The limitations of ‘talent’
“We need to retain talent!” I have been hearing this refrain increasingly frequently in corporate DEI-speak, and no doubt it serves an important purpose. Certainly, the argument that non-inclusive workplaces lead to employee turnover and may cause a business to pass over the best employees is a winning message when it comes to convincing skeptics in management to support DEI initiatives. (Even those with no innate concern for diversity and inclusivity can be pursuaded to support DEI work if it benefits the company’s bottom line!)
The term “talent” is also motivated by another noble intent: to explicitly confront the stereotype that minoritized employees are mediocre and that increasing workplace diversity means lowering the quality of hires. By reminding ourselves that beneficiaries of DEI work may themselves be superstar employees, it is harder to lose sight of the real insights and value that each individual employee can bring to a company. (While it’s true that diverse teams tend to be more productive, it also important to remember that minoritized people also have their own individual skills and assets to contribute, just as with any potential employee!)
Absolutely, I am fully in support of language that implies that employees of all identities carry unique gifts and perspectives that can benefit a workplace or industry. However, there is the risk that reducing employees to ‘talent’ can be a neoliberal double-edged sword. While often well-intentioned, this discourse can actually serve to euphemize DEI and subtly dehumanize the very employees it is so often intended to uplift, furthering corporate interests over and above inclusivity and justice. Here are at least a few ways I’ve noticed it can go awry:
Referring to employees as ‘talent’ erases the agency of individual workers and embraces a fixed mindset. “Employees” and “workers” are individuals who have rights, aspirations, and desires. They have the agency to unionize or voice collective grievances; they also have the agency to grow and upskill themselves if allowed to flourish. “Talent,” meanwhile, is portrayed as a vacuous force that flows from company to company much like investment capital in a zero-sum game. The object of the game becomes attracting and retaining scarce “talent,” not realizing that individuals are free agents with choices who — if treated well — will cultivate their own skills and help the company grow!
Referring to employees as ‘talent’ implies a discomfiting sense of ownership. Along the lines of the previous point, “talent” becomes analogous to intellectual property — something that companies struggle (yet don’t always succeed) to retain ownership and control over. It can paint the desirable qualities of a workforce as be somehow rightfully belonging to the employer rather than the workers.
The ‘talent’ narrative can easily be turned back on marginalized workers. The aim of DEI becomes to attract and retain “talent,” not to cultivate it. A marginalized employee who is underperforming due to a toxic workplace can easily be discarded with the rationalization that this employee lacks “talent,” when in reality the problem is the workplace the employee is in.
‘Talent’ obscures the genuine inherent value of individuals in favor of the corporate bottom line. Yes, there absolutely is a business case for DEI; the moral hazard comes when we pursue this business case singlemindedly to the exclusion of more fundamental reasons to value diversity. DEI is the right thing to do from the perspective of ethics and justice, independent of whether it benefits the corporate bottom line. My value to society is not measurable by my capitalist productivity (that mindset just leads to workaholism) but rather is inherent to who I am, and I deserve to be respected in my job because it is what all people deserve. I am more than my “talent”; the same is of course true of all employees.
In a previous post, I talked about the problems with the “workforce development” narrative — the narrative that skilled employees are scarce and therefore someone else (the government, the education system, workers themselves) needs to step up to ameliorate the labor shortage. Certainly, the case can be made for expanding immigration and education if there truly is a pipeline issue, but too often a major reason we can’t recruit a skilled workforce is that we forget that individuals have agency and will tend to avoid a toxic or exploitative workplace or industry. Ultimately, the onus is on companies to be places where employees want to work. It is inhumane (not to mention fiscally senseless) to invest millions in workforce training just to watch all the new employees burn out six months into their career!
The “talent” narrative is similarly subtle — a seemingly pro-workforce argument that too easily obscures the role companies (and academic departments, etc.) are playing in creating our own problems and sets up powerful actors to evade accountability. Let’s remember that workers are individuals who have power and agency, and maybe then they will actually want to work for us!
