By Jum Lamont, Managing Director, Amberjack Global
There’s a question early talent leaders are being asked more often right now:
How do we do more with less?
It’s the wrong question.
Because most early talent programs don’t have a resource problem – they have a focus problem.
Over the past decade, programs have expanded in every direction. Stronger EVP. More sophisticated assessment. Better onboarding. Richer development. New technology. More stakeholder engagement.
On paper, it looks impressive.
In practice, it often means we are spread too thin – doing a lot of things reasonably well, but very few things exceptionally well.
And in a market where budgets are tightening but expectations continue to rise, that approach is starting to break.
The reality: pressure is increasing, not easing
Across the market, the pressure points are clear.
Budgets are under scrutiny.
Senior stakeholders want clearer evidence of ROI.
Candidate expectations are rising – particularly around support, development and meaningful work.
And AI is accelerating change faster than most programs can adapt.
At the same time, many organisations are questioning the quality and readiness of early career hires, particularly in areas like resilience, self-awareness and adaptability.
In other words:
- Less budget
- Higher expectations
- More complexity
You can’t solve that by layering on more activity. You solve it by making sharper decisions.
The core issue: most programs try to optimise everything
Across the organisations we work with, one of the first questions we ask is where they’re investing. And the answer is usually:
- Attraction / ETVP messaging
- Selection / assessment
- Program experience
- Development
- Manager capability
- Technology / tools
All valid. All important.
But here’s the challenge – few organisations are clear on what actually drives outcomes.
So instead of making trade-offs, they try to lift everything and end up with a program that feels busy, but not necessarily impactful.
Because the reality is simple: If everything is a priority, nothing is.
The missed opportunity: over-complicating and over-investing in the front end
Across the organisations we see, there’s a consistent pattern.
A huge amount of time, energy and budget goes into:
- Employer branding that doesn’t reach the right audience
- Recruitment approaches that don’t identify the right talent
- Selection processes that add complexity without improving outcomes
And rightly so – getting the right people in matters.
But what happens next?
Too often, the experience that follows is:
- Inconsistent for candidates once they join
- Dependent on the capability of individual managers
- Generic in development
- Reactive rather than intentionally designed
So, we end up with a strange imbalance.
We invest heavily with the intention of bringing great people through the door…
then leave their experience to chance once they’re inside.
That’s not a budget problem. That’s a design problem.
So where should you invest first?
If you’re operating in a constrained environment – and let’s be honest, most organisations are – the question isn’t – ‘Where can we cut?’
It’s ‘Where will investment actually move the needle?’
From what we are seeing across the market, four areas consistently stand out.
Attraction and recruitment that is intentional, not over-engineered
The first step in any early talent program is getting the right people through the door – but this is also where many organisations can over-complicate things.
Attraction and recruitment isn’t about doing more. It’s about being more deliberate.
That means:
- Being clear on the audience you want to reach
- Cutting through with messaging that’s relevant, not just polished
- Designing a selection experience that identifies talent that is right for the program
- Using technology and data to make faster, better decisions – not just add process
When this is done well, it simplifies the front end rather than expanding it – and creates a stronger foundation for everything that follows.
Manager capability
If success in early talent comes down to moments – first feedback conversation, first stretch assignment, first mistake —-then the people who shape those moments matter most.
And in almost every organisation: Managers are the experience.
Yet they are often the least supported part of the system.
Most managers want to do the right thing. They just haven’t been given the tools, time or confidence to do it well. So, investing in manager capability isn’t a “nice to have”. It’s one of the highest-leverage decisions you can make.
Onboarding and the first 30 days
We talk a lot about attraction and engagement before day one.
But the first 30 days inside the organisation are where:
- Expectations are set
- Confidence is built (or lost)
- Connection happens (or doesn’t)
Get that right, and you accelerate performance and retention. Get it wrong, and you spend the next 12 months trying to recover.
This isn’t about more content or more sessions.
It’s about being intentional about the moments that matter early – and designing them properly.
Development that builds real capability
One of the biggest shifts happening right now is around what development actually needs to do. Technical skills still matter.
But the differentiators are increasingly human:
- Adaptability
- Self-awareness
- Resilience
- Critical thinking
- Confidence
These are harder to build. Harder to measure. And often overlooked in favour of more generic, scalable content.
But they’re also what drive performance.
So the question is: Are we developing activity… or are we developing capability?
Because they are not the same thing.
The shift: from “more activity” to “better decisions”
The organisations getting this right aren’t necessarily the ones with the biggest budgets.
They are the ones that:
- Are clear on what matters most
- Make deliberate trade-offs
- Design experiences, not just processes
- Invest in the parts of the system that actually shape outcomes
They are not trying to do everything. They are trying to do the right things – properly.
Final thought
Early talent has always been an investment. But in a tighter market, that investment needs to be more intentional than ever. Because the difference between programs that struggle and programs that deliver is not usually budget.
It’s clarity.
Clarity on what matters.
Clarity on where to invest.
And clarity on what good actually looks like.
Because the programs that win won’t be the ones doing more.
They will be the ones deciding better.
