One Page Talent Management

On this episode of The Chad & Cheese Podcast, we welcome Marc Effron—the guy who looked at HR’s bloated complexity, rolled his eyes, and wrote One Page Talent Management. Yes, one page. Shocking, we know.

📉 CEOs love to say “our people are our greatest asset.” Marc calls BS—unless “greatest” means “we forgot to invest in them, again.”

💰 Why don’t companies train their people anymore? Marc says it’s not about the money. It’s about zero accountability.

🧠 HR's obsession with 48-page competency models? Just insecure nerds trying to impress other insecure nerds, apparently.

💬 Plus: performance reviews, remote work, AI hype, why plumbers should earn more than liberal arts grads, and a well-placed jab at Joel’s “inside the business” habits.

Tune in for laughs, truth bombs, and a reality check for every HR pro still clinging to that sacred 200-page leadership binder.

📚 Book: One Page Talent Management🛒 Available on Amazon—because of course it is.

PODCAST TRANSCRIPTION

Joel Cheesman (00:30.542)

This is the Chad and Cheese podcast. I'm your cohost Joel Cheesman. Joined as always, Chad Sowash is in the house as we welcome Mark Effron, president of the Talent Strategy Group and coauthor of One Page Talent Management, Eliminating Complexity, Adding Value. That's a complex title for a book that promises to strip away complexity. Mark, welcome to HR's Most Dangerous Podcast.

Chad (00:49.796)

Hahaha

Marc Effron (00:51.856)

Super happy to be here, Joel and Chad, and editors pick the title, not the writers.

Joel Cheesman (01:00.303)

good point. Good point. Well, Mark, a lot of a lot of our listeners won't know you probably may not know the book give us the elevator pitch on what makes Mark tick.

Chad (01:01.87)

Really?

Marc Effron (01:11.152)

Sure. So short answer, Mark Effron, I lead a firm called the Talent Strategy Group. We work with the world's premier companies, everybody from Apple to the Saudi government. We help them to radically simplify HR. So science-based simplicity, basically, let's stick with the proven science and let's make it really easy to apply at work. Lots of detail underneath that, but that's the essence. I've been doing it for about 15 years in our firm and before that had a real job.

as either a senior HR VP or head of talent management at places like Bank of America and Avon products. So I've actually had my bonus depend on this stuff working.

Chad (01:50.532)

Which it should, to be quite frank, and it should for all CEOs. And that being said, great, great, great segue. Every CEO that's out there says that our employees are our greatest asset, which to be quite frank, to most call bullshit on that because they're not good at talent management. They're not good at talent development. They're not good at any of that. So when you come in,

After you've heard that said over and over and over and you see just a mess. What's your thought right out of the gate? Cause you've been doing this for a

Marc Effron (02:24.804)

Yeah. So what most CEOs really mean when they say that is our best employees are our best assets. And the first question is cool. What you mean by great. And this is such a fundamental question is when you say we value talent, cool. What are the three or four things you really value? It's such a fundamental question, but when you ask HR, they come at you with a 48 page competency model. It's like, no, no, no, no. We know the 85 things that make a good leader.

Given your strategy, what are the three or four things that are gonna differentiate your ability to actually meet that strategy? Something as simple as that is missing in almost all of our clients before we get there. But if you haven't figured out the three or four things, what are you building towards? What are you trying to produce? So first question is, Ms. CEO, Mr. CEO, what do you really need? When you say that we value our talent, what do you really value?

Chad (03:07.332)

Mm.

Marc Effron (03:20.688)

promise you they have an answer because they always tell us, it's A, and A. And then we normally will go to the HR leader and say, hey, what are the competencies that you have? And they'll give us the long list. And normally half of the CEO's list is not on their list. So the beginning of the answer to your question is that, which is when they say, our people are our best asset, they mean our best people and they're clear about it. But oftentimes their answer doesn't mirror what HR is pushing.

Chad (03:50.946)

Here's the thing though, and this is again a part of a leader's job is development. And when you say your best people, you're focusing on the successful, right? The ones who are doing a good amount of the work, the ones who are pushing the goals and really meeting their deadlines quickly and so on and so forth. As a leader, it's not your job to sit around and pat them on the head. You can do that on your way to developing your other employees.

Why are companies so bad at developing their employees? They spend literally no money compared to what we used to about 50 years ago. We used to dump a lot of money into development of employees because we got tax breaks on it. That went away, trickle down, economics happened. Doesn't happen anymore. So therefore it's not good for the bottom line, but yet it is good for the bottom line because we have more successful people, more A players, let's say.

It just makes good sense. So why, why Mark, are CEOs not doing their damn job?

Marc Effron (04:55.568)

would suggest it has nothing little. It has little to do with money. It has everything to do with accountability. In most companies, if I am brilliant at developing leaders, nothing good happens to me. If I am horrible at developing my teammates or team members, nothing bad happens to me. So if there's no upside and there's no downside, why the F would I spend any time doing this?

Chad (05:00.386)

Ha ha!

Marc Effron (05:19.056)

Now there's probably a third of people who actually care about it. So a third of people probably genuinely believe it's the right thing to do. There's naturally why or they came from a company where that was what you did. So it's muscle memory. And there's probably a third of the people who, you know, they have some time, they'll do it. You know, I'll talk to Chad about stuff. I'll talk to Joel about stuff, but it's not regular discipline or thoughtful. And there's a third of people who just for whatever reason, aren't going to do it. That's pretty random. If I'm serious about developing people in my company, that's not going to get it done.

But in most organizations, there's not even the lightest form of accountability to make that happen. And we're big fans of kind of the lightest form of accountability being given to managers to ensure that they're doing this. Something as simple as let's say Chad, you're my manager. Once you're at performance management time, you say, Mark, I'd like you to walk through your team members with me and tell me why each of them is a more capable person this year.

than they were at the end of last year. Just walk me through each of them. Because I guarantee you each of them or that manager is going to squirm like heck at that conversation if they have not done something to develop their team members. What does that accountability cost? Zero. Cost zero. And all you need to say at beginning of the year is, Mark, at the end of the year, I'm going to ask you this question. I certainly expect you'll be prepared to answer it. Now,

There are a million paths for me to get to the outcome of, me tell you about Susie, Bobby, Raj, and Shruti. I can tell you at the end of the year, however it happened, maybe some of them are self-motivated, maybe they needed to beat some of them to getting it. Maybe some had classes or coaches or experiences. Cool. I don't care about the pathway, but I need to be able to tell you why each of them is better, or maybe some of them aren't better. Hey, actually, know, Juan didn't get any better. Let me tell you what we're going to be doing about that.

zero cost, but a hundred percent accountability. so I, sorry, long way around, I'm not sure it's about dollars. I really do think it's because there's no upside or downside in most organizations around that. But also, and maybe especially add on, especially for our best talent, let's say that I don't even care about the lower 70%, at least to the upper 30%, my high performers and my high potentials.

Marc Effron (07:42.71)

I should certainly say, Ms. Manager, Mr. Manager, I have given you some really special people on your team. You definitely have to make sure that they are getting the right experiences, the right exposure, the right education. Maybe I'll give you a decent HR leader or a decent talent leader to help with that, but your job is to steward these very special people and to make sure they're getting better every single year. And I'm going to evaluate your capabilities.

based on your ability to do that. mean, even if it's not everybody, at least make it our best talent. So kind of long way around, I think a lot of it is lack of accountability. And every CEO I have met can find some money to spend on hypos. There is always a little money in the budget for hypos. So I think that's where I would start with is accountability is free if you do it the right way. There's always a little bit of extra cash to spend on the best talent.

Joel Cheesman (08:40.75)

Why'd you write the book, Mark? You've got a lot of experience working at some big companies. Was it something that you experienced? Was it just consulting when you did that? Why'd you write the book? And he wrote it 15 years ago. You had an update in 2018. My next question will be what is changing that time, but why'd you write the book initially?

Marc Effron (08:59.94)

Yeah, a lot of it was frustration with what I saw as being needless complexity in getting to really valuable outcomes. Meaning, was a, I worked in corporate, I worked as a consultant, and I just saw HR doing things in what appeared to be really slow and bureaucratic and complex ways, but without any need to do things that way. It's like goal setting. Well, if Joel's my manager, why doesn't

Joel and Mark to sit down and say, Hey, what three things do you want to work on this year? how about A, B and C? Well, no, how about A, B and D? Okay, cool. A, B and D let's go. Hey, that's a 15 minute conversation. Why do we have long forms and weight each goal? And it just felt like we were spending a lot of time and a lot of energy on really important topics and not getting to good crisp answers. And so that was a frustration that I had had for, for years. And I learned a lot of decent science when I was in business school.

I learned a lot of, or I saw a lot of organizations when I was in consulting, had, I'd been there as a corporate leader. And then when I got to Avon products, that was, I was head of talent management, Avon products starting in 2005. And I had a chance to test some of these ideas. And I had almost a greenfield side. got to test performance management the way I wanted to test tower views and potential the way I wanted to succession way. wanted to three sixties way I wanted to.

kind of this very science-based simplicity approach. And just complete luck, somebody asked me to speak at a conference and we were doing a lot of this new work, turnaround work, and they said, hey, what's the title of your presentation? like, I don't know, it's like a one-page talent management. And I was doing this speech and there just happened to be an editor from Harvard Business Publishing in the room. And after the speech, she said, hey, do want to write a book on that? And I said, no.

It'd be pretty stupid to write a book on one page talent management, wouldn't it? And I said, but I've got three really good book ideas. And I said, here's, you here's pitch number one. She's like, that's a really bad idea. I'm like, well here's pitch number two. She's like, that's an even worse idea than pitch number one. And I'm like, well, here's pitch idea number three. She's like, those are three really terrible book ideas. Literally she was saying that. And I said, let's go back to idea number one on that whole one page thing.

Marc Effron (11:18.132)

And so I literally wrote it simply thinking it was going to be a narrow handbook for technical talent management people to simply say, look, there's an easy way of doing this. Here's the science. Here's how you translate it into practice. Just go do it. so it was intended really just to kind of put my thoughts and my co-authored Miriam Orchardt, who's now a CHRO of two big companies at the same time, put our thoughts on paper. Turned out that it.

seems to pretty broadly applicable, but it was really a way of simply saying, there's an easier way of doing this. Just do it like this.

Joel Cheesman (11:55.66)

Yeah. What, what do you say to the argument that HR is complex on purpose? In other words, it's too complicated for you to under, there's so many processes. It's a black box. The more complex it is, the less people will want to like fix it. It's a little bit like government, right? A lot of policies, lot of bureaucracy, and we kind of like it that way because everyone sort of keeps a safe distance from looking under, know, under the hood at what's going on.

Chad (12:09.892)

It's a catch-all.

Joel Cheesman (12:25.09)

What do say about that argument that a lot of HR departments want to be complex because it's a way of keeping their jobs?

Marc Effron (12:25.359)

Yeah.

Marc Effron (12:33.04)

I might have a core literally to that. think a lot of HR people want to appear to be smart and smart people like other people to think that they're smart. And so I think sometimes HR people design stuff for other HR people as opposed to designing it for the customer. So if I'm designing a competency model, I want my peers, Joel and Chad to be impressed by the competency model.

look, there three bullets for everything and there's some rows and there's some columns and look, there's blue shading and there's white and there's blue shading and it's all symmetrical. I want you guys to be impressed. I don't give a flying F what the client thinks about it because you guys are my true peers. The client doesn't know what they're looking at. So I think part of it is that we're trying to impress the wrong people and or we're not close enough to the customer to even understand how they should use it or in some cases, hopefully a small number.

We're too arrogant to even care what that customer wants. they should be using this. It's the right thing to do. And in many cases, it is the technically right, I'm doing air quotes, everyone listening. It is a technically right thing to do, but it's just not usable. And I think that's where sometimes we get wrapped up in HR is the right answer isn't always the right answer. The right answer is the answer that gets applied, not the technically right answer. And I think we can sometimes get wrapped up into an engineering mindset of

Why doesn't the client like my product? Because it's unusable. That's why they don't like the product. You designed a technically perfect, practically unusable product. That means you failed. Not that you got an A from your professor.

Chad (14:13.166)

So talk about one thing that really, really sticks with me and there are many thus far. So I'm gonna hit this one first, is that they don't care about the customer, right? And I would agree in many cases because they are disassociated from the actual customer in the business itself, right? And how companies make money. Therefore, when they're whining about not having a seat at the table, that's the reason, because they don't understand how

They the actual engine of the organization, TA, talent management, talent acquisition, talent management is the engine of every organization until robots start doing this shit, right? So we don't understand how we actually impact the bottom line. And I think that's one of the biggest issues. Yes, we do have to learn the business from the the product standpoint, from the sales standpoint, from the marketing standpoint, from all the different aspects so that we know that we can deliver to them what they need and

that is delivering to the business and we can actually articulate that to the C-suite. We don't do that today. Why have we not? Why are we so insulated and we haven't actually been a part of the business? Because we need to be a part of the business.

Marc Effron (15:28.314)

I think in many cases we have the wrong people in HR. We teach a core model in our talent management Institute. So I didn't in my intro, I didn't mention we formed the talent management Institute, the university of North Carolina 14 years ago have graduated 7,000 leaders from it. We teach basic talent management. One of the things we teach is a core model. We call it the four plus two, basically our, little competency model. The first element of the four plus two, we call business junkie business junkie has two pieces. The first one is.

Chad (15:46.638)

Mm-hmm.

Marc Effron (15:57.36)

know the business, just what it sounds like. You understand sales, ops, supply chain, finance. And I tell people that probably eliminates 75 % of the people in HR who don't understand just the fundamentals of the business they're in. The second part though of being a business junkie is loves the business. Loves the business is you wake up thinking, I wonder if I can go on a factory tour today. I wonder if I can go out with that salesperson today. I wonder if I can hang out with somebody in the lab today.

I'd love to have lunch with somebody at FP &A today. That's what somebody who loves the business thinks when they wakes up. I can't wait to put on my hip waders and get into the business today. And I just think most people don't go into HR for that reason. They go into HR for some very good reasons. They want people to be more productive or grow. And those are wonderful reasons, but they're incomplete reasons to be in the field.

And so I think half the challenge is we attract the wrong people into HR. And so to your point, Chad, if you're, if you're reasoning for why I'm doing something doesn't start with, well, I saw the factory the other day was X. Then you're likely not to come up with the right solution. If it is, this vendor said skills are the hot thing. So I'm going to go tell somebody about skills. Well, then you've already failed because you're just pushing a product that no one gives them. Then when it cares about,

Chad (17:09.508)

Mm-hmm.

Marc Effron (17:22.678)

If you, if you're in the factory talking to the factory manager and she was complaining that people aren't walking in with the proper laid skills. Okay, great. Let's talk about laid skills and how we can, that's now a relevant conversation. But if it is, I talked to, glow, they've got this new component to do. Blup. That no one cares.

Chad (17:23.417)

Mm-hmm.

Marc Effron (17:47.854)

You're just now an extension of a salesperson talking about something that no one cares about.

Chad (17:56.516)

So when you say I want to get into the business today, that means something entirely different for Joel Cheeseman. Just wanna make sure you know that. Hit it, hit. There we go.

Marc Effron (18:07.057)

I do not know your inside jokes.

Chad (18:09.868)

Yes, yes. That's for the listeners. That's all for the listeners. Okay, so I want to throw something at you because you said Apple earlier and we literally just had an amazing interview with Patrick McGee who just wrote the book Apple in China. And he has uncovered that you talk about spending money, right? That Apple spending at least $55 billion a year on training talent, on the people.

Joel Cheesman (18:10.158)

You don't want to go inside.

Marc Effron (18:14.404)

Okay.

Chad (18:39.638)

and giving them the knowledge and the experience necessary to now be the number one country manufacturing, one of the biggest tech companies in the world, right? But all in China. We're not seeing that kind of expenditure in the United States around vocational skilling, around being able to actually get

those employees developed and continuing to develop those employees, not just your most successful, but all of them. They have trained 28 million employees Apple has in China. Why? And again, you have kind of like a, I would assume a light touch or maybe more of even a heavy touch with Apple. Give me kind of like your idea around that. The government,

Chinese government is kind of like a heavy hand there. Do we need to have a heavier hand in the US? Because as you'd said before, if there's no accountability from the company, which obviously is not happening in the US, maybe there's got to be accountability a little bit higher on the government side of the house. How do we get this done?

Marc Effron (19:50.872)

Yeah, I didn't know we would be veering into economic policy thoughts, which is probably outside of my area of expertise. But as a former congressional staffer, which you probably didn't dig deep enough in my resume to see, but I was a congressional staffer for my first job coming out of the University of Washington with a political science degree. So I'd like to suggest that makes me an expert in the topic that you've asked me this question about. Do I think that given the fact that

Chad (19:56.727)

Always.

Chad (20:08.014)

So it's perfect for you, Mark. It's perfect.

Joel Cheesman (20:17.57)

Ha ha.

Marc Effron (20:20.912)

Plummer makes about $200,000 a year and she does, or first of all, does she, and she does a great job that we should be introducing more people into vocational careers. Darn straight we should be, but that also means that the economic incentives need to be there. Why are we loaning people $80,000 a year to go to Columbia University to learn social work, which pays $40,000 a year? That is a perverse economic incentive instead of saying,

hey, why don't we loan you $20,000 a year to not only go to a school that teaches you plumbing, but also $10,000 a year that is going to buy you plumbing equipment to start your own business. Yeah, that feels like a pretty worthwhile investment. So should there be some balancing of economic investments around that? Yes. And I think, again, I'm not an expert, but I think we are seeing

greater movement into vocations, especially by men. think there's probably a larger male-female challenge here, more women going into four-year routes, more men are going vocational. There's probably a much larger social conversation to be had around that.

Chad (21:38.02)

Well, real quick, what we're also seeing is that, let's say for instance, HVAC companies, they are doing the vocational payment at least for plumbers, HVAC, so on and so forth. They're not putting that on the individual, although they're putting them on a three-year contract, much like the military does if you want the GI bill. You're coming in for three or four years, great, you're gonna have college money at the end of it. So again, the employer,

is actually footing the bill, which is not something that we see enough of in the US. Sorry, Joel, go ahead.

Joel Cheesman (22:13.374)

So the last time you updated the book, a few things have happened in the world. We've gone through a pandemic, AI is all the rage. I'm curious, what recommendations would you make in tackling some of these new realities in the workplace? We see companies replacing HR with automation and we see how you engage with employees different through remote work. What's your take on that new reality of the workplace?

Chad (22:17.722)

Hahaha

Marc Effron (22:19.248)

Nah.

Marc Effron (22:42.864)

Yeah, let's start with what hasn't changed. I'll move into what has changed. Here's the good news is the fundamentals of good talent management are the same and probably have been the same for the past 50 years. So a lot of what we write about a lot of the science that we cite in the book around fundamental things like setting great goals, coaching people, selecting for potential, accelerating development.

The science and the practice of that is still the same and should be the same as it always has been. We know that setting a few big powerful goals works. We know that transparent coaching works, et cetera, et cetera. So a lot of what we write about in the book is absolutely as applicable as it always has been. Now, the question is, are there new ways of applying that given things like folks are working remotely?

Yes, what it means is managers need to be far more conscious about applying some of these tactics. So it used to be Joel, my manager might walk by my cube and say, Hey, we need to talk about your goals. And that was our reminder to get that done. And because you saw me every morning, we'd get it done. Now, if I'm working at home, we might not have that visual reminder to have that conversation. Does that mean that gets lost or we don't have a check in conversations frequently. So it needs to be much more conscious and scheduled.

to make a lot of those things happen. And so let's take something like that. So part of it is just the regularity and the planned interaction that needs to be much more over. Also, we need to figure out what are your signals for my contributions to the business and how do those change in a remote environment? It used to be that you saw me working hard. You saw me in meetings. You got.

clues about am I contributing because you were able to watch me and it's like okay that guy is doing things that suggest he's contributing in a way that I value. If I'm remote, hey that report was a day late. Is that because he was working on other important stuff or he just wasn't working hard? Well, I don't know, you're going to interpret that in whatever way you want to. How do we help you to manage me in a way or help me to manage you in a way that gives you confidence?

Marc Effron (25:00.602)

that I'm still contributing at the level that you want. So how do we build new mechanisms to make sure that you're still getting the right signals about my performance and contributions, even though you don't have the same signals that you used to, to let you know what I'm doing. So the same standards apply around, you need to understand my delivering, but we need to think through how are you now going to get information about my contributions and how am I going to filter out the noise or your interpretations about

Is he doing what he should be doing? So I think there's, application challenges like that. think when we look at things like AI, it feels one, I, there's so much noise right now and there's so much uncertainty about what it really means in terms of how we manage people. look at it right now as a helpful overlay and decision support system, at its best.

What I would love to see is, let's say you guys are both on my team. I would get my morning text from our, our system at work at the Cheeseman and Chad company. And it would say, Hey, make sure that you're touching base with cheese this morning about A, B and C on this project. He's interacted with these four people in the past two days, but not this other person who's actually pivotal on this project. Make sure you talk to cheese about which.

It would give me kind decision support around who I need to talk to or hey, Chad's birthday is coming up tomorrow. I've already ordered that box of cigars from his favorite cigar place, it under your credit card. Literally that level of decision support is what I hope it will do. And obviously even at a higher level, when it comes time for talent reviews, we've sorted through all the relevant data from ONA stuff to everything else.

And we've added a little bit of additional value to predicting upward potential in our company on cheese. Here's our, our summary on what we think he can contribute going forward. So I think that's an added layer of help. Does it change the fundamental processes around performance management or talent reviews or succession planning? Nope. Still need to do all that stuff. And it's not going to do it for us, but it should help make us.

Marc Effron (27:24.278)

incrementally smarter, not much smarter, but incrementally smarter in doing all those things.

Joel Cheesman (27:33.698)

rest assured, any message around our company would involve bankruptcy or is that legal? Is that legal to do that? But that's, that's neither here nor there. Curious Mark, your take on a couple of things. One of the, one of the criticisms of the book is that it's really good for big companies and you've spent most of your time in big companies, but for the smaller organization, it doesn't quite have the same fit. And the other, the other side of that is I feel like general generationally,

Marc Effron (27:38.756)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Chad (27:40.227)

Yeah.

Joel Cheesman (28:03.406)

timing you've, you've, you've timed it right to where now more than ever simplicity with this, with the new generation is paramount and keeping things simple. talk about the generational divide from when you wrote the book and also big Co versus sort of small business.

Chad (28:11.716)

Mm-hmm.

Marc Effron (28:20.304)

Sure, let's start with this. Everything that we write about in the book, we consider a crutch. Performance management is a crutch that we have because managers aren't going to set goals and coach and review fairly on their own. So we give them a structure called performance management to say, aren't going to do this on your own well, therefore here are some crutches to use to get through it.

If I have a company of eight people, I don't need a performance management process because we're going to sit around the table Monday morning and say, let's make sure we sell out our goals. So in terms of, um, do we need tools in small companies? No. I would resist them as long as you possibly can. I would ask the question, are we setting clear focus goals? Are we having regular transparent conversations with people about their behaviors and their performance? And at the end of the year, are we generally reviewing people in a fair way?

If we are great at the point where you say, it feels like, don't know the guys in the new region very well. Are they doing it? Can we see people up into that point? No, don't apply any of stuff. So do you need one page talent management? If you're a hundred person company, probably not. if you're a 500 person company, I might crack the cover just to understand what concepts are thousand person company. You're probably in the range where yet it's going to be helpful just to make sure you're not doing things wrong.

But no, I would say resist until you absolutely need to have that structure, those questions there. But I'm very clear that all of these things are crutches because we cannot control what every manager does. And there are so many biases that managers are naturally going to engage in that at some point we need to say, no, no, no, we know you're going to pick a cheese because he's the same age as you, looks like you and talks like you. That's not how we select people as successors.

We have other ways of doing that. So we're going to put a process in place to make that a bit more fair. In terms of generations, is your thought there more to kind of... Go ahead, Chad, sorry.

Chad (30:18.999)

I love a comp-

Chad (30:26.232)

No, go ahead.

Marc Effron (30:26.286)

Now in your generation question, cheese, is that more about

Joel Cheesman (30:27.394)

Well, know, have, have generally speaking, generally speaking of.

Well, generally speaking, you have, let's call it older people at the top and the world is going to, think, a simpler way of communication. You look at solutions like, you know, 15 five, we're like every day we have a little, little engagement. We know what we're doing. We're moving forward. I guess part of it is, you know, if you're talking to an older generation that loves, you know, handbooks and the 47 page, you know, strategy, what's your conversation to them to embrace this? Because this is what younger people will embrace. And if you don't, you're going to lose them.

Chad (30:48.206)

pulses.

Marc Effron (31:03.534)

Yeah. Yeah. I would say two things more frequent, more transparent. So processes still apply. So do we still need to set goals and coach? Absolutely. But the, feedback cycle and the transparency of the feedback cycle needs to be faster. And there's absolutely nothing that prevents us from doing it other than a lot of the managers are forties and fifties and they don't feel as comfortable or don't see the need to do that. I would suggest. Does technology help? Yeah, but I don't need technology.

If you guys are on my team, I can still give you frequent and transparent feedback without having some huge system that enables that Transparency is the number one underscore number one problem at every single client We have around the globe and we work with the premier organizations because it's a human issue Humans don't like being transparent all sorts of wonderful reasons around that But that's that's going to

influence or be a barrier for any generation because we want to get along. The reason we're not transparent is we want to get along with people. Transparency creates threats or feelings of threats. And so we need to kind of force that transparency. So even if that younger generation wants to be more transparent or wants more transparency as the receiver, the giver of the transparency still needs to feel comfortable with it. That's always going to be a barrier.

But I would suggest the same processes from performance management and talent reviews in 360s and everything else still applies. More frequent, more transparent, should satisfy the needs of a younger generation if we're implying they want faster, more frequent, easier conversations around these things.

Chad (32:48.462)

keep it simple, stupid is my policy. That's Mark EfFron and the book is One Page Talent Management. Mark, if somebody wants to connect with you or I don't know, maybe even buy the book, where would you send them?

Marc Effron (33:02.512)

Well, I would send them to Amazon to buy the book they can go to our website talent strategy group comm for lots of great articles videos and more information

Chad (33:14.763)

Excellent.

Joel Cheesman (33:14.978)

Maybe Brent said it best when he said kiss Chad. That's another one in the in the can we out.

Chad (33:21.582)

way out