People Centricity case study

A Talent Target That Skips a Level Is a Wish

8talent areas scored on one 4-level scale
8peer organisations interviewed on the same scale
2levels between the strongest and the weakest talent area
5actions chosen where the gap was widest and mattered most

The situation

The question behind the question.

This organisation’s people strategy had promised proactive talent management, and its talent practices had grown one at a time: a performance cycle, a learning offer, a calibration pilot, a first list of critical positions. Nobody could yet say how mature they were together, how they compared with peers, or what to fix first. And the question arrived mid-restructuring, with a team and a budget under pressure.

As it was asked

“Help us define our talent management strategy.”

As we reframed it

Score where talent management stands on a scale nobody inside wrote, compare it with peers, set a target the organisation can reach, and choose the few actions that close the gaps that matter most.

How we worked

How the work unfolded.

01

Score today

We started with an outside scale, so the answer would not depend on who was asked. A published maturity model, 4 levels from basic to market-leading, scored 8 talent areas, from performance to careers and succession, and scored separately how well they worked as one system. 7 interviews and a focus group with the HR business partners who run the processes fed each score, and each owner agreed theirs. Overall: 1.5 of 4, with 2 full levels between performance and development, the strongest, and careers, the weakest.

02

Look sideways

Then the peers. 8 organisations, UN agencies, humanitarian bodies, global health partnerships, a research organisation and international associations, answered 10 to 15 targeted questions each. Every area showed where they sat on the same scale, next to the global benchmark behind the model, and what the most advanced did differently. Research on the cost of investing in talent, or divesting from it, framed the stakes.

03

Size the ambition

Then the target. An organisation usually needs 1 to 3 years to climb one level, and this one was restructuring. The area owners pushed back on 3 by the end of 2028; the target came down to 2.5, a rise they could absorb. Each area got its own target, 12-month priorities and priorities to 2028. Succession, for example, started from the critical positions already identified in the talent review, with no systematic succession process yet behind them.

04

Choose the few

Then the choice, made where the gap was widest in the areas that mattered most to the strategy. 5 actions came first, in order: build the frame, a talent management strategy of the organisation’s own and a governance framework for talent decisions, then fill it, with a leadership development programme, internal mobility and careers, and transparency on talent decisions. Each came with peer practices and resources, so the team could start without a new mandate.

The instrument

One level at a time

Score. Every area on a scale written outside the organisation, agreed with the person who owns it.

Compare. The same scale for peers, so a 2 here means what a 2 means elsewhere.

Climb. One level per area, sized to what the organisation can absorb, with the first 12 months spelled out.

Maturity is climbed one level at a time. A target that skips a level is a wish.

What moved

What changed, and what didn't.

2.5target maturity by the end of 2028, one level up from 1.5, sized to what the organisation could absorb
Evidence Decision taken Adopted in practice Measured impact
What moved

The talent leadership adopted the targets and the 5 actions as its plan: maturity from 1.5 to 2.5 by the end of 2028, area by area, starting with a talent management strategy of its own. The peer benchmark went back to the organisations that took part, and the client later asked for the model’s definitions to share with its team.

What didn't move

The future-state design, leadership workshop and implementation plan in the original scope were not run: the restructuring came first, and days moved to the talent review. Workforce planning, recruitment, onboarding and reward were outside the assessment, and the scores rested on interviews, not on a survey of managers.

What we'd say to a peer

Score your talent management on a scale someone else wrote, and compare it with peers on the same scale. Then set a target one level up, not two: maturity climbs a level every 1 to 3 years, and a restructuring is not the moment to promise more. Start with the few actions where the gap is widest and matters most.

Let's talk Discover People Centricity Read more cases
Method note:

Own approach in 4 steps; Bersin 4-level talent maturity model across 8 areas; 7 internal interviews and an HR business partner focus group; 8 peer interviews and global benchmark; targets to 2028; gap × importance prioritisation.

WeAreHuman@Work

One piece of evidence on sustainable work, every Sunday. Free, and one click to leave.

Get the weekly edition