Talent maps are sold widely and read rarely. The usual product is a spreadsheet of names with current employers attached, which tells a board almost nothing it could not have assembled itself.
A map that earns its fee answers six questions. First, how large is the qualified population, defined by remit rather than by title. Second, where does it sit, by organisation and by level, and how concentrated is it. Third, what does it cost, in total reward rather than base salary.
Fourth, how mobile is it. Tenure patterns, recent restructures, vesting cycles and ownership changes are what determine whether a population is theoretically qualified or actually available this year. Fifth, what is the diversity of that population, because a shortlist cannot be more diverse than the market it was drawn from, and a board should know that in advance rather than at shortlist stage.
Sixth, and most important, what does the evidence mean for the decision. A map should end with an interpretation: this search is viable in twelve weeks at this package; or the population is 40 people, half are unavailable for two years, and the realistic options are to widen the remit or build internally.
Two warning signs are worth knowing. A map delivered without sample sizes or research dates is a database extract. A map that never says anything inconvenient has not been researched; every real market has a constraint in it.
The commercial argument for mapping first is straightforward. Mapping costs a fraction of a search and takes three to four weeks. An unsuccessful search costs a quarter of lost delivery and a re-briefing conversation that starts from the position the map would have given you.
A shortlist cannot be more diverse than the market it was drawn from. A board should know that in advance, not at shortlist stage.
