Take simple systems that deal with employee file management or those processes mentioned above – I know of hundreds of organizations who currently use collaboration, content management, and business process management systems to support all employee (and talent) related processes.

The difficulty in part is that historically collaboration technologies and their adoption is driven from IT where as Talent Management is driven from HR. As these groups adopt each others platforms (or the technology stretches out using new features/capabilities like social) the boundary lines will diminish and you will see the convergence you, I and many others want to see happen.

Yes, and …

Most of the functional aspects of Talent Mgt that you have described above are derived from or related to job descriptions and org’nl ’structure’ that have yet to be substantively addressed in terms of the changes need to enable / support / reinforce a connected-and-collaborative work environment (yes, I know (or believe) you and your colleagues have done some thinking and / or work in this respect, but there’s many aspects of this ‘framework’ that offer significant potential for dissonance.

I also know this is a niggling point, but I’d prefer to grow, attract and celebrate the effective use of talent (and yes, I’d include a succession plan) rather than ‘manage’ it, in an increasingly difficult-to-predict world.

There are applications / web services coming along that will help in this regard, I believe.

What I’d like to see now are all the reasons why it won’t happen (the reality check).

This is because we are driven by a strong sense of practicality in their decision making processes. The content to wait to see how others are faring before committing to what could be a “passing fad”. In addition, we are comfortable with the application of new technology comprises about one-third of the total buying population.

On the other hand, late majority will make us wait until a technology becomes a standard before buying into it, wanting to see lots of support and tend to buy from well established enterprises. Finally, we are not so confident as the early majority with their ability to handle the new technology
that comprises about one-third of the total buying population.

Also, in his diagram, Figure 3.2, what is referring to when he mentions “controlling”? And how does that play out w.r.t. your point about collaboration?

I think he has written relatively often about collaboration (I am going to go check) and of course one of his main activities these days is collaborative coaching, at http://www.coachingourselves.com

Here, for example, is a 10-year old interview with Mintzberg that is mostly about collaboration and managing. I’d argue that the key points (in bold) are directly applicable to today’s context.

I’d have to re-read it, but from what I remember his 2004 book “Managers, not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development” also had a fair bit in it on the importance of developing managers able to work in / with collaboration.

So .. my assumption is that Mintzberg considers the form(s) of managing he is exploring in his latest book as having to adapt to the conditions that today are creating an increased (real & pragmatic) interest in collaboration and collaborative work / management practices.

But, good catch. Makes me think …

@Dawn – yes indeed, saw your post and remarked “Bingo!”. Nice work. Thanks for the great piece – well written.

#1 – agreed, Education 2.0 and the Long Tail, along with networks of learning is going to be a very important part

#2 – I believe it’s to collaborate with others in addition to designing the experiences him/herself (ie. a combo) that will help drive the panacea experience