The challenging of HR colleagues should be on the same basis as the challenge of all aspects of corporate operations.

I have frequently seen CEOs and Chairman impose on an organisation a strategy, initiative or focus that could not be justified by pragmatic analysis of claimed benefits promised. What happens is that the individual in question, through his or her power, imposes a direction (without objective evidence of benefit) and everyone has to toe the line - and inevitably they don't have the "clout" to challenge the proposal - an inevitable career limiting action.

It's not that talent management strategies should not be used (or any other strategies for that matter) but that they should be assessed for the benefits they can provide the organisation. Unfortunately, too many guru theories are adopted without question and without an understanding of their appropriateness or their impact on organisational objectives and shareholder benefits. I have (literally) seen billions of dollars of shareholder funds in my client organisations being fritted away through unquestioning (but well-intentioned) actions and initiatives.

In one particular listed client, the CEO was "hot" for talent strategies and methodologies and had invested tens of millions of dollars in legitimately developing them. He retired and the new CEO, who was financially oriented, cut all those programs thus "wasting" the investment already made. Had the strategy been assessed for "evidence of benefit" then either the program would not have been commenced due to lack of evidence of benefit, or once started, would not have been terminated because of the demonstrated evidence of benefit.