles when the Septembercohort steps into them. Then the organizationneed find only 50 permanent assignments inSeptember for the June hires. More impor-tant, having smaller groups of candidatescoming through more frequently means thatforecasts of demand for these individuals canbe made over shorter periods throughouttheir careers. Not only will those estimatesbe more accurate but it will be possible tobetter coordinate the first developmental as-signments with subsequent assignments—for instance, from test engineer to engineerto senior engineer to lead engineer.

A different way to take advantage ofshorter, more responsive forecasts would beto break up a long training program into dis-crete parts, each with its own forecast. A goodplace to start would be with the functionallybased internal development programs thatsome companies still offer. These programsoften address common subjects, such as gen-eral management or interpersonal skills,along with function-specific material. Thereis no reason that employees in all the func-tions couldn’t go through the general trainingtogether and then specialize. What used tobe a three-year functional program could



become two 18-month courses. After everyonecompleted the first course, the organizationcould reforecast the demand for each func-tional area and allocate the candidates ac-cordingly. Because the functional programswould be half as long, each forecast wouldonly have to go out half as far and would becorrespondingly more accurate. An addedadvantage is that teaching everyone the gen-eral skills together reduces redundancy intraining investments.

Another risk reduction strategy that talentmanagers can borrow from supply chainmanagers is an application of the principle ofportfolios. In finance, the problem with hold-ing only one asset is that its value can fluctu-ate a great deal, and one’s wealth varies a lotas a result, so investment advisers remind usto hold several stocks in the same portfolio.Similarly, in supply chain management it canbe risky to rely on just one supplier.

For a talent-management application, con-sider the situation in many large and espe-cially decentralized organizations where eachdivision is accountable for its own profit andloss, and each maintains its own developmentprograms. The odds that any one division willprepare the right number of managers tomeet actual demand are very poor. Some willend up with a surplus, others a shortfall. If,however, all of these separate programs wereconsolidated into a single program, the unan-ticipated demand in one part of the companyand an unanticipated shortfall in anotherwould simply cancel out, just as a stockportfolio reduces the volatility of holding in-dividual stocks. Given this, as well as the du-plication of tasks and infrastructure requiredin decentralized programs, it is a mysterywhy large organizations continue to operatedecentralized development programs. Somecompanies are in fact creating talent poolsthat span divisions, developing employeeswith broad and general competencies thatcould be applied to a range of jobs. The fitmay be less than perfect, but these firms arefinding that a little just-in-time training andcoaching can help close any gaps.

Principle 3: Improve the Return on Investment in Developing Employees

When internal development was the onlyway to produce management talent, compa-

nies might have been forgiven for paying lessattention than they should have to its costs.They may even have been right to considertheir expensive development programs as anunavoidable cost of doing business. But thesame dynamics that are making today’s talentpool less loyal are presenting opportunitiesfor companies to lower the costs of trainingemployees and thereby improve the return ontheir investment of development dollars, asthey might from any R&D effort.

Perhaps the most novel approach to thischallenge is to get employees to share in thecosts. Since they can cash in on their experi-ence on the open market, employees are themain beneficiaries of their development, soit’s reasonable to ask them to contribute. Inthe United States, legislation prevents hourlyworkers from having to share in the costs ofany training required for their current job.There are no restrictions, however, even forhourly workers, on contributing to the costs ofdevelopmental experiences that help prepareemployees for future roles.

People might share the costs by taking onlearning projects voluntarily, which meansdoing them in addition to their normal work.Assuming that the candidates are more or lesscontributing their usual amount to their regu-lar job and their pay hasn’t increased, they areessentially doing these development projectsfor free, no small investment on their part.Pittsburgh-based PNC Financial Services isone of several companies that now offerpromising employees the opportunity to vol-unteer for projects done with the leadershipteam, sometimes restricting them to onesoutside their current functional area. Theyget access to company leaders, a broadeningexperience, and good professional contacts,all of which will surely help them later. Butthey pay for it, with their valuable time.

Employers have been more inclined to ex-periment with ways to improve the payofffrom their development investments by re-taining employees longer, or at least for somepredictable period. About 20% of U.S. employ-ers ask employees who are about to receivetraining or development experiences to sign acontract specifying that if they leave the busi-ness before a certain time, they will have topay back the cost. As in the market for carboncredits, this has the effect of putting a mone-tary value on a previously unaccounted for



cost. This practice is especially common incountries like Singapore and Malaysia: Em-ployees often leave anyway, but typically thenew employer pays off the old one.

A more interesting practice is to attempt tohang on to employees even after they leave,making relatively small investments in main-taining ties. Deloitte, for example, informsqualified former employees of importantdevelopments in the firm and pays the costof keeping their accounting credentials up-to-date. Should these individuals want to switchjobs again, they may well look to the placewhere they still have ties: Deloitte. And be-cause their skills and company knowledgeare current, they will be ready to contributeright away.

Principle 4: Preserve the Investment by Balancing Employee-Employer Interests

The downside of talent portability, of course,is that it makes the fruits of managementdevelopment perishable in a way they neverwere in the heyday of the internal develop-ment model. It used to be that managers andexecutives made career decisions for em-ployees, mating individuals and jobs. In theorganization-man period, the company woulddecide which candidates were ready for whichexperience, in order to meet the longer-termtalent needs of the organization. Employeeshad little or no choice: Refusing to take a newposition was a career-ending move.

Today, of course, employees can pick upand leave if they don’t get the jobs they wantinside—and the most talented among themhave the most freedom to do so. In an effortto improve retention, most companies—80% in a recent survey by applicant-trackingcompany Taleo—have moved away fromthe chess-master model to internal job boardsthat make it easy for employees to apply foropenings and so change jobs within the or-ganization. Dow Chemical, for example, cutits turnover rate in half when it moved itsvacancies to such internal boards.

These arrangements have effectively turnedthe problem of career management over toemployees. As a result,employers have muchless control over their internal talent. Employ-ees’ choices may not align with the interestsof the employer, and internal conflicts areincreasing because half of the employers in

the U.S. no longer require that employeesseek permission from their supervisors tomove to new positions.

So it has become imperative for companiesto find more effective ways to preserve theirmanagement development investment. Thekey is to negotiate solutions that balance theinterests of all parties. McKinsey’s arrange-ment for associates relies not only on howthey rank their preferences for projectsposted online but also on how the principalsrunning the projects rank the associates. Thefinal decision allocating resources is madeby a senior partner who tries to honor thepreferences of both sides while choosing theassignment that will best develop the skill setof each associate. Bear, Stearns establishedan office of mediation, which negotiates in-ternal disputes between managers when anemployee wants to move from one job toanother in the firm.

• • •

The talent problems of employers, employ-ees, and the broader society are intertwined.Employers want the skills they need whenthey need them, delivered in a manner theycan afford. Employees want prospects foradvancement and control over their careers.The societies in which they operate and theeconomy as a whole need higher levels ofskills—particularly deeper competencies inmanagement—which are best developedinside companies.

Those often-conflicting desires aren’t ad-dressed by existing development practices.The language and the frameworks of theorganization-man model persist despite thefact that few companies actually employ it;there simply aren’t any alternatives. Thelanguage comes from engineering and isrooted in the idea that we can achieve cer-tainty through planning—an outdated no-tion. But before an old paradigm can beoverthrown there must be an alternative,one that describes new challenges betterthan the old one can. If the language of theold paradigm was dominated by engineer-ing and planning, the language of the new,talent-on-demand framework is driven bymarkets and operations-based tools bettersuited to the challenges of uncertainty. Tal-ent on demand gives employers a way tomanage their talent needs and recoup invest-ments in development, a way to balance the

The language of the talent-on-demand framework is driven by operations-based tools better suited to the challenges of uncertainty.



interests of employees and employers, and away to increase the level of skills in society.

Reprint R0803E

To order, see the next pageor call 800-988-0886 or 617-783-7500or go to www.hbr.org

Further Reading

To Order

For

Harvard Business Review

reprints and subscriptions, call 800-988-0886 or 617-783-7500. Go to www.hbr.org

For customized and quantity orders of Harvard Business Review article reprints, call 617-783-7626, or [email protected]

page 9

The

Harvard Business Review

Paperback Series

Here are the landmark ideas—both contemporary and classic—that have established Harvard Business Review as required reading for businesspeople around the globe. Each paperback includes eight of the leading articles on a particular business topic. The series includes over thirty titles, including the following best-sellers:

Harvard Business Review on Brand Management

Product no. 1445

Harvard Business Review on Change

Product no. 8842

Harvard Business Review on Leadership

Product no. 8834

Harvard Business Review on Managing People

Product no. 9075

Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance

Product no. 8826

For a complete list of the

Harvard Business Review paperback series, go to www.hbr.org.

75 Talent Management The New Business Imperative

Documents