• No results found

Talent Management in academia

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Talent Management in academia"

Copied!
247
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Talent Management

in academia

Talent Management in academia

Marian Thunnissen

An exploratory study in Dutch

universities using a

(2)

Talent Management

in academia

Marian Thunnissen

An exploratory study in Dutch

universities using a

(3)

Talent Management in academia. An exploratory study in Dutch universities using a multi-dimensional approach

Marian Thunnissen

ISBN 978-90-393-6268-6

Ontwerp binnenwerk en omslag: Madelief Brandsma grafisch ontwerp, Arnhem Drukwerk: CPI Koninklijke Wöhrmann

(4)

Talent Management in academia

An exploratory study in Dutch universities

using a multi-dimensional approach

Talent management in universiteiten

Een explorerend onderzoek bij Nederlandse

universiteiten vanuit een multidimensionale

benadering

(met een samenvatting in het Nederlands)

Proefschrift

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. G.J. van der Zwaan, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 9 januari 2015 des ochtends te 10.30 uur

door

Maria Antonia Gerdina Thunnissen geboren op 10 juni 1971

(5)

Promotor: Prof. dr. J.P.P.E.F. Boselie Copromotor: Dr. B.G.M. Fruytier

(6)

Talent Management in academia 5

Table of content

1. Introduction 7 1.1 Introduction 8 1.2 Aim of thesis 11 1.3 Research questions 13 1.4 Thesis structure 14

2. A review of Talent Management: ‘Infancy or adolescence?’ 25

2.1 Introduction 26

2.2 Research methods 27

2.3 Findings 28

2.4 Discussion: limitations and alternative perspectives 37 3. Talent Management and the relevance of context:

Towards a pluralistic approach 49

3.1 Introduction 50

3.2 Adding new perspectives: expanding the TM paradigm 51

3.3 TM and context: A multilevel, multi-value approach 55

3.4 Discussion 60

4. Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis

using a multi-perspective approach 67

4.1 Introduction 68

4.2 Underlying research framework: a multiperspective approach 69

4.3 Research methods 72

4.4 Findings 73

4.5 Discussion 89

5. Research design 97

5.1 Introduction 98

5.2 Underlying principles of research design 100

5.3 Research design 101

5.4 Overview of research activities in empirical chapters 111 6. A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis

of the definition of talent in Dutch academia 115

6.1 Introduction 116

6.2 A multi-dimensional approach to talent 117

(7)

6.4 Findings 126

6.5 Discussion 134

7. The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective 139

7.1 Introduction 140

7.2 Exploring alternative perspectives on the value of TM 141

7.3 Research methods 146

7.4 Findings 148

7.5 Discussion 158

8. The human side of Talent Management? The value of Talent

Management from an employee perspective 165

8.1 Introduction 166

8.2 An exploration of the talents’ perspective on the value of TM 167

8.3 Research Methods 171

8.4 Findings 174

8.5 Discussion 182

9. Conclusions and discussion 189

9.1 Introduction 190

9.2 Main research findings 191

9.3 Theoretical contributions 201

9.4 Limitations 208

9.5 Implications for practice 209

Appendix 221 Appendix 1: Facts and figures on publicly funded universities

in the Netherlands 222

Appendix 2: Topic list interviews with HRM representatives 2009 224 Appendix 3: Topic list interviews with talented employees 2009 225 Appendix 4: Topic list interviews with HRM representatives 2013 227

Appendix 5: Questionnaire talented employees 2013 228

Summary (In Dutch) 233

Nederlandse samenvatting

Acknowledgements (In Dutch) 241

(8)

Introduction

(9)

1.1 Introduction

Today, the discovery and development of talent is a hot topic in several performance domains, such as sport, education but most of all in music, dance and entertainment. The term ‘talent’ brings up nearly 26 million YouTube-videos of extraordinary music or dance performances on talent shows such as Idols, X-factor and Got Talent. However, the quest for talent is timeless. It goes back to the ancient Greeks. Originally, talent represented economic value: it was an equivalent of capital. The term ‘tálanton’ referred to a unit of weight of precious metals (silver or gold). Later on, the ancient Greeks used talent to indicate a unit of money and talent became a coin (Tansley, 2011; Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries & Gonzalez-Cruz, 2013a). One talent represented the value of a large house, and therefore talent was something exclusive that only rich people could possess. In the Middle Ages the term talent acquired new meanings in Europe (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013a). A shift from economic capital to human capital became apparent, but the exclusive character of talent continued to exist. At first, the behavioral components of talent were highlighted, and talent was related to will and desire. Later, in the 15th and 16th century talent was seen as a special ability, aptitude or even a gift from God that needed to be used and developed. This interpretation of talent holds in the 17th century, although the link with divinity became less strong. From the 19th century talent was also regarded as a person, and those perceived as talented were able to demonstrate outstanding accomplishments in mental (the ‘genius’) and physical domains (Tansley, 2011; Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013a). Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2013a) point to the rise of the ‘talent scout’ (or spotter) in the 1930’s, referring to a person searching for new sport or acting talent. The first princi-ples of talent management became apparent.

Initially, the attention to talent was prominent in music, science or sport, but since McKinsey’s proclamation of the ‘war for talent’ in the 2000’s (Michaels, Handfield-Jones & Axelrod, 2001) talent has also been high on the strategic agenda of organizations. In the past ten years, talent management (TM) has become a key management issue. Several studies showed that business leaders consider finding talented people to be the single most important managerial preoccupation for this decade (e.g., Paauwe, 2007; Guthridge, Komm & Lawson, 2008; Deloitte, 2010). These authors expect that the intensifying competition for talent will have a major effect on companies. Despite the recession, many business leaders are adjusting their talent strategies to meet the upcoming talent shortages (Deloitte, 2010).

The increasing attention to talent and the expected talent shortages in organi-zations are affected by several trends and factors, such as demographic changes caused by ageing and increasing mobility and globalization (e.g., Basri & Box, 2008; Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Tarique & Schuler, 2010; Schuler, Jackson Tarique, 2011a, 2011b). Transformational changes in business environments also affect the quantity, quality and characteristics of the talent needed (Ashton & Morton, 2005; Guthridge

(10)

Talent Management in academia 9

et al., 2008; Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Schuler et al. 2011a, 2011b; Vaiman, Scullion

& Collings, 2012). This refers to developments such as the shift from product-based to knowledge-based economies, the need for employees who can handle more complex occupations, the changes in organizational structure (for example teamwork and network arrangements) and the growing importance of building and sustaining rela-tionships. Schuler et al. (2011b) claim that the success of firms today is dependent on how effectively they identify and manage the talent challenges they are confronted with and adapt to these challenges as they evolve and develop. The question is whether the organization is able to get the right people in the right place at the right time…and for the right price.

These talent challenges have been intensively debated in popular and practi-tioner oriented literature, internet magazines and on social networking sites (Iles, Preece & Chai, 2010; Vaiman, et al. , 2012). For example, at the moment (October 2014) LinkedIn has nearly 1500 professional groups discussing the ins and outs on TM. Over the past decade approximately 200 articles on talent and TM have been published in

Harvard Business Review, of which 35 appeared in the last two years: articles written

by consultants and CEO’s, as well as scholars like John Boudreau and Peter Cappelli. Although scholars have also produced a considerable number of publications on talent and TM over the course of the past decade, the amount of scholarly peer-reviewed literature is lagging behind. This illustrates a gap between the practitioner and academic interest in the subject (Dries, 2013; Al Arris, Cascio & Paauwe, 2013). In the academic field of human resources management (HRM), talent and TM seem to be relative poorly developed research subjects. The term TM lacks a clear distinct meaning, since many scholars approach TM as, for example, an equivalent of HRM, workforce planning or management development (Lewis & Heckman, 2006). To add a lasting contribution to the field of HRM, TM has to settle some limitations and dif-ficulties.

First, the field of TM lacks a stable theoretical foundation. Up till now, the litera-ture on talent and TM has been highly conceptual (Lewis & Hackman, 2006). These conceptual papers explore the field in all possible directions, using a broad range of academic traditions, including international HRM, strategic HRM, and Organizational Behavior (OB). However, this does not imply that all scholars speak the same TM language. Theoretical approaches are hardly integrated or linked, and consensus on TM principles is therefore hard to find (Lewis & Heckman, 2006; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Al Arris et al., 2013; Nijs, Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, & Sels, 2013). According to Dries (2013, p.3) ‘vague but appealing rhetoric’ even causes critics to question whether TM is not just a management fashion.

Moreover, this criticism is endorsed by the lack of empirical evidence for the con-ceptual models and ideas (Lewis & Heckman, 2006; Dries, 2013). Only recently has the number of empirical studies increased, most of which are based on qualitative

(11)

research (Gallardo-Gallardo, Nijs, Dries & Gallo, forthcoming). According to Denzin and Lincoln (1994) this is quite normal in incipient fields of study in which the variables and theory-base are unknown.

Third, the current TM literature reflects a biased view on talent and TM. In most publications discussing TM the organizational perspective is underlined, for example the contribution of TM to organizational objectives such as organizational flexibility, profit and organization’s sustainable competitive advantage (e.g., Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Ulrich & Ulrich, 2010). This emphasis on organizations’ interest is also notice-able in empirical research on TM, in which HR professionals, managers and execu-tives are the commonly targeted research population (e.g., Stahl et al., 2012). So, even though talent or talented employees are the central subjects in TM, there is little interest in their experiences and opinions. Just a few empirical studies examine TM from an employees’ perspective (e.g., Björkman et al., 2013; Dries & Pepermans, 2008; Dries, 2011; Tansley & Tietze, 2013).

Fourth, the contemporary TM literature highlights the talent issues of a select category of organizations. There is a strong focus on TM in private sector organi-zations, multinationals and organizations in the US-context (Collings, Scullion & Vaiman, 2011; Powel et al., 2012). Yet, many scholars present their theoretical frame-works as universal models, suitable to explain TM in all kinds of organizations. However, Paauwe (2004; Paauwe et al., 2013) states that contextual factors affect the shaping of the employment relationship and HRM. Since the circumstances and characteristics of private sector organizations differ from those in, for example, public or non-profit sector organizations (Christensen, Laegrid, Roness & Rovik, 2007), the current concepts and assumptions in the TM literature related to the context of US-based, private and multinational organizations are probably less than adequate to describe and study TM in organizations in other contexts. The number of publica-tions on TM in other continents than North-America has recently been increasing, such as publications on TM in Europe (e.g., Festing, Schäfer, & Scullion, 2013; Oltra, & Vivas-López, 2013), Asia (e.g., Preece, Iles & Jones, 2013; Vance, Chow, Paik & Shin, 2013) or the Middle East (Sidani & Al Ariss, 2014). However, TM issues in non-profit, public or voluntary organizations, such as health care institutes (e.g., Groves 2011; Powell et al. 2012), education institutes (e.g., Davies & Davies 2010; Van den Brink, Thunnissen & Fruytier 2013) or public sector organizations (e.g., Glenn 2012; Harrisr & Foster 2013), remain under-explored.

(12)

Talent Management in academia 11

1.2 Aim of thesis

In sum, we notice that many business leaders, practitioners and academics attach great value to talent and TM, but there is still little known about how (and how well) TM really works in practice. In addition, current assumptions, viewpoints and actions appear to be based on a narrow and biased TM ‘paradigm’. This thesis aims to identify and explain what happens in practice, and intends to contribute to the building of a broader and more balanced theoretical framework for TM. To achieve these objectives an ongoing process of theory building and gathering data was conducted, as suggested by the ana-lytical approach to HRM of Boxall, Purcell and Wright (2007). Boxall, Purcell and Wright (2007) claim that ‘the fundamental mission of the academic discipline of HRM is ‘not to propagate perceptions of ‘best practices’ in ‘excellent organizations’ but, first of all, to identify and explain what happens in practice’ (Boxall, Purcell & Wright, 2007, p. 4). Therefore, the analytical approach to HRM starts from descriptive research addressing the ‘what, why, how and for whom’ questions that underpin the activity (Boxall, 2013). To get a rigorous understanding of what actually happens in practice and why, Boxall, Purcell and Wright (2007) emphasize the point that the impact of the broader organizational context has to be considered in both the theoretical frameworks (in search for modera-tors), and in empirical research (i.e. contextually based research). In order to clarify how HRM might work in practice, models and theories from related academic subfields need to be integrated in models on the HRM process. Moreover, to get a clear understanding of the chain of processes that make HRM work well or poorly (including the moderating factors), Boxall, Purcell and Wright (2007) argue that thorough evidence-based research is required. Finally, to get an answer to the questions of ‘for whom?’ and ‘how well?’, ana-lytical HRM is concerned with assessing outcomes at multiple levels: ‘it is examining the extent to which employer and worker outcomes are mutually satisfying, and, thus, more sustainable in our society over the long run’ (Boxall, Purcell & Wright, 2007, p.7).

Adopting the analytical approach to the study of TM contributes to previous knowledge on TM in a number of ways. First, in this thesis theoretical approaches from companion academic disciplines – HRM, OB, organization theory and educa-tional psychology – are added as new ‘building blocks’ and linked to the dominant viewpoints in the TM literature to create an integrated, multi-perspective approach to talent and TM. This is an important theoretical contribution to the field, since most publications and studies focus on a single aspect of TM. Second, to give counterbal-ance to the tendency to use universal models to explain TM in all organizations, this thesis contextualizes talent and TM: the impact of the context and its interrelated actors is taken into account (e.g., Greenwood, 2002; Paauwe, 2004; Boxall, Purcell & Wright, 2007). The broader model will help in studying and implementing TM across different contexts. Third, corresponding to analytical HRM, this study goes beyond a focus on management interests, and investigates to what extent other

(13)

stakehold-ers benefit from TM. In particular, the employee pstakehold-erspective on TM is included. The talents’ needs and preferences, and their perceptions of the value of the TM practices implemented by their employer are explored. In doing so, we acknowledge that TM is a mixture of a rational and a political process which may create variance and tensions. The integration of both the organizational and employee perspective is uncommon in the field of TM. Finally, the thesis bridges the gap between theory and practice. In contrast to many conceptual TM papers, the value of the new theoretical ‘building blocks’ is explored in empirical research. The empirical data was collected in a specific context: Dutch publicly funded universities. The university is the outstanding example of a talent organization. The terms ‘talent’, ‘highly-gifted’ or ‘genius’ are often used to refer to a philosopher or scientist with extraordinary insights, a great mind who realized critical breakthroughs in his or her academic field. Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Immanuel Kant or Marie Curie are frequently mentioned as typical examples of genii. For centuries, the university tried to provide an independent intellectual space to nurture and nourish these genii. Today, universities are still looking for the most gifted and committed academics, even though the quest for talent seems to be more grounded in economic factors. The presence of highly qualified academic staff is extremely important for the quality of educational programs and academic research, the universities’ reputation, and the knowledge condition in a region (Florida, 1999; Enders, De Boer, File, Jongbloed & Westerheijden, 2011). This raises the question if, and how, this typical talent organization attracts and develops their employees. Because of the contextual relevance of TM, we will consider the specific character-istics of today’s Dutch publicly funded universities, of academic work and academic workers, as well as their impact on the conceptualization of talent, TM and the effects of TM. Therefore, the thesis is also an opportunity to learn more about the talent issues in this specific subsector.

The broader approach to talent and TM also has practical relevance. It provides organizations with opportunities to expand their view of talent and TM, and to use the multi-dimensional approach as a guide in the discussion of their own operation-alization of talent and the outcomes of TM, and the design of their TM system. In this way organizations can build a well-thought out TM system in which all options are explicitly considered, and which anticipates the potential positive and negative effects of their talent decisions.

(14)

Talent Management in academia 13

1.3 Research questions

The above reasoning results in the following main research question for the thesis:

What is the potential and actual value of TM for the organization and the talented employees, and what factors affect the design, implementation and effectiveness of TM in Dutch univer-sities?

In order to answer this research question, we first need to gain insight into the lessons learned in TM so far, and to increase our understanding of the context in which the study takes place. Therefore, the following conceptual and contextual sub questions will be answered:

1. What are the dominant themes and the leading assumptions in the current TM literature, and what are possible omissions?

2. What are the most relevant developments in the external context of Dutch uni-versities, how have they affected the academic organization, academic work and academic staff, and in what way do Dutch universities manage and mobilize their people?

Subsequently, in the empirical study, the following, more specific sub questions will be answered:

3. How is talent defined by relevant actors in the context of Dutch universities? 4. What are (a) the goals the organization intends to achieve with TM; and what

are (b) the needs and preferences of talented academic employees regarding their working environment and employment relationship?

5. What TM practices, activities and instruments have been (a) developed by the organization; and (b) implemented?

6. What are the employees’ experiences with, and perceptions of, the implemented TM practices and activities?

7. What are the perceptions of the outcomes by (a) the organization, and, (b) the talented employees?

8. What hindering and enabling factors affect the design, implementation and effectiveness of TM?

(15)

1.4 Thesis structure

The overall study can be characterized as an explorative and descriptive study, in which several aspects of TM are profoundly examined in a continuing process of theory building and gathering data. In this exploration a mixture of qualitative and quantitative research activities is used.

The thesis starts with a general exploration of the meaning of talent and TM.

Chapter 2 offers a review of the academic TM literature to provide a clear

understand-ing of the lessons learned so far (research question 1). For this purpose 62 articles on talent and TM are analyzed. The leading viewpoints regarding three dominant themes are explored in more detail: the exploration of the concept of talent, the intended outcomes or effects of TM and TM practices. In the discussion the one-dimensional and narrow approach to the topic is identified as a main limitation of the existing TM literature.

Chapter 3 builds on these limitations, presents alternative perspectives, and

the rudiments for a theoretical framework regarding the contextual relevance of TM are developed. We offer an in-depth discussion of the potential economic and non- economic value created by TM at the individual, organizational, and societal level. The theoretical ideas developed in chapter 3 lay the foundation for further theoretical and empirical explorations in the empirical chapters, in which new theoretical ‘building blocks’ are added to identify and clarify what happens in practice in more detail.

The acknowledgement of the contextual relevance of TM also implies that, after two conceptual chapters, we make an attempt to get a profound understand-ing of the research context (as formulated in the 2nd research question). Chapter 4 describes how the academic organization, academic work and working as an academic have developed in interaction with recent reforms in the external environment, and discusses the effects on HRM policy and, subsequently, on academic TM. The information is gathered through a study of academic literature on studies in Higher Education (HE), policy documents on the Dutch HE system, and several empirical studies on HRM in Dutch academic organizations. To fill in the blanks of the litera-ture study an additional, small explorative qualitative research study was conducted, i.e. interviews with fourteen representatives of relevant stakeholder groups in Dutch academia. Again, multiple integrated theoretical frameworks from different academic disciples are used in this contextual analysis to order the data and to describe the developments.

The conceptual and the contextual chapters offered significant input for the design of the empirical study. A complete overview of the research methods for the empirical study is given in chapter 5. The preceding chapters also made it possible to identify the key issues which needed further empirical investigation, including the more specific theoretical ‘buildings blocks’ necessary to complement the rudiments

(16)

Talent Management in academia 15

of the broader and more balanced theoretical framework for TM developed in chapters 2 and 3.

A study on talent management would be incomplete without a detailed explora-tion of the definiexplora-tion of talent. Therefore, in chapter 6 the conceptualizaexplora-tion of talent in the context of Dutch academia is made central (3rd research question). Instead of the one-dimensional approach to talent, which is so common in conceptual TM litera-ture, this chapter explores the value of a multidimensional interpretation of talent. This multidimensional interpretation of talent is based on a widely recognized model in educational psychology: the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) by Gagné, (2004; 2010). This multidimensional approach to talent shows that different actors inside and outside the organization have divergent interpretations of talent, and clarifies that the interpretation of talent has an impact on the configuration of the TM system. For this chapter the data from two complementary studies on defining talent in Dutch academia are used.

After a review of the definition of talent, we shift focus and investigate the management of talents to get an understanding of how TM works in practice and to what extent crucial stakeholders benefit from TM. We attempt to get an understand-ing of the value of TM from the perspective of two crucial actors in academic TM: the organization (represented by management and HR) and employees. In chapter 7 the experiences with TM on behalf of the organization are put central. We explore what the organization wanted to achieve with TM and how they did that (research questions 4 and 5). Since we gathered a set of longitudinal data in a multi-method study on TM policies and practices in five Dutch university departments, it is also possible to explore the outcomes perceived by the organization, as well as the diffi-culties they experienced in implementing TM (research questions 7 and 8). To enhance our understanding of the ‘what, why, how and for who’ questions on TM on behalf of the organization, models on the characterization of HRM (e.g., Legge, 2005), the HRM process (Paauwe, 2007; Wright & Nishii, 2013) and contextual fit (e.g., Paauwe et al., 2013) are adopted to expand the narrow TM paradigm.

In the longitudinal, multi-method study on TM policies and practices in five Dutch university departments we also collected data from a large group of talented employees. Therefore, chapter 8 discusses the value of TM from an employee’s per-spective. We focus on the experiences of the employees with their employers’ TM, by examining their needs and interests regarding their work and employment relation-ship, the talents’ perception of the TM practices implemented, and the effects talents perceived by the actual TM practices (research questions 4, 6 and 7). For this explora-tion models from the OB domain are applied to build theory, such as on work orienta-tions (e.g., Kalleberg & Marsden, 2013; Oldman & Heckman, 2010), the employment relationship (e.g., Tsui & Wu, 2005) and psychological contract (e.g., Guest, 2013; Son-nenberg, 2006).

(17)

In the final chapter of the thesis, chapter 9, the findings and conclusions of the previous chapters are connected with each other. We answer the aforementioned research questions and discuss the usefulness of the added theoretical ‘building blocks’ we have used in the study. At the end we give directions for future research, and practical implications are presented.

A final remark concerning the thesis structure. This thesis is composed of (published or accepted for publication) peer-reviewed articles (chapter 2, 3 and 6), conference papers (chapter 4, 7 and 8) and chapters which have not been published or presented before (chapter 1, 5 and 9). The articles and conference papers are adapted and adjusted to construct a coherent and easy to read thesis. This implies that some terms have been replaced (for example the term ‘paper’ is replaced by ‘chapter’), terms in section headings are synchronized (for example, the consequent use of ‘findings’ as a heading instead of ‘results’), and that references to other articles or papers written by the author of this thesis are replaced by a reference to the specific thesis chapter. Also the introduction and discussion sections have been adjusted or shortened to create an optimal connection between the chapters. For example, in the article on which chapter 3 is based, the findings of chapter 2 (dominant themes and limitations) are discussed thoroughly again. For the readability of the theses, this section is cut back to a short summary in the introduction section of chapter 3. Lastly, since we were not restricted to a maximum amount of words, we have added some extra quotations in the empirical chapters (6, 7 and 8) to illustrate the findings.

On the other hand, we tried to keep the content and overall structure of the articles and conference papers intact, so they are still readable as independent papers. This implies that, in particular in the empirical chapters, there is the pos-sibility of some recurring information already presented in preceding chapters, for example in the methods section in which the research context and the methodology is presented.

Table 1.1 gives an overview of the aims, specific research questions, resource methods and the ‘source’ of the thesis chapters.

(18)

Talent Management in academia 17

Table 1.1: Overview of Chapters: Aim, research questions, research methods and source

Chapter Research Methods Source

2. A review of talent manage-ment: Infancy or adolescence?

Aim: gain a clear understanding

of the lessons learned so far.

Research question:

What are dominant themes and the leading points of view and assumptions in the current talent management literature, and what are possible omissions?

Literature review of 62 peer reviewed articles, book chapters, books and conference papers on TM

Article published in Interna-tional Journal of HRM (2013)

3. Talent Management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach

Aim: contribute to the

development of a broader, more balanced approach to TM that will help in studying and implementing talent manage-ment across different contexts.

Article published in Human Resource

Management Review (2013)

4. Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-per-spective approach

Aim: provide a detailed

contextual analysis.

Research questions:

• What are the most relevant reforms in the external context of Dutch universities, • How have they affected

the academic organiza-tion, academic work and academic staff,

• and in what way do Dutch universities manage and mobilize their people?

Literature study and small qualitative study, i.e. interviews with 14 representatives stake-holders within Dutch academia

Papers presented at EGOS (2012; 2014), ECER conference (2013), and article published in Tijdschrift for HRM (2014)

(19)

Chapter Research Methods Source 6. A multi-dimensional

approach to talent: an empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia

Aim: contribute to the

develop-ment of a multi-dimensional approach to talent

Research questions:

• How is talent operationalized in Dutch academia?

• To what extend do uni-versities’ TM systems pay attention to (the develop-ment of) the important characteristics? • What are the difficulties

in defining, selecting and developing talent?

• Study 1: Case studies in 5 Dutch university depart-ments (data 2009): document analysis, interviews with key figures TM (30), interviews/ focus groups with 70 academics • Study 2: Identification of

talents by members of grant committees: semi-structured interviews with 29 members of NWO-grant committee

Article accepted for publication in Personnel Review

7. The value of TM:

An organizational perspective

Aim: gain insight, through

empirical research, in the intended and perceived outcomes of TM and the related TM activities and practices of organizations.

Research questions:

• What are the goals the organization intends to achieve with TM?

• What TM practices, activities and instruments have been developed and implemented by the organization? • Did the organization achieve

their intended goals? • What hindering and enabling

factors affect the develop-ment/design, implementa-tion and effectiveness of TM?

Case studies in 5 Dutch univer-sity departments:

Data 2009:

• Document analysis • Interviews with 30 key

figures TM Data 2013:

• Interviews with 12 key figures TM

Paper presented at the Dutch HRM Conference (2013)

(20)

Talent Management in academia 19

Chapter Research Methods Source

8. The human side of TM? The value of TM from an employee perspective

Aim: contribute to our

under-standing of the potential value of TM from the perspective of the organization.

Research questions:

• What are the needs and preferences of talented academic employees regarding their working envi-ronment and employment relationship?

• What are the employees’ experiences with and per-ceptions of the TM practices and activities implemented? • What are the employees’

perceptions of the outcomes?

Case studies in 5 Dutch university departments: Data 2009:

• Interviews/ focus groups with 70 talented academics • Telephonic interviews

with 10 departed talented academics

Data 2013:

• Questionnaire interviewed talents 2009 (48) + analyses LinkedIn profiles (25)

Paper presented at the 2nd EIASM workshop on TM (2013)

(21)

References

Al Ariss, A., , W. Cascio, & Paauwe, P., (2013) ‘Talent management: Current theories and future research directions’. Journal of World Business, 49(2), 173-179.

Ashton, C., & Morton, L. (2005), ‘Managing Talent for Competitive Advantage. Taking a Systematic Approach to Talent Management,’ Strategic HR Review, 4, 28-31. Basri, E., & Box, S. (2008), The Global Competition for Talent: Mobility of the Highly Skilled,

Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Beechler, S., & Woodward, I.C. (2009), ‘The Global “War for Talent”,’ Journal of

Inter-national Management, 15, 273-285.

Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Höglund, M., Mäkelä, K., Smale, A., & Sumelius, J. (2013). Talent or not? Employee reactions to talent identification. Human Resource

Man-agement, 52(2), 195-214.

Boxall, P. (2013), ‘Building Highly-Performing Work Systems: Analysing HR Systems and Their Contributions to Performance’, in HRM and Performance. Achievements

and Challenges, eds. Paauwe, J., Guest & Wright, P. (2013), Chichester: Wiley, pp.

47-60.

Boxall, P., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. (2007), ‘Human Resource Management: Scope, Analysis, and Significance,’ in The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource

Manage-ment, eds. Boxall, P., Purcell, J. & Wright, P. (2007), Oxford: Oxford University

Press, pp. 1-16.

Christensen, T., Laegrid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rovik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory for

the public sector. Instrument, culture and myth. Florence: Routledge.

Collings, D.G., & Mellahi, K. (2009), ‘Strategic Talent Management: A Review and Research Agenda,’ Human Resource Management Review, 19, 304-313.

Collings, D.G., Scullion, H. & Vaiman, V. (2011), ‘European Perspectives on Talent Man-agement,’ European Journal of International Management, 5, 453-462.

Davies, B., & Davies, B.J. (2010), ‘Talent Management in Academies,’ International

Journal of Educational Management, 24, 418-426.

Deloitte (2010), ‘Talent Edge 2020: Blueprints for the New Normal,’ http://www. deloitte.com/ assets/DcomUnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/IMOs/ Talent/us_talentedge2020121710.pdf

Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks. CA: Stage.

Dries, N. (2011). Effects of the high potential label on performance, career success and

com-mitment: A matter of communication? Congress paper, Dutch HRM-Conference

Groningen 2011.

Dries, N. (2013). The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda.

(22)

Talent Management in academia 21

Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2008). “’Real’ high-potential careers: An empirical study into the perspectives of organizations and high potentials. Personnel Review, 37(1), 85-108.

Enders, J., De Boer, H. F., File, J., Jongbloed, B., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2011). Reform of higher education in Europe. In J. Enders, H. F. De Boer & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reform of higher education in Europe (pp. 1-10). Rotterdam: Sense Publish-ers.

Festing, M., Schäfer, L., & Scullion, H. (2013). Talent management in medium-sized German companies: an explorative study and agenda for future research.

Inter-national Journal Of Human Resource Management, 24(9), 1872-1893.

Florida, R. (1999). The role of the university: leveraging talent, not technology. Issues

in science and technology, 15, 67-73.

Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119-147.

Gagné, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High ability studies, 21(2), 81-99.

Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & González-Cruz, T. (2013a). What is the meaning of ‘talent’ in the world of work? Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), 290-300.

Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Nijs, S., Dries, N. & Gallo, P. (forthcoming). Towards an Under-standing of Talent Management as a Phenomenon-Driven Field Using Biblio-metric and Content Analysis. Human Resource Management Review.

Glenn, T. (2012). ‘The state of talent management in Canada’s public sector’, Canadian

Public Administration, 55(1), 25-51.

Greenwood, M.R. (2002), ‘Ethics and HRM: A Review and Conceptual Analysis,’ Journal

of Business Ethics, 36, 261-278.

Groves, K. S. (2011). ‘Talent management best practices: How exemplary health care organizations create value in a down economy’, Health Care Management Review, 36(3), 227-240.

Guest, D. (2007), ‘HRM and the Worker: Towards a New Psychological Contract?’ in:

The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, eds. Boxall, P., Purcell,

J. & Wright, P. (2007), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 128-146

Guthridge, M., Komm, A.B., & Lawson, E. (2008), ‘Making Talent a Strategic Priority,’

McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 48-59.

Harrisr, L. & Foster, C. (2013). ‘Aligning talent management with approaches to equality and diversity: Challenges for UK public sector managers’, Equality,

Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29(5), 422-435.

Iles, P., Preece, D. & Chuai, X. (2010). Talent management as a management fashion in HRD: towards a research agenda. Human Resource Development International, 13(2), 125-145.

(23)

Kalleberg, A. & Marsden. P. (2013). Changing work values in the United States, 1973-2006. Social Science Research, 42(2), 255-270.

Legge, K. (2005). Human resource management: rhetorics and realities. Anniversary Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan

Lewis, R.E., & Heckman, R.J. (2006), ‘Talent Management: A Critical Review,’ Human

Resource Management Review, 16, 139-154.

Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Nijs, S., Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & Sels, L. (2013). A multidisciplinary review into the definition, operationalization, and measurement of talent. Journal of

World Business, 49(2), 180-191

Oldham, G. & Hackman, J. (2010), Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Special Issue: Putting Job Design in Context. 31(2-3), 463-479.

Oltra, V., & Vivas-López, S. (2013). Boosting organizational learning through team-based talent management: what is the evidence from large Spanish firms?.

International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 24(9), 1853-1871.

Paauwe, J. (2004), HRM and Performance: Achieving Long-Term Viability, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Paauwe, J. (2007), HRM and Performance: In Search of Balance, Netherlands: Tilburg University.

Paauwe, J., Boon, C., Boselie, P. & Den Hartog, D. (2013), Reconceptualizing Fit in Strategic Human Resource Management: ‘Lost in Translation?’, in HRM and

Per-formance. Achievements and Challenges, eds. Paauwe, J., Guest & Wright, P. (2013),

Chichester: Wiley, pp. 61-78.

Powell, J., Durose, J., Duberly, J. Exworthy, M. Fewtrell, C. MacFarlane, F. & Moss, P. (2012). Talent Management in the NHS Managerial Workforce. Final report. NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme.

Preece, D., Iles, P. & Jones, R. (2013) MNE regional head offices and their affiliates: talent management practices and challenges in the Asia Pacific. International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(18), p3457-3477.

Schuler, R.S., Jackson, S.E., & Tarique, I. (2011a), ‘Framework for Global Talent Man-agement: HR Actions for Dealing With Global Talent Challenges,’ in Global Talent

Management, eds. Scullion, H. & Collings, D., London and New York: Routledge,

pp. 17-36.

Schuler, R.S., Jackson, S.E., & Tarique, I. (2011b), ‘Global Talent Management and Global Talent Challenges: Strategic Opportunities for IHRM,’ Journal of World

(24)

Talent Management in academia 23

Sidani, Y. & Al Ariss, A. (2014), Institutional and corporate drivers of global talent management: Evidence from the Arab Gulf region, Journal of World Business, 49(2), 215-224

Sonnenberg, M. (2006). The signalling effect of HRM on psychological contracts of

employees: A multi-level perspective. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Stahl, G.K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S.S., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P., Trevor, J., & Wright, P.M. (2012), ‘Six Principles of Effective Global talent management,’ MIT

Sloan Management review, 53, 24-32.

Tansley, C. (2011), ‘What Do We Mean by the Term “Talent” in Talent Management?’

Industrial and Commercial Training, 43, 266-274.

Tansley, C. & Tietze, S. (2013). ‘Rites of passage through talent management progres-sion stages: an identity work perspective’, The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 24(9), 1799-1815

Tarique, I., & Schuler, R.S. (2010), ‘Global Talent Management: Literature Review, Integrative Framework, and Suggestions for Further Research,’ Journal of World

Business, 45, 122-133.

Tsui, A. S. & Wu, J. B. (2005). The new employment relationship versus the mutual investment approach: Implications for human resource management. Human

Resource Management, 44(2), 115-121.

Ulrich, D., & Ulrich, M. (2010), ‘Marshalling Talent,’ Paper Accepted at the 2010 Academy of Management Annual Meeting.

Vaiman, V., Scullion, H.& Collings, D. (2012), ‘Talent Management Decision Making,’

Management Decision, 50, 925-941.

Vance, C. , Chow, I., Paik, Y & Shin, K. (2013) Analysis of Korean expatriate congruence with Chinese labor perceptions on training method importance: implications for global talent management. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 24(5), 985-1005.

Van den Brink, M., Fruytier, B. & Thunnissen, M. (2013), Talent management in academia: performance systems and HRM policies. Human Resource

Manage-ment Journal, 23(2), 180-195.

Wright, P. & Nishii, L. (2013), ‘Strategic HRM and Organizational Behaviour: Integrating Multiple Levels of Analysis, in HRM and Performance. Achievements and Challenges, eds. Paauwe, J., Guest & Wright, P. (2013), Chichester: Wiley, pp. 97-110.

(25)
(26)

A review of Talent Management:

‘Infancy or adolescence?’

This chapter is based on: Thunnissen, M., Boselie, P., & Fruytier, B. (2013). ‘A review of TM: ‘infancy or adolescence?’’ The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(9), 1744-1761.

(27)

2.1 Introduction

In popular and practitioner oriented literature, internet magazines and on social net-working sites there is an extensive debate on how organizations manage the talent challenges they are confronted with. Since 2001, academics have also produced a con-siderable amount of literature on talent management (TM) (Dries, 2013). In 2006, Lewis and Heckman concluded that, despite the volume of academic literature, TM was still in its infancy; it lacked a clear and consistent definition and scope as well as a conceptual framework based on empirical research. In 2009, this was again confirmed by Collings and Mellahi. Just two years later, Collings, Scullion and Vaiman (2011) concluded that the field had moved from infancy to adolescence, thanks to the contribution of many, mainly US-based, scholars using North American thinking and research. However, this resulted, in their view, in a dominant influence of the US context on the debate. In addition, Powell

et al. (2012) state that there is also a strong focus on TM in the private sector and in

mul-tinationals. This is comparable to the general field of Human Resource Management (HRM) (Keegan & Boselie, 2006), but in the field of HRM there is a growing awareness of the relevant impact of contextual factors on the shaping of the employment relation-ship and HRM (Paauwe, 2004). Following this line of reasoning, we therefore assume that the current concepts and assumptions in the TM literature related to the context of US-based, private and multinational organizations are less than adequate to describe and study TM in organizations in other contexts, such as public or non-profit organiza-tions or small and medium enterprises.

Collings et al. (2011) urged the need for new influences on the TM debate in order to frame TM in more novel ways. They therefore called for a counterbalance from different perspectives and traditions. In this chapter we respond to the call of Collings et al. (2011). We offer a review of academic literature on TM, in which we present the dominant themes and the leading points of view and assumptions in the current TM literature. We also discuss possible omissions and limitations in the literature reviewed. To balance these limitations, we will suggest some alternative perspectives based on lessons learned from developments in the field of HRM. The Paauwe (2004) and Boselie (2010) approaches in HRM, for example, suggest a more balanced approach, taking into account institutional factors related to the organi-zational context, the inclusion of multiple stakeholders beyond the usual suspects (for example, shareholders and managers) and a balanced view on performance, including organizational effectiveness, employee well-being and societal well-being. Our central research question is: ‘what has been achieved until now in the field of TM and what lessons can be learned from prior research and literature’?

(28)

Talent Management in academia 27

2.2 Research methods

We started our search for academic literature on TM with a query in the Google Scholar search engine. The number of hits was too large to review (over 170,000 hits for publica-tions on TM between 2001 and 2012). But this first search gave an insight into the broad range of publications and sources on the subject. For a more detailed search, we used the ‘Academic Search Premier’, ‘Science Direct’, ‘Web of Knowledge’ and ‘Scopus’ databases to collect academic literature on TM published between 2001 and Spring 2012. These databases were chosen because they are multidisciplinary and are supported by different publishers. They give access to a broad variety of academic journals and publications.

‘Talent’ and ‘TM’ were the keywords in our search. We restricted the literature review to publications in English. Only publications whose content entirely focused on talent and TM were selected. We included the most cited publications according to Google Scholar, Web of Science and Scopus. The field is relatively young, with many recent, not-yet-cited publications; so, it would be inappropriate to restrict ourselves only to the most-cited articles. Furthermore, we focused on peer-reviewed literature, such as articles in peer-reviewed journals. In addition to the query in search engines and databases, we used the reference lists of the assembled publications to gather interesting documents that did not appear in our search in the databases. We limited the number of publications on global TM. Analyzing all these articles would over-emphasize the international or multinational context. We did, however, include the publications that appeared in the summaries of the most cited articles (for example, articles in the special issue of Journal of World Business (2010) on global TM). We also restricted the number of books, conference papers, et cetera, although we could not exclude all these non-peer reviewed documents. Some appeared in the list of most cited publications or in other reference lists.

In total, we collected 62 documents on the subject. They are marked with an ‘*’ in the reference list. Forty-three of the documents are (peer reviewed) articles from international journals (Table 2.1). The other documents are conference papers, dis-sertations and books (or book chapters) on TM. The number of publications is suf-ficient to accomplish the aim of the chapter, i.e. a description of the dominant themes, leading points of view and omissions. We cannot give a definitive, all inclusive review of every publication published in the field between 2001 and Spring 2012.

The publications were analyzed in a number of ways. First, we wanted to attain an understanding of the general characteristics of the publications. We classified the nature (whether it had a conceptual nature or was based on empirical research) and the focus of the publication (strategic TM, global TM or (single) practice oriented based on the HRM subfields distinguished by Boxall, Purcell and Wright (2007)). Information on the backgrounds of the authors was obtained as well. Subsequently, the dominant themes in the publications were addressed. We examined the publications for their

(29)

definitions of TM and talent, the description of the intended outcomes and effects and the TM practices discussed. The dominant viewpoints and assumptions within the themes were explored. We also checked whether the authors paid attention to the stakeholders involved in TM, such as the role of human resources (HR), management or employees. Finally, we considered whether the authors discussed the link between TM and the internal and external organizational context (Paauwe, 2004; Boselie, 2010). The results of these analyses will be discussed in the next section.

2.3 Findings

2.3.1 Mapping the field of TM

Before discussing the central themes and dominant views in the TM literature, we will give a broad outline of the 62 publications we analyzed. Approximately two-thirds of these documents were articles published in peer-reviewed journals. The wide variety of journals is remarkable (see table 2.1). We not only found articles in typical HRM journals (such as Human Resource Management Review and Human Resource Planning) but also in international management journals (e.g., Journal of World Business), business journals (e.g., Harvard Business Review) and journals for specific sectors of industry (e.g., Interna-tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management and Health Care Management Review). The wide variety of journal outlets highlights the relevance of the TM theme for a wide audience, including an HRM audience, an international management audience (for example related to expatriate management), a general business audience (for example those potentially interested in succession planning and leadership development) and sector- specific TM themes, such as health care. A query in the academic databases showed a large increase in the number of publications and citations since 2010.

A wide variety of authors is also prevalent. The majority of scholars is situated in the USA (also noted by Collings et al. (2011)). Scholars from the fields of strategic HRM (for example Cappelli, Boudreau, Becker, Huselid and Stahl) and international HRM (e.g., Schuler and Scullion) are active in the field of TM. In other words, the TM literature is built on a broad range of academic traditions, including international HRM (for example closely related to expat management), strategic HRM (for example linking strategy and managing valuable talents) and Organizational Behavior (OB) (for example related to career development and management development). These different traditions bring in multiple lenses and approaches. In the field of HRM, there is little consensus on the concept of HRM (Boselie, Dietz & Boon, 2005). Based on the findings presented above, we expect even less consensus in the TM domain given the diversity in approaches (for example strategic HRM, OB and international manage-ment).

(30)

Talent Management in academia 29

Table 2.1: Journals and literature analyzed

Number of publications International Journals: • Develop • Harvard Business Review • Human Resource Planning • Human Resource Management Review • Employment Relations Today • European Journal of International Management • Health Care Management Review • Industrial and Commercial Training • International Journal of Business Management and Economic Research • International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management • International Journal of Education Management • Journal of Business and Psychology • Journal of Business Studies Quarterly • Journal of International Management • Journal of Knowledge Management • Journal of World Business • Journal of Vocational Behavior • Management Decision • Mc Kinsey Quarterly • MIT Sloan Management Review • Organizational Dynamics • Outlook. The Journal of high-performance business • Personnel Review • Public Personnel Management • Strategic HR Review • The Journal of Quality and Participation • Transfusion

Books or sections of books Papers

Publications of institutes and universities (e.g., INSEAD, OECD, CIPD, Deloitte)

1 5 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 9 4 6 Total 62

Lewis and Heckman (2006) and Collings and Mellahi (2009) concluded that TM lacks empirical research. This is confirmed by our literature review. One third of the articles in our literature study presented the results of empirical research. Neverthe-less, the number of empirical research papers has increased since 2010. The scope of the empirical research papers is broad. We found several case studies which describe practices in a single organization or in a certain region and country (e.g., Ready &

(31)

Conger, 2007; Kirkland, 2009; Burbach & Royle, 2010; Makela, Björkman & Ehrnrooth, 2010). Other studies focus on sub-functions of TM; examples are the studies of Dries and others on the careers of high potential and on the effects of the high potential label on performance, career success and commitment (Dries & Pepermans, 2008; Dries 2011; Dries, Van Acker & Verbruggen, 2011) and the study of Höglund (2012), who applied psychological contract theory to explore the direct and indirect linkages between skill-enhancing HRM and human capital. Finally, we came across (mainly quantitative) studies presenting the TM challenges and factors in success expe-rienced by CEOs, HRM departments or talent specialists (e.g., Guthridge, Komm & Lawson, 2006, 2008; Stahl et al. 2007, 2012; Powell et al. 2012).

Two-thirds of the analyzed academic papers on TM is conceptual, exploring the field of TM. The focus of the publications is diverse. All the HRM subfields – strategic HRM, international HRM and practice-oriented HRM (Boxall et al., 2007) – are discussed. Approximately half of the conceptual papers address the link between TM and strategy and discuss how TM can contribute to organizational performance and competitive advantage (e.g., Cappelli, 2000, 2008a; Boudreau, 2005; Farley, 2005; Ready and Conger, 2007; Somaya & Williamson, 2011). Scholars like Pfeffer (2001), Martin and Schmidt (2010) and Burkus and Osula (2011) make critical remarks on the link between TM and strategy. They describe misguided assumptions or the negative effects of TM. The challenges in managing global talent, TM in multinationals and TM in key or emerging economies are addressed by numerous publications (e.g., Beechler & Woodward. 2009; Mellahi & Collings, 2010; McDonnell, Hickey & Gunnigle, 2011; Schuler, Jackson & Tarique, 2011b). Most of these articles were published in the special issue on global TM in the Journal of World Business (2010) and in a book on global TM (Scullion & Collings, 2011).

Third, single HR practices, such as recruitment and selection, talent pools and development, are covered in conceptual papers as well (e.g., Blass & April, 2008; Jansen & Van der Pool, 2009; Kirkland, 2009). Finally, we found articles focusing on one aspect of TM, for example the definition of talent (Tansley, 2011; Gallardo-Gal-lardo, Dries & Gonzalez-Cruz, 2012) and the role of the HR function (Farley, 2005; Farndale, Scullion & Sparrow, 2010). It should be noted that the TM literature does not enter upon new or unknown matters. The issues are similar to the ones in the field of strategic or international HRM, but now use excellence or the management of (scarce) talents as a starting point.

In summary, Lewis and Heckman already concluded in 2006 that the empirical research on TM is underrepresented. Until now, the majority of the academic litera-ture is still conceptual, trying to respond to the question of what TM is. The scope of this exploratory expedition has been broad, considering the wide variety of journals, authors and subjects discussed.

(32)

Talent Management in academia 31

2.3.2 Dominant themes in TM literature

After we established a general picture of the literature on TM, we started the detailed exploration of the concept of talent and TM (definitions). In their review of TM literature, Lewis and Heckman (2006) pointed out that it is difficult to come to an unambiguous defi-nition and conceptualization of TM. They identified three streams of thought regarding TM. The first stream labels regular HRM practices as TM with some minor differences (‘doing it faster or across the enterprise’). This stream is related to the concept that talent equals human capital; so, TM equals HRM. According to Lewis and Heckman (2006), the second stream of the TM literature focuses primarily on the concept of talent pools and regards TM as a process to ensure an adequate flow of employees throughout the organi-zation. They see a great deal of resemblance to succession planning or human resource planning intended to fill specific (mainly management) positions. The third perspective on TM, as identified by Lewis and Heckman, focuses on talent generically without any regard to specific positions or organizational boundaries. Within this perspective, there are two different points of view: the first focuses on high-performing talent or talent with high potential (the recruitment and development of ‘A-performers’) and the second view states that everyone has their own talents and HR should help everyone achieve high per-formance. These three perspectives show a tendency to concentrate on one single aspect of TM. Collings and Mellahi (2009) sought a multiple-aspect approach of TM to overcome the deficiencies of other perspectives. They based their definition of TM on a combina-tion of several theories on human capital and TM. The definicombina-tion given by Collings and Mellahi, and some other authors, is presented in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Examples of definitions of TM

• “Talent management is the process through which employers anticipate and meet their needs for human capital” (Cappelli, 2008b, pp. 1); • “Activities and processes that involve the systematic identification of key positions which differentially contribute to the organization’s sustainable competitive advantage, the development of a talent pool of high potential and high performing incumbents to fill these roles, and the development of a differentiated human resource architecture to facilitate filling these positions with competent incumbents and to ensure their continued commitment to the organization” (Collings & Mellahi, 2009, pp. 304); • “Talent management is the systematic attraction, identification, development, engage-ment/retention and deployment of those individuals with high potential who are of particular value to an organization” (Davies & Davies, 2010, pp. 419); • “Global talent management includes all organizational activities for the purpose of attracting, selecting, developing, and retaining the best employees in the most strategic roles (those roles necessary to achieve organizational strategic priorities) on a global scale” (Scullion & Collings, 2011, pp. 7).

(33)

Many of these interpretations of TM present TM as a transformation process (input, process and output), i.e. we use talent(s) as input, ‘process’ and develop it (them) with HR practices in order to get the desired output. In accordance with the three elements of the transformation process, three central issues emerge in publi-cations on TM: the definition of talent (theme 1), the intended effects and outcomes of TM (theme 2) and the TM practices (theme 3) necessary to obtain the intended outcomes. In the next section, we will discuss the three dominant themes in more detail.

Theme 1: The definition of talent

Half of the articles we studied for this chapter contain a definition of talent. The other publications lacked a clear description of talent. According to Tansley (2011) and Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2012), the conceptualization of talent has become increasingly relevant for scholars and practitioners to make advances in the study of TM. Gallardo-Gallardo

et al. (2012) made a literature review of definitions of talent in the business context and

concluded that two dimensions are of importance in defining talent. They found a dis-tinction between a subject approach (talent as people) and an object approach (talent as characteristics of people, such as abilities, knowledge and/ or competencies). The second dimension relates to differentiation of the workforce. Definitions can be divided into an inclusive (all employees) or an exclusive (a select group) approach (see also Powell et al., 2012; Stahl et al., 2012). According to Sparrow, Hird and Balain (2011) and Stahl et al. (2012), organizations use both the inclusive and exclusive approach, although the exclusive con-ceptualization seems to be most preferred. In their study on global TM, Stahl et al. (2012) found that many companies used a combination of both. Stahl et al. (2012) claim that ‘a hybrid approach allows for differentiation and skirts the controversial issue of whether some employee groups are more valuable than others’ (p. 26). Collings and Mellahi (2009) also highlight the importance of a differentiated HR architecture.

Taken together, the two dimensions of Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2012) represent different typologies of talent definitions. We will discuss these typologies, building on the publications included in our literature review. The first typology based on Gal-lardo-Gallardo et al. (2012) concerns the inclusive approach to talent as a subject and is addressed by authors who understand talent as the entire workforce of an organi-zation. The terms talent and people or human capital are interchangeable, as in, for example, the definition of Cheese, Thomas and Craig (2008): ‘Talent, therefore, is used as an all-encompassing term to describe the human resources that organizations want to acquire, retain and develop in order to meet their business goals’ (p. 46). In this view, TM is equal to HRM. This typology has been criticized for being too broad and as completely meaningless (Lewis & Heckman 2006; Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2012). The second typology, the inclusive approach and talent as an object, allows every employee to reach his or her potential (Ashton and Morton 2005;

(34)

Gallardo-Gal-Talent Management in academia 33

lardo et al., 2012). It can be characterized as a positive approach to HRM in which the development and training of the exceptional abilities (i.e. talents) of all employees is emphasized. This approach shows a great deal of resemblance to human resource development or competency management.

The third interpretation of talent, the exclusive approach to talent as a subject, is based on segmentation or differentiation of a small segment of the workforce (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2012). In this approach, talent refers to those employees who rank at the top in terms of capability and performance and who make a sig-nificant difference to the current and future performance of the organization (e.g., McCauley & Wakefield, 2006; Stahl et al., 2007; Davies & Davies, 2010; McDonnell, 2011). These employees are often called A-players, high performers or high potentials. One can differentiate the workforce by (excellently performing) individuals, positions or functions. A commonly used differentiation is based on executive functions; TM equals management development. This is not sufficient for some authors; so, they offer a more profound description of the positions TM should focus on (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Lewis & Heckman, 2006; Becker, Huselid & Beatty, 2009; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Whelan, Collings & Donnelan, 2010). These authors state that TM should concentrate on key (or pivotal) positions, namely those positions that differen-tially contribute to the organization’s sustainable competitive advantage. The focus should be on strategic jobs or jobs that can provide an above-average impact over non-strategic jobs and jobs with marginal impact (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). Lepak and Snell (2002), Lewis and Heckman (2006) and Collings and Mellahi (2009) apply the concepts of value, rareness, inimitability and uniqueness based on the resource-based view (Wright, Dunford & Snell 2001) to determine which jobs are strategic and have an above-average impact. Whatever distinction is made, based on person or on position, the third interpretation of talent (‘exclusive-subject’ approach) emphasizes selection and output in terms of (potential) performance. This typology has attracted adverse comments. Pfeffer (2001) claims that an exclusive approach to top perform-ers, ‘the happy few’ (Keegan & Boselie, 2006), will lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy in reverse, as in, those labeled as less able become less able because they are asked to do less and get fewer resources (training, mentoring, et cetera), so they will not be able to develop themselves. Another point of criticism is the overemphasis on indi-vidual performance. Pfeffer (2001) thinks it is hazardous for the organization because it diminishes teamwork and creates a destructive internal competition that hinders learning and the spread of best practice across the organization. Gallardo-Gallardo et

al. (2012) criticize the defining of talent through its output. High performance is not a

talent. It is an output obtained from applying one’s talents to a specific task.

The fourth typology of talent, the exclusive approach to talent as an object, concentrates on those employees in the organization who have exceptional, above-average abilities, and who are able to apply those abilities to achieve excellent

(35)

per-formance. According to Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2012) and Tansley (2011), one cannot separate the exceptional abilities from performance. In order to achieve exceptional results, employees must apply their above-average, differentiated competencies. They also have to be willing to put their energy and effort into doing their job; a talented employee is a committed employee. Moreover, scholars like Collings and Mellahi (2009), Ulrich and Ulrich (2010), Boudreau and Ramstad (2005), Martin and Schmidt (2010), Tansley (2011) and Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2012) stress the importance of elements such as (job and organizational) commitment, engagement and aspira-tion to put up an extraordinary performance now and in future posiaspira-tions. This ‘exclu-sive-object’ interpretation of talent is related to the AMO-framework (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg & Kalleberg, 2000), which proposes that employee performance (P) is a function of the employee’s ability (A), motivation (M) and opportunity (O) to perform. TM should give talented employees, with outstanding abilities, and who are highly motivated, the opportunity to develop themselves and to achieve a high performance.

In summary, scholars are divided on whether or not to differentiate the workforce, and if so, on what basis (talent as an object or a subject). Despite different interpretations of talent, scholars agree on the impact of the context on the exact and precise description of talent. Talent is not absolute, it is relative and subjective. The mix of differentiating competencies and abilities varies according to the organi-zational environment (e.g., sector, labor market, customer orientation), the type of work, the internal and external circumstances of an organization and across time (Ashton & Morton, 2005; Lewis & Heckman, 2006; McCauley & Wakefield, 2006; Tansley, 2011; Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2012).

Theme 2: Intended effects and outcomes of TM

Nearly 60% of the publications in our review refer to the intended effects and outcomes of TM. In the literature, different levels of outcomes and effects are distinguished. According to some authors, the purpose of TM is to attract, develop, motivate and retain talent (McCauley & Wakefield, 2006; Ready & Conger, 2007; Christensen Hughes & Rog, 2008; Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Davies & Davies, 2010). TM is mainly meant to fulfill the needs for human capital and to narrow the demand-supply gap. Cappelli (2008a) criticizes this. ‘Talent management is not an end in itself. It is not about developing employees or creating succession plans, nor is it about achieving specific turnover or any other tactical outcome. It exists to support the organization’s overall objective, which in business essentially amounts to making money’ (p. 3). Cappelli argues that the output of the organization as a whole, rather than the HR-subsystem, must prevail. But in this view, firm performance is narrowed down to meeting shareholder and financial needs. More than half of the scholars who make a remark on the intended effects share Cappelli’s opinion and state that TM should contribute to the overall firm performance (e.g., Frank

References

Related documents

Standardization of herbal raw drugs include passport data of raw plant drugs, botanical authentification, microscopic & molecular examination, identification of

The prematurely born infant almost in variably develops iron deficiency anemia unless supplemental iron is given. The ade quacy of iron nutrition of the mother,15 perinata!

19% serve a county. Fourteen per cent of the centers provide service for adjoining states in addition to the states in which they are located; usually these adjoining states have

It was decided that with the presence of such significant red flag signs that she should undergo advanced imaging, in this case an MRI, that revealed an underlying malignancy, which

Also, both diabetic groups there were a positive immunoreactivity of the photoreceptor inner segment, and this was also seen among control ani- mals treated with a

The formal deñnition of VCGen is outside the scope of this paper (it can be found in [2]). Intuitively, the veriñcation condition is a conjunction of boolean expressions

This essay asserts that to effectively degrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and to topple the Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the international

The total coliform count from this study range between 25cfu/100ml in Joju and too numerous to count (TNTC) in Oju-Ore, Sango, Okede and Ijamido HH water samples as