|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
On the fragmented logic that treats happiness, performance, and culture as separate pieces, and what that fragmentation produces in the real experience of working.
This is an excerpt from an article originally published on The Non-Linear Career by Cristian Jofre Barrera and has been republished with permission.
The promise that entered with you
You arrived at the organization with a package anyone would have accepted. The salary was competitive, the title carried weight, and the EVP presented to you during the selection process spoke of development, of growth, of a culture that valued talent and pushed it forward. The employer brand did its job. It convinced you. You felt chosen. During those first months, everything seemed to confirm that you had made the right decision.
Then situations began to appear that were not in the brochure. A colleague who had been there longer was promoted without anyone clearly explaining what criteria had operated in that decision. Another, equally competent, stalled without ever receiving negative feedback or any signal that something was wrong. Conversations about development began to be postponed, calendars never aligned, and internal progression, the very thing promised to you as a central part of the package, turned out to be a territory without a map. Some found the path. Others did not. The difference between them was rarely explained, and when someone tried to understand it, the answers they received were vague, generic, or simply never arrived.
What you lived through in that moment has an origin worth examining. That experience, entering with high expectations and encountering a system that cannot explain who grows and who does not, is the direct product of a logic that organizes talent management into separate parts and rarely stops to ask whether those parts, once assembled, produce anything resembling a coherent experience of work.
The factory of separate pieces
To understand what happened, we need to look at how the field that received you is organized. In most organizations, talent attraction operates as a domain with its own objectives. Its task is to fill positions with the right people, and to do so it deploys machinery made of employer branding, selection processes, structured interviews, and value propositions that compete in a market where talent is scarce. The goal is for the person to say yes, and success is measured in acceptance rates, time to fill, and quality of the incoming profile.
Onboarding, in contrast, often depends on a different area, with different priorities, different indicators, and a different understanding of what it means to bring someone into a living cultural fabric. Retention may sit in human resources, in compensation, in organizational development, or be distributed among all of them without anyone holding full responsibility for following the complete trajectory of a person from the moment they enter until they leave or grow. Talent development typically resides in L&D, which designs programs, learning pathways, and competency frameworks that rarely converse with the promise attraction made months or years earlier.
Each of these areas responds to a real need. Each makes sense when viewed in isolation. The trouble emerges when we assume that these parts, simply by coexisting within the same organization, produce an integrated experience for the person who moves through them. That assumption remains invisible because nobody is responsible for asking the question about the complete trajectory. Attraction measured its success when you signed. Onboarding measured its own when you completed the induction. Development measures its own when you participate in programs. But the experience of moving between these areas, of trying to understand why what you were promised when you joined bears so little resemblance to what you live two years later, that experience belongs to no area. And what belongs to no area simply does not exist for the system.
What fragmentation produces in identity
This is where the argument touches something deeper than process efficiency. What is at stake is an implicit theory about the professional identity of working people.
When talent attraction designs an appealing EVP and communicates it successfully, it operates on an assumption: that a person’s motivation can be ignited with a strong enough initial promise, and that this motivation will remain active long enough for the rest of the system to do its work. When talent development offers programs and learning pathways, it operates on a different assumption: that the person entering wants to grow in the direction the organization has already defined. When retention focuses on keeping people from leaving, it operates on a third assumption: that satisfaction can be managed through periodic adjustments, additional benefits, or salary increases.
These three assumptions share a common root: they treat professional identity as though it were a fixed asset, something that is switched on once and remains stable as long as external conditions do not deteriorate too much. But professional identity does not work that way. It is a living process that continuously transforms in relation to the environment it inhabits. The person who entered with high expectations is not the same after a year of confusing signals about their progression. The person who watches others grow without understanding why they themselves are not does not process that experience as an isolated piece of data that can be offset with a raise or a team-building activity. They weave it into their narrative about who they are in that place, about whether they belong, about whether their contribution is visible to those who make decisions, about whether the future they imagined when they signed the contract is still possible or has faded without anyone letting them know.
Fragmentation operates on two simultaneous levels. At the organizational level, it produces areas that work toward their own objectives without looking at the complete trajectory. At the level of personal experience, it produces an identity uncertainty that settles in silently and rarely shows up in engagement surveys. The cost of that uncertainty appears in the talent that leaves without ever having said why, in those who stay but stop investing themselves, in the gap between what the organization believes it offers and what people actually live.
What you could begin to look at
If you lead talent attraction, organizational development, culture or People & Culture, the question worth asking yourself is not how to improve each of these areas in isolation. The question is who is looking at the complete trajectory of a person from the moment they enter until they leave or grow within your organization.
Who ensures that the promise attraction made finds continuity in development. Who verifies that internal progression criteria are understandable for those who do not belong to the circles where that information circulates informally. Who detects the moment when a high-potential person begins to disconnect without having received a single signal that something is wrong.
These questions are not answered by creating a new role that inherits the same fragmented logic under a different name. They are answered by examining the logic that produced the fragmentation in the first place. Happiness does not need a department. It needs a system where the pieces that touch a person’s experience speak to one another. Development does not need an isolated program. It needs transparent criteria that operate in daily practice. Retention does not need incentives that compensate for what is missing. It needs the experience of working to resemble, at least in its fundamental outlines, what was promised on the day the person said yes.
A conversation that deserves time
These questions have no immediate answers, and that is probably for the best. Quick answers tend to be superficial reorganizations that leave the underlying logic untouched. What the field needs is to begin asking these questions with more honesty than it has shown so far. The fragmented logic is not an implementation error to be corrected with a process adjustment. It is an implicit theory about what an organization is and about what a working person is. For as long as that theory remains unexamined, we will keep adding pieces, creating roles, launching appealing EVPs and wondering why the experience of working does not add up.
Who in your organization is looking at the complete trajectory of a person, from the initial promise through to real development, and what conversations are missing between the areas that touch that trajectory without ever coming together to examine it as a whole?
