Projected age of retirement
for current workers.

Data that is false or fabricated.

The best data scientists turn
distilled information into pure gold.

Too much churn and
companies lose the cream.

Guatemala has the largest CW
compared to population in Americas.

1 in 3
# of working Americans in
the contingent workforce.

As some jobs become out of date,
others emerge.

In a conformity string, we call attributes
that impact cost and availability of
qualified job candidates "pieces of work".

Projected growth office/clerical
staffing 2013.

Companies implementing proper
measures during offboarding.

Singapore was world's top CW
productivity market 2014.

Data Scientist: the most wanted
job by employers on LinkedIn
in 2014.

Belgium has the highest tax burden in EU.

Ratio of robots to employees in Korea,
highest level in the world.

Employers who find paying
freelancers cumbersome.

The big star in our universe is Data Centauri.

% of American workforce projected
to be freelance by 2020.

Predictive analysis is only as
insightful as the analysts.

Data should never be sugar coded.

A good strategy stretches without
changing its basic shape.

Average length of unemployment
of managerial candidates.

# of workers with tenuous
ties to employers.

% of senior HR officers identifying
talent management as top HR issue.


To find answers, we formulate questions.
Then question the questions.

< 20
% of private sector workers receiving
employer sponsored health insurance
by 2025.

CW population at average
large company.

France has the highest
tax burden in EMEA.

% of Fortune 100 who’ve
implemented a VMS.

Shortage of US managers able to
analyze big data and make decisions
based on findings.

Amount NHS spends on
temp staffing.

Independent contractors can
be reclassified by Irish courts.

CWS 3.0: January 14, 2015

By Jason Ezratty

Total talent management (TTM) goes by many names: blended workforce management, integrated talent management, total workforce synchronization and workforce mix optimization.

If the name is still in such a formative state, it should come as no surprise that so too is the practice it aims to describe.

Its name aside, the implication is a given organization’s workforce is made up of many types of workers and its current state isn’t as good as it could be. It isn’t a new subject. Some of us have been describing versions of this type of approach for more than a decade. What has changed is the level of urgency — that could be is becoming should be.

Most organizations have a good handle on their employee population — who they are, where they are, how much they are compensated, how well they perform, where their career may take them, who might replace them when they go, and how their role fits into the greater strategic mission. However, for the rapidly growing non-employee portions of their workforce, some can’t answer any of these questions, and nobody can answer all of them.

Accordingly, prior to being able to manage the whole, much is still being learned about the what, why and how of sourcing and managing within the non-employee spectrum. A vestige of last century we should soon outgrow are the notions contingent positions are somehow less important, therefore filled with cheaper, lower-quality candidates. More and more, we see the same candidates presented across all channels. Large-enterprise averages of non-employee utilization range from 20% to 60% and are only expected to increase over the next five to 10 years. Will this happen casually or purposefully within your organization? To what harm or benefit? By answering this question you have taken the first step toward TTM.

The motivations to engage one type of worker versus another vary from company to company, even manager to manager, but one thing seems consistent: these decisions are made with little empirical support or experienced guidance. It seems many arrive at a decision of which type of worker to engage as a reaction to obstacles set in front of them as opposed to a proactive, strategic plan based on a comprehensive, officially sanctioned and rigorous methodology. If nothing else, wouldn’t you want to know the relative cost basis of bringing on the same exact individual as an employee, temporary worker or statement-of-work consultant?

Whether the improvement you seek is to spend less, deploy resources  more rapidly, shed risk or all of the above, the consensus seems to be that while we didn’t arrive at our current fate by design, we must now build a workforce more compatible with the newfound demands of globalization, economic uncertainty and a rapidly evolving technology landscape.

TTM can be difficult to define because it has never been fully accomplished. Like a sci-fi novel, our current sketches of TTM are ideas that feel inevitable, not actual case studies. We practitioners can claim success in achieving important steps toward TTM but there isn’t a Global 2000 company that can claim to have sewn together its talent strategy across all types. The case for TTM is therefore really the case for why the status quo is broken — fragmented, short-sighted, noncompliant, expensive, and disintegrated from the core business planning of the operation. While TTM brings complexity, the primary obstacles we must overcome are departmental fiefdoms who see such a unified approach to be a surrender of turf, which can be interpreted as putting their jobs at risk.

If step one in the journey toward achieving TTM is acknowledging the need for a purposeful approach, then step two is a call for leadership to usher in a new era of competitiveness based on getting the talent mix right. The spoils will go to those who use their competitive advantages in the war on talent as a weapon, while everyone else plays catch-up. Game on.

View on the Staffing Industry Analysts website