Retaining Talent: A Fundamental Task of Leadership

The constant evolution of society significantly impacts the labor market. Qualities such as stability, a sense of belonging to the organization, or simply family comfort were relevant factors for remaining in a company. Today, given the characteristics of society, especially among the new generations entering the workforce, these assumptions have changed. In this regard, the Armed Forces, both in Chile and worldwide, are not exempt and must confront this reality. It is noteworthy that developed countries, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany, are facing a clear concern regarding military personnel attrition.

The particularities of a military career make the task of retaining talent in armed institutions a special priority. The high specialization of certain functions, the significant cost of training, and the clear vocational quality make it impossible to replace qualified individuals—particularly at higher ranks—from civilian society, as there are not two armies or navies in the country, which complicates the tasks of attracting, developing, employing, and retaining talent[1] as strategic objectives. In the case of national defense, results do matter, as losing an armed conflict or executing support operations in emergency situations poorly are not acceptable options. An artillery piece, a ship, a combat aircraft, or a military unit will be as lethal, efficient, and useful as their members. Weapons and equipment do not think, solve problems, or learn; it is people who generate the main competitive advantages. Currently, our military force is tasked with a greater number of duties, across a broader spectrum of missions, and for longer periods, which hinders the development and maintenance of the capabilities and equipment essential for its primary function: national defense.

According to the Royal Spanish Academy dictionary, the word “talent” is defined as intelligence, aptitude, or “a person who is intelligent or suitable for a specific occupation”[2]. Pilar Jericó[3] suggests that talent is defined as “one who achieves superior results within an organization.” On the other hand, Idalberto Chiavenato states that to recognize talent, “the person must possess some competitive differential that values them,” meaning not everyone has it[4]. In summary, talent relates to certain individuals, their intelligence, and aptitudes for performing functions outstandingly, capable of demonstrating comparative advantages that distinguish them in specific tasks.

Consequently, what would happen if organizations—including armed institutions—lose or diminish their “talents” when fulfilling their essential tasks (defending the nation) and facing the increasingly broad and numerous missions that society demands of them? The answer is undoubtedly complex. There is no doubt that, like any pyramid-structured organization, not everyone who begins a military career will finish it. The complexity arises when the retention of talent is not prioritized along the way. In other words, while it is important to retain the majority of those who make up the force (personnel), it is equally or more important to retain those with greater talent. Retaining people is not the same as retaining talent[5]. Often, retaining and strengthening that talent involves adequately training them[6], even with the threat that some may leave the institutions. Worse than the risk of attrition mentioned earlier is failing to train the human element and having that element remain in the organization without contributing significantly.

Each year, officers and a permanent cadre graduate from the training schools of the Armed Forces to fill the positions required by their structure. While numbers are relevant, so is the quality of that personnel. It would be of greater concern if, eventually, the branches of defense experience more exits (departures from institutional ranks for various reasons) than entries. Similarly, it would be more critical if the proportion of exits of talented individuals exceeds normal levels. All of this would represent a genuine threat to the institutions[7] and to national defense as a whole.

For these reasons, talent attrition must be a strategic concern for institutions in general, and for the Armed Forces and their leadership at various levels in particular[8]. Addressing it represents a fundamental obligation, safeguarding institutional interests, developing special programs for this purpose, and identifying them as a true long-term investment. Such programs must have a systemic approach, closely linked to leadership, that enhances the organization and individuals, tailored to individual needs, rooted in the structure, empowering those who stand out, and primarily focused on motivating to retain talent. Failing to do so, in the long run, would be akin to the “brilliant” analogy of taking the skates away from the most gifted.

However, this priority task regularly faces some organizational problems. The most obvious and recurring issues are bureaucracy and the need to address day-to-day tasks. The temptation to prioritize the urgent over the important is always present. Other, more complex problems to confront are those related to organizational culture. The misguided refusal to highlight those who perform best, based on the erroneous idea of not creating differences, is an incorrect policy, as it neither rewards talent nor incentivizes improvement among those with lower performance. Another risk relates to standardization, where the expected performance is sufficient and outstanding is unnecessary. This reflects mediocrity, often motivated by fear of better performances and the risk they may pose to the interests of some individuals. Finally, perhaps one of the most delicate aspects is that the recruitment, development, and retention of talent is a fundamental task of leaders, so neglecting it indicates weakness in this function and even serious irresponsibility. Ongoing and unconditional support for subordinates, particularly those in command roles, is a priority and non-delegable.

Moreover, it is essential for our defense institutions to have detailed knowledge of those who leave the organization, when they do so (years of service and time of year), who leaves (categories, rank, specialization, qualification, performance level, etc.), and, of course, why they retire. It is very different to face talent loss if the reason behind it is associated with a better salary offer, disciplinary issues, incompatible health, or, ultimately, personal disincentives, lack of growth opportunities, absence of incentives and recognition for those who perform best, incongruence in career paths, disenchantment, or accumulated loss of motivation, among other factors.

To address the demand for talent retention, particularly in the Armed Forces, while it is understood that institutions are concerned about this and their leadership is primarily occupied, it is estimated that there are some activities that can be suggested as a complement. The structured system for retaining talent must:

• have a systemic vision rooted in the institutions’ structure;
• have centralized planning and coordination, with a clear purpose, but whose execution depends on the respective leadership;
• be universal, transparent, broad, diverse, and known to all members;
• prioritize those with the best performance in various areas and tasks and not act with consolation prizes;
• provide certainties and generate expectations that are subsequently fulfilled, offering an attractive career horizon;
• benefit the institutions while simultaneously motivating individuals to achieve better performance;
• offer benefits, opportunities, and/or compensations, not as a justification in themselves, but as an attractive complement to vocation, always with the intention of motivating better performance.

In summary, the military function and career must be made more attractive, promoting better performance, strengthening areas such as flexibility, growth opportunities, compatibility of work with personal life, and certainties, reconciling institutional needs with personal aspirations.

Measures to strengthen talent must be planned and managed to enhance the entire organization. The strategy is to identify the talents present in every individual without exception and elevate them to a higher level of development. The sum of individual talents will translate into institutional talent and strength.

Finally, while this strategic objective is the responsibility of leaders in armed institutions at all levels, the ultimate responsibility at the national level lies with the political authorities in charge of the function. If there is a desire to strengthen political authority over the Armed Forces, the sense of responsibility that derives from it must also be reinforced.

John Griffiths
Head of Studies at AthenaLab
Marcelo Masalleras
Researcher at AthenaLab

---

[1] United States Army. The Army People Strategy. October 2019.

[2] Royal Spanish Academy. See: https://dle.rae.es/talento?m=form

[3] Pilar Jericó is an international authority on leadership, change mindset, and talent management, with multiple publications. For more information, visit: https://www.pilarjerico.com/sobre-mi/

[4] Chiavenato, Idalberto (2009). Human Talent Management. Mexico City: McGraw Hill. p. 49.

[5] Munson, Peter. “If military leaders were serious about retaining talent, they’d collect some numbers on who is leaving and why.” In Foreign Policy, April 2013. See: https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/02/if-military-leaders-were-serious-about-retaining-talent-theyd-collect-some-numbers-on-who-is-leaving-and-why-2/

[6] Quek Seoh Hiong, “Motivation And Retention In The SAF.” In Pointer, Journal of the Singapore Armed Forces. Vol 40, No. 2, p. 26.

[7] Carvajal, Ignacio. “Strategic Talent Management.” In Professional Topics. 2023. p. 49.

[8] Biosca Ponce, Enrique. “Talent Management in the Armed Forces: A Strategic Decision.” Research Document 10/2016. Superior Center for National Defense Studies, 2016. p. 35.