FAQs

No, the optimal mix of traditional and new career co-creation approaches depends on the specific circumstances a company is experiencing. It depends on the composition of the organizations workforce, the intensity/acceptability of workforce differentiation approaches and the situational factors described in the WHY section above (tightness of labor market; appropriable/codifiable talent contributions; interesting challenges to be moulded into ‘missions’; tightly coupled business ecosystem (beneficial roles of alumni after they leave); potential for cyclical flow of talent). Generally, most companies adopt some kind of combination of approaches, but traditional approaches still prevail.

In traditional mentoring organizations usually assign a single mentor to provide instrumental and psychosocial support to an employee. Some companies offer multiple mentors, but usually these mentors are internal employees. By assisting in growth and optimization of an open developmental network of an employee we acknowledge that helpful developmental resources can accrue from a variety of actors, many of these from the outside of the organization. The key difference is that companies adopting this novel approach encourage and support connecting to the outsiders to make career progress and development even at a risk of people leaving the organization. 

No, this is definitely not wrong. However, in a very tight labour market and working with top talents we should acknowledge that expectations that we will keep these talents in the organization forever are naïve. Decisions of talents to make a move to another organization should not be met with frustration and anger, but rather with understanding and with a goal to quickly find alternative ways of potential collaboration in the future, that is, by trying to identify ways how value and mutual benefits can be created beyond the duration of the employment relationship. Therefore, keep connected with departing talents, but don’t burn all the bridges when your talent looks for new experiences and opportunities.

Everybody can become an alumnus, but it is particularly important that the company’s top talents are encouraged to join and become active alumni. The benefits of using the alumni approach are more likely to be realized if we (can) encourage larger numbers. The more people are included in alumni the better. In this way, we can spread the risks and develop a portfolio of opportunities and it is more likely that at least some of the alumni-company relationships will be valuable. By keeping in contact and providing value, we can create a network of potential qualified candidates down the road for new roles (and thus are people who already have some familiarity with the company).

No, not by default. Fit with the job/position and equal opportunities of all the candidates should always be considered. However, we have more valid historical information about boomerangs, so some advantages in comparison to new candidates do exist process-wise. In case of two equality qualified candidates, and uncertain/ambiguous information about the new candidate, the advantage is on the side of the boomerang as information asymmetry is smaller (especially if our experience with the boomerang during his employment was very good and the employee-employee relationship is still alive). In addition, boomerangs will generally be on-boarded more quickly and the hiring process can also be faster.