Talent Hoarding
Why “Talent Hoarding” Is Killing the Company and How HR Can Stop It
Agility has now proved to be the most
treasured asset of companies in a business world that is speedy, uncertain and
in a state of consistent reinvention (Tran
et al., 2024). To be competitive, organisations should be
in a position to mobilize talent quickly, cross-functional teams as well as
addressing emerging issues. However, talent hoarding is a mute killer of
agility to many firms.
Talent hoarding is a situation where managers
intentionally or unintentionally deny their highly performing employees a
chance to venture into new prospects of the organisation (Morel, 2023). They can
postpone internal promotion or demotivate applicants to apply to other
positions or even indirectly challenge the willingness of an employee to be
promoted. Though this behaviour can be easily explained by the need to defend
short-term team performance, it eventually harms the overall health of the
organization, stalls growth of employees, and leads to higher turnover rates.
Understanding
Why Talent Hoarding Happens
According to the research of Haegele (2022),
the fear of many managers is losing a high performer will lead to lower
productivity rates in the team, more work, and the even more expensive burden
of having to find and train a new employee. Such performance-dips fear causes
the managers to hold on to their best employees even when it is in the best
interest of the organization at large to move them internally.
Another similar cause is scarcity mindset.
Managers are unwilling to lose their best employees when they feel that talent
is not in abundance and they will not easily find other equally skilled workers
to replace them (Sieck,
2015). Organizational incentive systems tend to support this attitude by
rewarding managers based on the performance of his or her team and not
necessarily as part of the overall talent development of the company. In a said
study, three-quarters of the managers confirmed that they are hoarding talent
because they lack incentives to develop and release top performers (Haegele,
2022).
Cognitive bias complicates the matter even
more. Keller and Dlugos (2024) mention that in such a way, managers are
inclined to overestimate the contribution of an employee to his or her present
team and underscore their possible contribution in another area. This brings
about rationalisations such as she is not yet ready or this is not the right
moment which have the effect of postponing the career development of an
employee.
Watch this video for insights on why leaders
hoard talent and how this behavior can stifle team growth and lead to burnout. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPcOleskc50
The
Organizational Damage of Talent Hoarding
Talent hoarding can have much farther
consequences than frustration among individuals. Employees become trapped and
uninvolved when the managers inhibit mobility. PeoplesFluent (2025) reports
that three times more likely to turn in favor of a competitor are the
high-performing employees who lack career growth within the organization. This
will not only deny the company of the skills but also demoralize others who
remain with the firm and see blocked career advancements.
On the organizational level, talent hoarding
forms silos and kills agility (Waal
et al., 2019). Knowledge and skills locked up in the
departments will result in innovation slowness. A good example would be the
pre-Satya Nadella days at Microsoft where the competition among the
organization's members and the absence of collaboration, which was frequently
driven by the need of managers to protect their teams, hampered the ability to
innovate and become responsive. Upon becoming the CEO, Nadella broke down these
silos and promoted the culture of growth mindset, which allowed movement of
teams and renegotiated talent as a corporate resource (Microsoft Annual Report,
2015). The change enhanced innovation and agility throughout the organization.
Unilever has created within itself internal
marketplaces such as an AI-based talent marketplace called Flex Experiences
that enables employees to find short-term projects and new positions without
the need to managerially gatekeep them (Unilever,
2020). This has enabled Unilever to save on turnover and also use talent fast
to the new priority areas by making internal mobility visible and skill-based
(He & Waldman, 2024). These are only examples that show that agility is not
a technological problem, but an issue related to human capital.
The Human
Cost for Managers and Teams
Talent hoarding is also counterproductive to
the managers who are practicing it. Keller and Dlugos (2024) discovered that
such managers who prevent their best employees to be shifted off their books
earn reputations as career blockers and thus it becomes more difficult to attract
ambitious talent in future. In the long run, these teams lose morale and lack
productivity, employees develop an impression that they cannot grow.
Conversely, when an organization has managers who promote internal mobility,
they tend to become talent magnets as they attract high performers who believe
in developmental leadership.
The impressive example is the one of Google,
where mobility is instilled into the level of managerial expectations. Managers
are also rated not only on the output of the team but also on the output of how
well they develop and release the talent within the company (Google, n.d.).
There is the option of employees applying to internal positions using the open
positioning method and the HR can ensure the fair accessibility of the position
as it will be monitoring the managers who block the transfer without justifiable
reasons. This policy has helped Google to earn its reputation of having a
career development policy and high retention rates among high performers
(Keller and Dlugos, 2024).
How HR Can
Break the Cycle
In order to prevent talent hoarding, the HR
department needs to take specific actions to re-align culture, incentives, and
processes. The initial one is to redefine talent as resource of the
organization instead of departmental resource. This culture change demands
constant communication by the leadership that talent development and release is
the sign of excellent management, rather than loss.
Second, businesses have to match managerial
incentives and the agility of the organization. Performance reviews and
compensation decisions should include internal mobility measures, which
include: percentage of team members promoted or transferred to another team.
Companies such as IBM have already implemented this strategy and reward leaders
based on talent development and succession planning, and not on short-term
production (PeopleFluent, 2025).
Third, companies should have open talent
markets that will allow employees to search in-house jobs on their own.
Unilever and Schneider Electric rely on AI-driven platforms such as Gloat or
Workday to compare the skills of employees with vacant positions or projects of
interest, reducing bias on the side of managers and establishing objective
data-driven mobility options (He & Waldman, 2024).
Lastly, the HR should be a mediator and an
enforcer. In cases where a manager is continually halting legitimate moves, the
HR must have the power to step in. This policy sends signals to employees that
the organization has an interest in career progression and it would not
encourage them to think that the management owns talents.
Conclusion
Talent hoarding can be viewed as a defensive action of short time security but comes at a very high cost, killing long term growth and responsiveness. In a competitive world where innovation and versatility are the real competitive edge, no company can afford not to move its better performers forward. Examples such as Microsoft, Google and Unilever demonstrate that empowering mobility, rewarding talent stewardship, using technology to democratize opportunity can turn managers into talent hoarders into talent cultivators through HR. The outcome is an agile and engaged workforce that is overly committed to the long-term vision of the company.
References
Chemistry Staffing
(2025) Hoarding Talent. 14 October. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPcOleskc50
(Accessed: 16 October 2025).
Google (n.d.) Develop great
managers. Available at: https://rework.withgoogle.com/intl/en/guides/managers-developing-great-managers-at-google/ (Accessed: 16 October 2025).
Morel, D. (2023) 'Employers Are
Hoarding Talent, But For How Long?', Forbes, 26 September. Available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmorel/2023/09/26/employers-are-hoarding-talent-but-for-how-long/ (Accessed: 16 October 2025).
Haegele, I. (2022) Talent Hoarding in
Organizations. arXiv.org. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.15098 (Accessed:
16 October 2025).
He, Q. and Waldman, M. (2024) Intra-firm
Employer Learning, Talent Hoarding and Managerial Practices. University of
Edinburgh. Available at:
https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/intra-firm-employer-learning-talent-hoarding-and-managerial-pract
(Accessed: 16 October 2025).
Keller, J.R. and Dlugos, K. (2024) ‘Why You
Should Let Your Favorite Employee Move to Another Team’, MIT Sloan
Management Review, 24 April. Available at: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-research-from-mit-smr-shows-talent-hoarding-is-destructive-for-managers-employees-and-organizations-302123672.html (Accessed:
16 October 2025).
Microsoft (2015) Annual Report 2015.
Available at: https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar15 (Accessed:
16 October 2025).
PeopleFluent (2025) The High Cost of Talent
Hoarding (And Why It’s Hurting Your Employee Retention Strategy). Available
at: https://www.peoplefluent.com/blog/talent-management/talent-hoarding-hurting-your-employee-retention-strategy/ (Accessed:
16 October 2025).
Sieck,
T. (2015) 'Should you intentionally lose your best employees?', World
Economic Forum, 16 April. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2015/04/should-you-intentionally-lose-your-best-employees/ (Accessed: 16 October 2025).
Tran,
T.H.L., Nguyen, T., Le, V.C. and Nguyen, G. (2024) 'The organisational impact
of agility: a systematic literature review', Management Review Quarterly,
75(7). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381610127_The_organisational_impact_of_agility_a_systematic_literature_review (Accessed:
16 October 2025).
Unilever (2020) An exciting
new normal for flexible working. Available at: https://www.unilever.com/news/news-search/2020/an-exciting-new-normal-for-flexible-working/
(Accessed: 16 October 2025).
Waal, A. de., Weaver, M., Day,
T. and Heijden, B. van der. (2019) 'Silo-Busting: Overcoming the Greatest
Threat to Organizational Performance', Sustainability, 11(23), p. 6860.
doi: 10.3390/su11236860.
Luckmee, Your article gives a clear and thoughtful discussion on how talent hoarding can quietly damage an organisation’s agility and employee growth. I like how you addressed that managers hold on to top performers, they may protect short-term results, but harm long-term innovation and morale. The case of Unilever's AI-driven "Flex Experiences" platform presents a positive example in the way talent mobility is made open and fair so that employees can grow unhindered (Unilever, 2020). Overall, your article highlighted the fact that agility does not relate only to technology but also to the culture of human resource development and movement inside an organisation.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your thoughtful feedback' I’m glad you found the discussion meaningful and appreciated the example of Unilever’s approach to talent mobility.
DeleteThis is very insightful and well-written blog about how talent hoarding silently destroys flexibility and innovation. It’s very clear about the examples that you used to explain this, like Google, Microsoft, and Unilever to demonstrate that encouraging mobility and reward strategies used to develop the talent leads to building strong leadership, employee engagement, and organizational growth.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind words’ I’m glad you found the blog insightful and appreciated the examples used to highlight the importance of talent mobility and growth.
DeleteTalent hoarding and its negative effects on employee engagement, organizational agility, and innovation are compellingly examined in this article. It explains in detail the structural and psychological elements, such as cognitive bias, scarcity mindset, and fear of losing productivity that lead managers to hoard talent (Haegele, 2022; Sieck, 2015; Keller & Dlugos, 2024). The article skillfully illustrates how HR interventions, internal talent marketplaces, and incentive alignment can change managers from hoarders into career growth facilitators, improving organizational flexibility and long-term success (Morel, 2023; He & Waldman, 2024; PeopleFluent, 2025) by referencing actual cases from Microsoft, Google, and Unilever.
ReplyDeleteGreat points. The article clearly shows how talent hoarding can limit growth and innovation. Encouraging talent mobility and aligning incentives helps build a culture of development, trust, and long-term success for both employees and the organization.
DeleteA compelling and topical read that demonstrates how employee morale, company growth, and agility are all negatively impacted by talent hoarding. Promoting internal mobility is not only good HR practice, but it also improves the culture, encourages new ideas, and trains leaders for the future. When managers encourage talent movement, they become talent developers instead of talent keepers.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Encouraging internal mobility helps employees grow while strengthening the organization. When managers support talent movement, everyone benefits, from individual development to overall company success.
DeleteA well-argued and timely piece on the hidden costs of talent hoarding. I found the reference to Keller and Dlugos 2024 particularly striking: how managers who block internal mobility face the prospect of becoming 'career blockers' and forfeiting future talent. The framing of talent mobility not as an HR strategy but as a leadership imperative is well made. The examples from Google and Unilever illustrate how aligning incentives with growth can change organizational culture. Thanks for putting this critical issue in perspective.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind feedback. I’m glad you found the insights and examples meaningful, especially the point about talent mobility as a leadership imperative.
DeleteA brilliant and insightful analysis of how talent hoarding silently undermines organisational agility and innovation. The article powerfully connects the behavioural, structural, and strategic causes of this issue from managerial fear and incentive misalignment to cultural and systemic inertia. What stands out most is the integration of evidence from credible global organisations like Microsoft, Google, and Unilever, which turns theory into practical learning. The proposed HR solutions such as redefining talent ownership, aligning managerial KPIs, and leveraging AI-driven mobility platforms demonstrate a deep understanding of strategic HRM. This is a well-researched, timely, and thought-provoking piece that captures the human and organisational cost of hoarding talent while offering clear pathways for reform.
ReplyDeletehank you so much for your thoughtful feedback. I’m really glad you found the analysis and examples valuable, and that the proposed solutions resonated with you.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis article provides a thorough examination of talent hoarding, identifying it as a critical, often overlooked challenge to organizational agility and innovation. It effectively integrates theoretical perspectives, case studies from companies such as Microsoft, Google, and Unilever, and actionable HR strategies. The article emphasizes that talent mobility transcends traditional HR practices, representing a fundamental cultural commitment necessary for organizational growth and adaptability. Notably, it delves into the psychological dynamics of managers and cognitive biases, offering a deeper understanding of the reasons behind talent hoarding rather than merely categorizing it as negative behavior.
ReplyDeleteThank you for such an insightful summary and reflection. I’m really glad the article’s blend of research, real world cases, and practical strategies resonated with you. Talent hoarding is often treated as a surface level HR issue, so it was important to highlight the deeper psychological and cultural factors that drive it. Organizations like Microsoft, Google, and Unilever show that when mobility becomes a genuine cultural commitment, not just a policy, it fuels innovation, agility, and long term growth. I truly appreciate you taking the time to comment on my article.
DeleteYour analysis of talent hoarding as an agility killer is spot-on. The examples from Microsoft, Google, and Unilever show how internal mobility platforms and aligned incentives transform managers from gatekeepers into developers. Redefining talent as organizational, not departmental, resource is the cultural shift companies need.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this thoughtful reflection. I’m glad the examples from Microsoft, Google, and Unilever resonated. They really demonstrate how the right systems and incentives can shift managers from guarding talent to actively developing it. Seeing talent as an organizational asset rather than a departmental possession is exactly the cultural shift that enables greater agility, innovation, and long term growth. I appreciate you emphasizing that point so clearly.
DeleteAn excellent and realistic examination of how organisational agility and creativity are compromised by talent hoarding. I like how Unilever, Google, and Microsoft's examples translate theory into real-world application. This is a well-researched and thought-provoking article since the suggested HR solutions demonstrate a solid understanding of strategic HRM 💡.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your thoughtful feedback. I’m really glad the connections between talent hoarding, reduced agility, and diminished creativity came through clearly. The examples from Unilever, Google, and Microsoft were chosen precisely because they show how theory becomes practical, scalable action. I appreciate you highlighting the strategic HRM perspective as well, effective mobility solutions truly require both cultural and structural alignment. Thanks again for engaging so meaningfully with the article
DeleteYour blog offers a compelling & deeply reflective look at the hidden impact of talent hoarding on organizational progress. Your use of real-world cases from companies like Google, Microsoft & Unilever effectively illustrates how promoting internal mobility & investing in talent development can unlock greater innovation & agility.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. highlighting talent mobility and development really shows how organizations can boost innovation and agility.
DeleteThis is an excellent article. You have discussed why “talent hoarding” is killing the company and how HR can stop it. And also, you have discussed with real-world corporate examples, and practical HR strategies to show how talent hoarding undermines agility, stifles innovation, and drives turnover. Furthermore, you have discussed how modern organisations such as Microsoft, Unilever, Google, and IBM tackle the issue through cultural shifts, incentive redesign, and AI-enabled internal mobility.
ReplyDeleteThank you. I’m glad the article clearly highlighted the impact of talent hoarding and showed how leading organizations address it.
DeleteThis article really shines a light on an issue people rarely talk about openly: talent hoarding. It’s heartbreaking how often great employees feel stuck simply because a manager is afraid to lose them. When people aren’t given room to grow, they eventually lose motivation or leave altogether. What I appreciate most is the reminder that talent isn’t something to “keep,” but something to nurture and share. When leaders support internal movement and celebrate growth, everyone wins. Employees feel valued, teams stay energized, and the whole organization becomes stronger. It’s such an important mindset shift for healthy, modern workplaces.
ReplyDeleteThank you. Your reflection captures the issue perfectly. Talent hoarding really does create silent barriers that hurt both people and the organization. I’m glad the article resonated with you and reinforced the idea that growth should be supported, not restricted. When leaders embrace that mindset, it truly transforms the workplace for the better.
DeleteYes agreed, this article clearly shows the talent hoarding can silently harm both employee and the organization. I appreciate on the focus on how managers intentionally or unintentionally hold back employees and how HR can implement healthier mobility practices. Which will aid the organization to grow faster with the talents shared.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. you’ve summed it up really well. Talent hoarding often goes unnoticed, yet it limits growth for individuals and the organization alike. I’m glad the article’s focus on manager behavior and HR led mobility practices stood out to you. When companies encourage movement and development instead of restriction, they unlock far more potential and create a healthier, more agile workplace.
Delete