Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson (2012) suggest that most of the debates about knowledge of claims involve questions of ontology (the study of the nature of reality and its existence) and epistemology (the study of the best way or ways of inquiring into the nature of reality). Ontological and epistemological assumptions tend to overlap – as Crotty (1998) points out, it is difficult to distinguish between ontology and epistemology as they are mutually dependent: “to talk about the construction of meaning [epistemology] is to talk of the construction of a meaningful reality [ontology]” (p. 10). The debates around ontology are usually described in relation to two distinct views, the first of which is realism, which “emphasises that the world is concrete and external, and that science can only progress through observations that have a direct correspondence to the phenomena being investigated” (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p. 19). In other words, the assumption is that the real world has a hard and tangible structure which exists irrespective of and separately from the individual’s perception of it (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). The second view is relativism, which assumes that there are many different truths and that reality is created by people (Latour and Woolgar, 1979), meaning that “there is no objective truth to be known” (Hugly and Sayward, 1987, p. 278). Instead, there are different interpretations of the world, and no definite facts, but different accommodations of facts which are dependent on the viewpoints of people. There is, therefore, no truth, and social reality is nothing more than a creation of people through the use of labels, language and discourse (Cunliffe, 2001).
I see reality as a product of individual consciousness (Burrell, 2001), and believe that there is no single reality to be discovered, but instead many realities to discover. In terms of ontology,
87
THE VALUE OF TALENT MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTURES TO MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES
therefore, my beliefs lean towards relativism. What this means for this research is that in order to generate a deeper understanding of TM and the value it may add, I need to recognise the importance of taking into account the viewpoints, experiences and events surrounding TM, and for this reason I made a conscious choice to engage with strategic actors in organisations to gain access to the underlying views and assumptions they might have about TM and value. I thus recognise that both these strategic actors and myself (as a researcher) are critical to deconstructing and constructing knowledge, and so I need to question their experiences, thoughts and feelings and dig deeper into their perceptions and logics and become immersed in the context of the research myself.
Epistemology, or paradigms [as described by Kuhn (1977)], is “a set of basic beliefs (or metaphysics) that deals with ultimates or first principles. It represents a world view that defines, for its holder, the nature of the "world," the individual's place in it, and the range of possible relationships to that world and its parts” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p. 107). Debates about epistemology are focused around two contrasting views, which are the ‘Positivist’ and the ‘Constructivist’ view. In the positivist paradigm (also referred to as naïve-realism), reality is external and objective, based on observed facts and is investigated independently of the investigator. Crotty (1998) suggests that in the positivist paradigm “scientific knowledge is utterly objective and that only scientific knowledge is valid, certain and accurate” (p .29). This means that a positivist researcher usually relies on scientific methods such as experiments to manipulate observed objects with the aim of discovering relationships between variables (Mertens, 2014). Such researchers are concerned with uncovering the truth and empirically presenting it (Henning et al., 2004).
88
THE VALUE OF TALENT MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTURES TO MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES
On the other hand, the constructivist paradigm recognises that knowledge is socially constructed by peoples’ perceptions, and that it is impossible to separate between what exists in the social world and what exists in the researcher’s mind (Creswell, 2014). Constructivism rests on the assumption that “realities are apprehendable in the form of multiple, intangible mental constructions, socially and experientially based” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p. 111). It rejects the notion that there is an objective reality out there and instead it takes the stance that multiple subjective realities exist. The researcher's objective is thus to understand these multiple social constructions of meaning and knowledge (Mertens, 2014). It assumes that knowledge and meanings are an act of interpretation and there is no such thing as objective knowledge which is independent of thinking and human reasoning (Gephart, 1999), so there is a need to understand phenomena through the meanings which people assign to them (Deetz, 1996).
Therefore, in line with my ontological orientation, my epistemological stance leans more towards the constructivist paradigm. In this research I play the role of an active observer (Carr and Kemmis, 1986), in which I see myself engaging in interpreting the meanings and actions of strategic actors as they express them within their specific social context. I recognise that meaning is constructed through people and is therefore created, negotiated, sustained and modified (Schwandt, 2003) by the way strategic actors make sense of their world and by their views and experience of TM and its value. My role in this research is to consider the complexity of the views and interpretations that strategic actors bring to the discussion, and to seek explanations within their frame of reference as opposed to just being an observer of action.
89
THE VALUE OF TALENT MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTURES TO MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES
the use of research propositions (I explained why propositions were used in Chapter 3 – Literature Review). However, reflecting on the nature of the research problem ‘how TM architectures may add value to organisations’ and the research questions (outlined in Chapter 1 – Introduction, and in more detail in Chapter 3 – Literature Review), it becomes clear why these philosophical positions (relativist ontology and the constructivist paradigm) fit the research well. To further clarify this, I recognise that data collection and much of the data analysis happen at the individual and the organisational levels, where reality is subjective and draws on different interpretations. I also recognise that strategic actors have their own informed and insightful views on how exactly TM architectures may or may not add value to their organisations. Finally, I recognise that even where TM practices might appear the same (on the surface level), these practices are embedded in a complex and internally-shaped set of organisational systems which are unique to each organisation.
It is important to note that in formulating the first research question ('Do strategic actors believe that the talent management architectures (practices, processes, policies) implemented within their organisations add value to the organisation, and if so, what value do they believe they add?'), I decided to adopt a subjective and exploratory approach, to allow actors to share their views without me imposing any ideas or frameworks on them. However, in relation to the second research question ('How may talent management architectures add value in relation to four value processes (creation, capture, leverage and protection)?'), I recognise that within the RBV and the value creation and dynamic capabilities literature (which has informed much of the thinking in this study) there are a number of known conditions and specifications of which are critical to understanding how TM architectures may add value to organisations, and thus should not be ignored. Therefore, I chose to adopt a deterministic theoretical framework (value
90
THE VALUE OF TALENT MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTURES TO MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES
model) of value which was generated from within the literature to guide the investigation (i.e. data collection and data analysis) and to capture the specifications of value that might have an implication on TM. It is also important to note that I fully recognise that this theoretical model was subjectively constructed, and that the participants would perceive it subjectively. This is because I recognise the importance of subjective constructivism (in that I am interested in examining how strategic actors interpret the value model, how they relate it to TM and what it means to them). The reason why I choose to use a deterministic theoretical framework (value model) is that I recognise that it is legitimate not only to question how strategic actors think about value, but to also look deeply into the different value ideas and processes – as described in the strategic management and value literature - and to examine whether these can usefully be drawn on and applied in a discussion of TM.