Study features and limitations

Before proceeding to the findings, some features and limitations of the study should be considered. Firstly, there were a number of potential limitations with the sample. Secondly, there were limitations inherent with the method of data collection and analysis. Finally, as discussed earlier

92

in this chapter, there are limitations due to my ‘positionality’ (Lincoln, 1995: 280). Each of these areas is considered briefly below.

The sample for phase one was selected primarily from within my existing network. This could have had a number of implications, both positive and disruptive. Some positive observations about the participants related to the broad range of organizations which they represented. The organizations were from public and private sector, publically quoted, family owned and private equity funded. Some of the organizations were quite small, others were amongst the largest organizations on a global scale. For the purpose of this study, such diversity of participants was a strength as it enabled a wide selection of views and experience to be included in the research. Furthermore, because most participants had an existing relationship with me it was easier to build trust and this potentially made it more likely that the participant would be honest in the discussion. Alternatively, it could be argued that being part of my network and agreeing to take part in the study illustrated a similarity between the participants which was counter to the intention of seeking a broad range of perspectives. However, the purpose of this study was an initial exploration of the perceptions of HR and OD professionals. Whilst keen to involve a wide range of organizations, there was no attempt to select a representative sample of HR and OD people. Therefore, whilst relevant to the lack of generalizability of the findings, it is not an appropriate critique of the research.

A second critique relates to the insights provided by the HR perspective. Nishii et al., (2008) identified a discrepancy between the HR and employee view of HR practices. Thus, the HR perspective may represent an idealised version of what is happening, a perspective that may not be shared by other stakeholders. Within this study I noted that such a discrepancy could be a particular feature of the accounts of two of the phase one participants not subsequently involved in phase two. They described the talent and career environment of their organizations in very positive ways, identifying few challenges. This was in contrast to most other phase one participants who were very open about a perceived disconnect between policy and practice. For example, many highlighted that although things are ‘meant to happen’, they don’t. Furthermore, within the case study organizations the HR views were largely consistent with the views of other stakeholders. Therefore, although some of the phase one participants may have been inclined to describe only the positives, this did not seem to be a feature of the overall research.

The participants for phase two were invited through the HR contact in their organization. Whilst I had asked for people with a variety of views and experiences, the HR contact may have

93

(consciously or subconsciously) invited people who were likely to portray a certain image. This may suggest that only certain views were captured, influencing the conclusions drawn. However, a range of different accounts were shared in each case study, illustrating a diversity of experience. Moreover, participants seemed very willing to share negative events and influences as well as positive. Thus, even if the participants were selected with a specific intention, they still described a range of experiences. It is however recognized that there is no way of knowing how the experiences they chose to share in the interview differed from other experiences they may have been through.

A number of potential limitations emerged from the way in which the data were collected and analysed. Some of these were inherent in the method of semi structured interview and others related to specific approaches used in this study.

Firstly, one common critique of semi-structured interviews is the lack of consistency and reliability. However, if taking a constructionist lens, these terms become inappropriate – the data collected in an interview should be considered within the context within which they were created (Silverman, 2006). The context of the interviews will have set an environment for the discussion which is likely to have influenced the account that the participant expressed. As Coupland (2004) states, we try to make our account ‘plausible, legitimate, coherent and likely to be believed in the interaction taking place’ (Coupland, 2004: 519). From this perspective, the interview becomes an active process (Holstein & Gubrium, 2004) whereby in the act of talking, the participant constructs new meaning rather than simply relaying existing ideas. This process was commented on within this research by several of the participants who at the end of the interview indicated that the conversation had helped them think things through and they were now clearer on what they wanted to do to address their concerns. Throughout the analysis and interpretation of the data it is therefore important to frame the findings as accounts and representations rather than ‘fact’ (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1998).

Participants had the opportunity to check their notes, to edit and amend them. This provided a chance to ensure that participants were comfortable with the account being used in the research. These notes were then used for all the quotations referenced in the subsequent analysis. It is recognised that this checking back process could have provided an opportunity for participants to screen out candid comments or to create a more coherent narrative. However, the edits tended to be minor, so this did not seem to be the case. I would have liked to involve the participants more in the analysis of the findings, to co-create the analysis and meaning from the discussions. It was difficult to create an opportunity for this involvement. The participants were all sent a copy of the initial report

94

and feedback was very positive that the report summarised their thoughts and provided clarity. However, Bloor (1978) points out that respondents are only likely to confirm the findings if they fit within their existing self-image. Given the aims of both participant reports, this did not represent a challenge – the reports were intended as a description of the perceptions of the stakeholder’s views. However, as further analysis was conducted and some of the links to existing research were explored, the participants may not see themselves as much in the findings.

The method of recording the interviews is a further potential limitation of the study. Whilst it was a conscious decision not to record and transcribe the interviews this did have some consequences. As shown in Table 4.7 above, the benefits of note taking included increasing the number of interviews that were possible and the quick turnaround between the interview taking place and the notes being checked by participants. However, as the process of data analysis deepened, I found that I wanted to know the specific questions I had asked that had prompted a response. I would also have been interested in conducting analysis on the structure of participants’ responses, the way in which they told their stories and the language they used (e.g. Coupland, 2004). This could have helped me to explore how different participants constructed their understanding of career, their own role and their expectations of their manager and organization. However, the decision not to record and transcribe the interviews limited the opportunity for this type of analysis (e.g. discourse analysis, Potter & Wetherell, 1995). Furthermore, I was left with an impression of the emotional response of participants to certain descriptions or realisations. However, without a recording it was difficult to capture specific evidence to support these impressions. For example, when summarizing the HR discussions in my research diary I commented on a significant difference in the way the HR participants had described alignment in terms of talent management and career conversations. My memory was that whilst being business focused in describing talent management, they were more interested in partnership and mutuality in their descriptions of career conversations. For me, this was a perfect illustration of Truss’s (1997) comparison of hard and soft approaches. However, when looking in detail through my interview notes, it was difficult to find evidence for this being a major theme of the research.

One part of the data analysis was the further development of the contextual map (see Figure 4.7 for a version created during initial analysis). This summarised the way in which participants described the influences on organizational talent management and individual career development. However, as mentioned above, the distinctions between some of the labels were not clear, and there could have been some overlap (i.e. the codes did not refer to completely discrete ideas). This

95

limitation could have been addressed by involving another researcher more in the analytical process. This would have encouraged debate about the different labels, the definitions and the boundaries.

A further limitation of the research is the influence of my existing views, beliefs and experiences (e.g. Symon & Cassell, 2012). I was researching within an environment that I am very familiar with, so I entered the research with some existing thoughts (which will have shaped the study as described above). I therefore had to work hard to listen in a non-judgemental way when conducting the research interviews so that I was open to accounts which were counter to my previous thoughts. Additionally, when analysing the data it was helpful to use a structured approach to avoid a heavy reliance on my previous experiences. These steps were helped by the use of a research diary to develop my reflexive practice (e.g. Engin, 2011; Haynes, 2012). An excerpt from the diary can be seen in Appendix 4, showing how this was used as an informal log for updates, questions and thoughts. Furthermore, much thinking and reflection took place at other times (such as when walking the dog). There are some voice memo records of these reflections, (for example, my deliberations regarding the words ‘alignment’ and mutuality’ as discussed earlier in this chapter) but they were not captured in a structured way. Throughout this chapter some reference has been made to the usefulness of the research diary. However, I was not as disciplined in keeping it as I had intended. This has made it more difficult to unpick some of the decisions which were made. I have learnt that a more structured approach to diary keeping would have helped me. A checklist of simple questions to review at least weekly would have helped me to be more reflexive about theory, methods, assumptions and emerging findings. Some of the other influences of my existing views and beliefs will be explored throughout the findings chapters and revisited in the final chapter on conclusions.

4.8 Conclusion

This chapter has described the research approach taken in this study. The literature review was used to develop four research questions:

RQ1: In what ways do stakeholders seek alignment between organizational talent and individual career goals?

RQ2: In what ways do stakeholders see career conversations as an opportunity to align organizational talent needs and individual career goals?

96

RQ3: What types of career conversations are seen to make positive contributions to people’s career development?

RQ4: In what ways does organizational context seem to influence the alignment of organizational talent needs with individual career goals and the nature of career conversations?

These RQ’s were explored through a qualitative research design. Semi-structured interviews with senior HR and OD professionals formed phase one of the study. Phase two involved semi-structured interviews with line managers and individuals from five case study organizations which had also been represented in phase one. Initial data analysis for each phase was conducted separately. However, for the discussion of the findings the data are considered as one study, albeit representing different stakeholder views and different case study organizations.

Having completed the analysis described in this chapter, various ways of presenting the findings were considered. For example, focusing on each stakeholder perspective in turn or starting with the case study findings. After trying out a number of options (see diagrams in Appendix 18), I decided to group RQ 1 and 2 together to provide some initial context on alignment between the organization and individual and the contribution of career conversations. These findings are presented in chapter 5. The analysis then became more specific as the data for RQ3 on specific career conversations were explored and these findings are shown in chapter 6. The case study approach of RQ4 is then taken, with the findings on influences of organizational context shared in chapter 7. Throughout these chapters the results for this study are discussed within the context of previous studies, showing how they support, extend or challenge existing literature. The conclusion chapter (chapter 8) provides the opportunity to reflect on the overall research themes and contribution.

97

Chapter 5: Alignment between organizational talent management and individual career