APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2004, 53

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW,
2004,
53
(4), 556 – 569
© International Association for Applied Psychology, 2004.
Published by Blackwell Publishing,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main
Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.Oxford, UKAPPSApplied
Psychology: an International Review0269-994X© Blackwell
Publishing 2004October 2004534Original
ArticlePERFORMANCE MANAGEMENTDEN HARTOG ET
AL.
Performance Management:
A Model and Research Agenda
Deanne N. den Hartog,* Paul Boselie and Jaap Paauwe
Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Le management est confronté au défi lancé aux organisations
quand elles
doivent définir, mesurer et stimuler la performance des salariés
avec pour
objectif ultime d’améliorer la performance organisationnelle. La
gestion des
performances implique différents niveaux d’analyse et est
manifestement reliée
à l’évaluation des performances et aux thèmes relevant du
management
stratégique des ressources humaines (MRH). Cet article présente
un modèle
convenant à la gestion des performances qui combine des
perspectives issues
du MRH stratégique et des psychologies organisationelle et du
travail. Le
modèle intègre des éléments de différents niveaux et enrichit les
modèles
antérieurs en prenant explicitement en compte la perception des
salariés, le
rôle des supérieurs directs et une causalité qui peut être
inversée. On présente
enfin les défis que les futures recherches devront affronter.
Performance management deals with the challenge organisations
face in defin-
ing, measuring, and stimulating employee performance with the
ultimate goal
of improving organisational performance. Thus, performance
management
involves multiple levels of analysis and is clearly linked to the
topics studied
in strategic human resource management (HRM) as well as
performance
appraisal. This paper presents a model for performance

management combining
insights from strategic HRM and work and organisational
psychology. The
model incorporates multi-level elements, and adds to previous
models by expli-
citly incorporating employee perceptions, the role of direct
supervisors, and
possible reversed causality. Challenges for future research are
also presented.
INTRODUCTION
The process of measuring and subsequently actively managing
organ-
isational and employee performance in order to improve
organisational
effectiveness is currently seen as critical to the development
and survival
* Address for correspondence: Deanne N. den Hartog,
Department of Organization and
Business, Faculty of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam,
Burg Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA
Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]
The authors would like to thank Robert Verburg, the reviewers
and editors for their helpful
comments and suggestions.

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
557
of organisations. Different terms refer to performance
management initiatives
in organisations; for example, performance-based budgeting,
management-by-
objectives, planning, programming and budgeting, and pay-for-
performance
(Heinrich, 2002). Initially, such initiatives stressed the need to
make employee
performance explicit and measurable in order to make
performance more
“manageable”. However, performance management has come to
signify more
than a list of singular practices aimed at measuring and adapting
employee
performance. Rather, it is seen as an integrated process in which
managers
work with their employees to set expectations, measure and
review results,
and reward performance, in order to improve employee
performance, with
the ultimate aim of positively affecting organisational success
(e.g. Mondy,
Noe, & Premeaux, 2002). This same emphasis is found in the
literature on
strategic Human Resource Management (HRM) emphasising the
importance
of so-called high performance work systems (e.g. Appelbaum,
Bailey, Berg,
& Kalleberg, 2000).

Different models of performance management are found in the
literature.
Such models have stressed its importance as a system for
managing organ-
isational performance, managing employee performance, or for
integrating
the management of organisational and employee performance.
Definitions
emphasise the latter. For example, DeNisi (2000) holds that
performance
management refers to the range of activities engaged in by an
organisation
to enhance the performance of a target person or group, with the
ultimate
purpose of improving organisational effectiveness. Baron and
Armstrong
(1998) emphasise the strategic and integrated nature of
performance man-
agement, which in their view focuses on “increasing the
effectiveness of
organizations by improving the performance of the people who
work in
them and by developing the capabilities of teams and individual
contributors”
( pp. 38 –39). They see performance management as a
continuous process
involving performance reviews focusing on the future rather
than the past.
Clearly, the process of performance management involves
managing
employee efforts based on
measured

performance outcomes. Thus, deter-
mining what constitutes good performance and how the different
aspects of
high performance can be measured is critical to the design of an
effective
performance management process. These topics have been
extensively
studied in the area of performance appraisal. Much of the
performance
appraisal research stems from work and organisational
psychology, where
the accurate measurement of key aspects of employee
performance has con-
stituted an important research topic. DeNisi (2000, p. 121)
defines perform-
ance appraisal as “the system whereby an organization assigns
some ‘score’
to indicate the level of performance of a target person or
group”. Mondy
et al. (2002) define performance appraisal as a system of review
and evalua-
tion of an individual’s (or team’s) performance. Topics of
investigation in
performance appraisal research include both the content (what
is appraised)
558

DEN HARTOG ET AL.
and the process of appraising performance (who appraises and
how is it
done) within organisations.
The emphasis in the area of performance appraisal has changed
over the
years. Research used to focus on accuracy of (supervisory)
performance
ratings and other such limited and measurement focused issues,
but has
broadened and currently also addresses social and motivational
aspects of
appraisal (Fletcher, 2001). Fletcher defines performance
appraisal more
broadly as “activities through which organizations seek to
assess employees
and develop their competence, enhance performance and
distribute
rewards” (p. 473). Defined as such, performance appraisal is an
important
part of performance management. Fletcher holds that as a set of
practices
(and in the form of performance manageme nt), performance
appraisal has
now become part of a more strategic approach to integrating HR
activities
and business policies.
Current research links HRM to organisational performance (e.g.
Boselie,
Paauwe, & Jansen, 2001). There is obviously a link betw een
HRM and

performance management. Taking a performance management
approach
involves aligning HRM practices in such a way that they
maximise current
as well as future employee performance, which in turn is
expected to affect
organisational performance. According to Roberts (2001)
performance
management involves the setting of corporate, departmental,
team, and
individual objectives (sometimes labeled “policy deployment”,
the cascading
down of strategic objectives to a meaningful set of targets for
every indi-
vidual involved); the use of performance appraisal systems;
appropriate
reward strategies and schemes; training and development
strategies and
plans; feedback, communication, and coaching; individual
career planning;
mechanisms for monitoring the effectiveness of performance
management
system and interventions and even culture management. Thus,
performance
management involves the day-to-day management, as well as the
support
and development of people.
Performance management involves aligning HRM practices so
that
employee performance and development are enhanced, with the
aim of
maximising organisational performance. However, such an
integration of
practices is not easy. Also, aligning practices directly involved
in perform-

ance management also affects other practices, such as selection.
Complic-
ated cross-level processes are involved in the proposed
performance cycles.
Often the proposed causal chain involves organisational -level
HRM prac-
tices affecting individual performance, which in turn affects
organisational
performance. However, in research the impact of individual and
group
performance on organisational performance is mostly assumed
rather
than tested. DeNisi (2000) holds that although performance at a
higher level
of analysis (e.g. the organisation) is in part due to performance
at lower
levels (e.g. individuals, teams), it is often more than the simple
sum of such
559
performance at lower levels. Changi ng individual performance
is often not
enough to improve an organisation’s performance. Vice versa,
variables at
the organisational level may constrain individual performance.

Thus, to
understand and change individual performance, one needs to
understand
the organisational context in which it occurs. Such
organisational-level
variables are often left out of consideration in studies focusing
on the
individual level. Thus, research in this area should take multi -
and cross-
level effects into account.
The aim of the current paper is to develop a model and research
agenda
for performance management that is grounded in the HRM /
performance
management field. First, we briefly address HRM and
performance. A typ-
ical model of the causal relationships between HRM practices
and employee
as well as organisational performance is presented and we build
on this
model to create a model of performance management. The
model leads to
suggestions for future research in the performance management
field.
MODELING THE LINK BETWEEN HRM AND
PERFORMANCE
The performance management perspective stresses the need to
align HRM
practices with the aim of affecting employee and organisational
perform-
ance. Thus, an integrated set of HRM practices is central to

performance
management. The relationship between HRM and (firm)
performance has
been the topic of a heated debate over the last decade (e.g.
Wright & Snell,
1998). Studies in this area often report positive relationships
between inte-
grated bundles of HRM practices and different measures of
organisational
performance (e.g. Arthur, 1994; Delery & Doty, 1996; Guthrie,
2001;
Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995).
Although significant progress has been made in unraveling the
links
between HRM and performance, several theoretical and
empirical problems
remain. Most studies suffer from methodological limitations.
For example,
many are conducted at a single point in time (cross-sectional).
Most use
single respondents (mostly HR managers) as their source of
information.
They tend to focus on the managerial view and seldom assess
the employees’
perspective. Often sample sizes are limited. Also, the
theoretical foundation
for how and why measured HRM practices might affect
performance is not
always clear. For example, Guest (2001) illustrates that theory-
building as
well as operationalising and measuring HRM, performance, and
the rela-
tionship between them is still problematic. Which HRM
practices should be
studied? How can these be measured? Which performance

outcomes are
relevant? What are the causal mechanisms involved?
In modeling the relationship between HRM and performance,
HRM
practices are typically expected to increase employees’
organisational com-
mitment and motivation, which in turn affects employee
performance and
560
DEN HARTOG ET AL.
ultimately organisational performance (e.g. models by Becker,
Huselid,
Pickus, & Spratt, 1997; Guest, 1997; Paauwe & Richardson,
1997). In
Guest’s (1997) model, see Figure 1, HRM practices (e.g.
selection, training)
ensue from HRM strategies (e.g. differentiation, cost-
reduction). HRM
practices are assumed to result in HRM outcomes (e.g.
employee commit-
ment, workforce flexibility). Such HRM outcomes then result in
employee
behavior (e.g. effort, cooperation). The behavioral outcomes
influence per-

formance outcomes (e.g. productivity, innovation, absenteeism).
The last
step in the causal chain is formed by financial outcomes (e.g.
profits).
Guest’s model adds to previous models by including different
levels of
analysis. DeNisi (2000) notes that performance is both a multi -
level and a
cross-level phenomenon. Performance exists at different levels
(e.g. indi-
vidual, group, organisation) and although the models for
performance at each
of these levels are not completely identical, they are similar,
which suggests
that performance can be seen as a multi-level construct.
Performance is also
a cross-level construct as performance at one level of analysis
influences
performance at other levels. Such influences can run both ways
(e.g. indi-
vidual performance can influence organisational performance as
well as vice
versa).
Although models such as Guest’s are useful in developing
insight into the
relationship between HRM practices and performance, problems
remain.
For example, the logical distance between the different elements
in the
model can be problematic. Also, effects of different HRM
practices may
differ or even counteract each other. The proposed chain of
events assumed

FIGURE 1. Linking HRM and performance.
Source : Guest (1997)
561
complicates cross-level processes. For instance, Guest’s model
proposes that
organisation-level HR practices directly affect individual-level
employee
outcomes and later in the causal chain, individual performance
is assumed
to affect organisational performance. Testing this process is
complicated
as the different levels of analysis and cross-level effects place
stringent
requirements on data and analytical techniques. Another
problem is that
the directionality of the results should not be taken for granted
(e.g. high
performance may positively affect commitment as much as vice
versa). Also,
different employees are often assumed to
perceive

the employment practices
offered by the organisation similarly, which is not necessarily
the case (e.g.
Guest, 1999). Finally, the role of direct managers and
supervisors in the
(fair) implementation of HRM practices is often underestimated.
This is
especially relevant when considering performance management,
in which
managers play a key role in assessing and improving employee
performance.
Several of these points are taken into account in the model
presented below.
Also, as stated, modeling these relationships implies a
specification of the
cross- and multi-level nature of the research phenomenon. Thus,
before
discussing the model, we first touch on the multi-level nature of
the employ-
ment relationship.
The Employment Relationship at Multiple Levels
Central to HRM and performance management is the
employment rela-
tionship, which can be studied on
different levels
as well as from

different
perspectives
. Relevant levels include the individual, group, functional,
organisational, industry, and societal level. The different
perspectives
include a legal or institutional dimension (the legal contract), a
business or
organisational dimension (the transactional contract), and a
person or
human dimension (the psychological contract). This suggests
many different
starting points for studying HRM and contrasts the micro and
macro per-
spectives in this field. The macro perspective emphasises the
collective level,
and regularities in social behavior are assumed to transcend
differences
among individual social actors. Given a set of demographics and
situational
constraints, people are assumed to behave similarly. A risk of
this view
is ignoring relevant individual variation that may influence the
collective.
The micro level emphasises the existence and importance of
variations in
individual behavior and characteristics. The focus is on the
individual level
with the risk of paying insufficient attention to the contextual
factors that
constrain the effect of individual differences (Kozlowski &
Klein, 2000).
Although different dimensions of the employment relationship

could be
studied at multiple levels, they are typically linked to specific
levels. For
example, the legal and institutional dimension of the
employment relationship
is most often assessed at the societal and industry levels (e.g.
labour legislation
562
DEN HARTOG ET AL.
and the role of trade unions and works councils). The
transactional perspect-
ive is taken, for example, in organisational-level HRM research
on effects
of employee rewards systems on organisation outcomes such as
productivity.
Research on the person dimension (psychological contract) is
focused
mostly on the individual level and relates, for example, to the
influence of per-
ceived agreements between an employee and employer on
employee behaviour.
MANAGING PERFORMANCE IN ORGANISATIONS:
A CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Figure 2 depicts our model of performance management. The
model proposes
an impact of the aligned set of HRM practices involved in
performance
management on employee perceptions and attitudes and
proposes that
front-line managers play a crucial mediating role in
implementing these
practices. Employee perceptions and attitudes affect employee
performance,
which in turn affects organisational performance. The model
also addresses
reversed causality and some of the contingencies. We did not
include overall
strategy or business strategy or even HRM strategy in the model
for two
reasons. First, there is still little empirical evidence for a link
between
FIGURE 2. A model of the HRM and performance relationship
from a PM
perspective.
563

(a) business strategy and HRM strategy, and (b) HRM strategy
and HR
practices or bundles of HR practices. Second, we want to keep
the model as
clear and parsimonious as possible. For the same reason, the
organisational
performance box was not further refined. Obviously,
distinctions are poss-
ible between more proximal outcomes such as productivity,
turnover, and
more distal financial performance measures. However, for our
purposes,
organisational-level outcome measures are placed together. As
compared to
other models, employee perceptions, reversed causality, and the
role of
direct supervisors/managers are more prominent. Below, we
briefly discuss
these three points and provide a summary of the key
assumptions and pro-
positions of the model.
The Role of the Supervisor
Managers put performance management into practice, and by
doing so will
affect employees’ perception as well as their commitment,
motivation, and
trust. Work on leadership, leader–member exchange, goal-
setting and moti-
vation, perceived supervisory and organisational support, and
procedural
and interactional justice may help further delineate the

importance of direct
supervisors and front-line managers in implementing HR
practices (e.g.
Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; De Haas,
Algera, Van Tuijl,
& Meulman, 2000; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Locke &
Latham, 2002;
Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
An HR department can develop (or buy in) sophisticated
performance
management tools. However, whether these really sort effect
depends on the
appropriate
enactment
by line managers (e.g. Gratton & Truss, 2003). Their
consistency, fairness, and skill in using tools such as holding
consultation
meetings and conducting appraisal interviews will to a large
degree determine
whether such tools indeed generate positive effects on
commitment and
employee performance. The role of first line managers in
carrying out policies
set by the firm is mentioned in the HRM literature (e.g. Storey,
1995); how-
ever, studies have mostly ignored this role. Performance
management clearly
and directly involves managers in the process. Managers set
challenging yet
attainable objectives, appraise performance, and give feedback.
They ensure

possibilities for subordinates’ development and stimulate a
climate in which
high performance is stressed. Thus, managers’ skill and fairness
in perform-
ing these tasks as well as their relationships with their different
subordinates
will play a key role in the success of performance management.
Employee Perceptions
HRM practices can be seen as “signals” of the organisation’s
intentions
towards its employees and are interpreted as such by individual
employees
564
DEN HARTOG ET AL.
(e.g. Rousseau & Greller, 1994). However, employees do not
necessarily
perceive such “signals” similarly or react to them in a similar
manner. Guest
(1999) noted that very little research focuses on employees’
reactions to
HRM. He suggests that the impact of HR practices on

employees’ commitment
and performance depends on employees’
perception
and
evaluation
of these
practices. Perception and attitudes may mediate and moderate
the relation-
ship between HRM practices and employee performance-related
behavior.
Variation may exist in employees’ perceptions of HRM
practices or
benefits offered by the organisation even when in objective
terms what is
offered to different employees is very similar. Individual
differences in percep-
tions and reactions to what the organisation has to offer may,
for instance,
follow from an employee’s previous experience, their beliefs,
comparison
to others, or the type of employment contract. Also, different
promises
made to prospective employees in the recruitment process may
result in
different evaluations of what the employer offers (e.g.
Rousseau, 1989). This
latter perspective is related to research on the psychological

contract, which
studies employees’ evaluation of the content of their exchange
relationship
with the organisation. Rousseau (1989, p. 121) defined the
psychological
contract as “individual beliefs in a reciprocal obligation
between the indi-
vidual and the organization”. Research has focused mostly on
the aftermath
of contract formation, breach, and associated responses. For
instance,
research on violation of the psychological contact shows the
consequences
of contract breach such as a loss of trust and decrease in
commitment (e.g.
Robinson, 1996). Also, research indicates that workers with
different types
of psychological contract respond differently to violation of the
contract
and organisational change (Rousseau, 2001). Similarly, research
in the area
of met expectations (e.g. Irving & Meyer, 1994) and person–
organisation fit
(e.g. Kristof, 1996) call attention to the effect that individual
differences in
the employment relationship may have on outcomes such as
commitment
and employee performance.
Reversed Causality
Much of the research on HRM and performance is cross-
sectional. Thus,
directionality of the linkages is often assumed rather than

tested. HRM is
proposed to be one of the
causes
of a better competitive position and better
financial performance of firms. However, there are also
compelling arguments
for a reversed link. Organisations that perform better in
financial terms may
have more opportunities to invest in High Performance Work
Systems. Thus,
the model proposes that besides HRM influencing performance,
there is also
a reverse loop. Organisational success, for example, in terms of
high profits
or significant growth of market share, has a positive effect on
the willingness
to invest in HR practices (e.g. Hiltrop, 1999; Paauwe &
Richardson, 1997).
565
Unraveling what causes what is not easy. Using subjective

performance
indicators, Guest, Michie, Conway, and Sheehan (2003) find
links between
HRM and both productivity and financial performance, but their
longitu-
dinal study fails to show that HRM
causes
higher performance. Their
analyses support the view that profitability creates scope for
more HRM
rather than vice versa. This also holds at other levels. High
performance is
proposed to positively affect employees’ commitment, trust, and
motivation.
Employees will be motivated by personal as well as
organisational success.
For example, performance affects commitment as much as vice
versa. Empir-
ical support for such processes is available (e.g. Locke &
Latham, 2002).
The Model: Key Propositions
A summary of the key assumptions of the proposed model is:
• Most performance management practices (e.g. performance
appraisal,
feedback training, coaching, information sharing) are facilitated
and
implemented by direct supervisors or front-line managers.

Therefore
the behavior of line managers will mediate the effect of (most)
prac-
tices on employee perception (and behavior).
• HRM and performance management practices (as implemented
by
managers) first affect the employee’s perception and
evaluations. For
example, only if information sharing is seen and interpreted as
such
(and not as a manipulative form of commanding), will it have
the
opportunity to positively affect intentions and behavior.
• Employee behavior in turn will have its impact on
organisational per-
formance (e.g. productivity). Contextual factors can constrain
the
impact individual performance has on organisational-level
outcomes.
• Reversed causality plays a role. Organisational success (e.g.
high
profits or growth of market share) could increase (a) the
willingness of
top management to invest in HR practices, and (b) the
employees’
commitment, trust, and motivation.
• Organisational contextual factors, both internal (e.g. capital
intensity)
and external (e.g. degree of unionisation in the industry), and
individual
employee characteristics (e.g. age, gender, and level of
education) and

preferences (e.g. preferred job type, level of autonomy) may
constrain
the proposed relationships between HR practices and
organisational
performance.
DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Performance management involves aligning the total set of an
organisation’s
HRM practices in such a way that employee and, ultimately,
organisational
566
DEN HARTOG ET AL.
performance is maximised. Thus, the link with the field of HRM
is clear and
many of the research challenges outlined in the HRM and
performance field
also hold when considering performance management (e.g.
Delery, 1998;
Gerhart, Wright, & McMahan, 2000). The model presented
above also sug-
gests a research agenda that is more specific for performance

management,
for example through clearly addressing the role of employee
perceptions and
supervisors in research. Research is needed on the differences
in enactment
of HRM practices and the effects thereof. Also, research could
assess
whether the type of relationship the front-line supervisor has
with each
subordinate (LMX) moderates the link between HRM practices
and
employee perceptions. Other such hypotheses can be developed
and tested.
Research on different levels of analysis as well as cross -level
influences are
of interest. For example, how and when do individual and group
perform-
ance influence organisational performance (and vice versa)?
The “middle
section” of the model describes the impact of direct
supervisor/front-line
managers, employees’ perceptions and attitudes, and employee
behavior
suggesting research on individual employee level.
Organisational perform-
ance is on the organisational level and HRM practices are set
out at the
organisational level, although organisations may differentiate
between
employee groups (e.g. Den Hartog & Verburg, 2004). Other
levels (such as
groups/teams) are also of interest (e.g. how does individual
performance
relate to team performance, when do group norms constrain
individual

behaviour?). Future research will also need to consider the
many methodo-
logical challenges involved in multiple and cross-level research
(see e.g.
Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
As stated, the measurement of performance plays an important
role in
performance management and some of the interesting challenges
for future
research are related to performance appraisal. For instance,
Fletcher (2001)
suggests that the content of appraisal nowadays goes beyond
task perform-
ance to incorporate contextual performance. A key challenge in
this area is
determining what constitutes good performance (and hence what
should be
measured and stimulated), which is also …
Talent management
For what, how and how well? An empirical
exploration of talent management in practice
Marian Thunnissen
Research Centre for Social Innovation,
HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, The
Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify and explain
what happens in practice in TM, in
order to contribute to the building of a broader and more

balanced theoretical framework for
TM in which the impact of the organizational context and its
interrelated actors are taken into account.
Design/methodology/approach – The empirical data were
collected in an explorative, longitudinal
study on TM policies and practices in five Dutch university
departments.
Findings – The two crucial actors in TM – the organization and
the talented employee – have a
different perception of the intended and actual value of TM. The
organization is capable of shaping and
implementing a TM system that meets its needs, so from an
organizational perspective TM is effective.
Since the needs of the talented employees are insufficiently
addressed in the intended and actual TM
practices, TM has less value for them. Various influence factors
at the institutional, organizational and
individual level are identified.
Research limitations/implications – The study was a first step in
opening the “black box” in TM,
but several questions on the TM process still remain
unanswered. The author therefore encourages
more research on the multiple levels in the TM process, and the
factors that cause variability.
Practical implications – Knowledge of the factors which
influence the TM process from strategy to
outcomes can help practitioners to build a more effective TM
approach.
Originality/value – Theoretical approaches from companion
academic disciplines are linked to the
dominant viewpoints in the TM literature. Moreover, to give
counterbalance to the tendency to use
universal models to explain TM, this study contextualizes TM.
Finally, this study goes beyond a focus on
management interests, and investigates to what extent other
stakeholders (employees) benefit from TM.

Keywords Talent management, Public sector organizations,
Talent, Human resource management,
Balanced approach, Employee well-being
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In popular and practitioner oriented literature, internet
magazines and on social networking
sites there is an intensive debate on the talent challenges
organizations are confronted with
(Iles et al., 2010). Scholars also have produced a considerable
number of publications on
talent and TM over the course of the past decade. Yet, the
amount of scholarly
peer-reviewed literature is lagging behind. This illustrates a gap
between the practitioner
and academic interest in the subject (Cappelli and Keller, 2014).
In the academic field of
Human Resources Management (HRM), talent and TM seem to
be relative poorly
developed research subjects, and to add a lasting contribution to
the field of HRM, TM has
to overcome some limitations and difficulties. First, the field of
TM lacks a stable theoretical
foundation. Academic TM literature explores the field in all
possible directions – using a
broad range of academic traditions, including international
HRM, strategic HRM, career
management and organizational behavior (Gallardo-Gallardo et
al., 2015) – but theoretical
approaches are hardly integrated or linked, and consensus on
TM definitions and
principles is therefore hard to find (Lewis and Heckman, 2006;
Collings and Mellahi, 2009;
Employee Relations

Vol. 38 No. 1, 2016
pp. 57-72
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-08-2015-0159
Received 13 February 2015
Revised 12 June 2015
10 August 2015
Accepted 28 October 2015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
57
Exploration
of talent
management
in practice
Nijs et al., 2013). According to Dries (2013, p. 3) “vague but
appealing rhetoric” even causes
critics to question whether TM is not just a management fad.
Second, this criticism is endorsed by the lack of sound
empirical evidence for the
conceptual models and ideas (Lewis and Heckman, 2006; Dries,
2013). The amount of

empirical studies has increased enormously since 2011, yet
Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2015)
argue that empirical TM studies suffer from theoretical and
methodological inconsistencies,
and they call for more theoretically and methodologically
rigorous research designs.
Third, the current TM literature reflects a narrow and biased
view on talent and TM.
An instrumental and managerial approach to talent and TM is
presented, in which the
organizational perspective is emphasized (Thunnissen et al.,
2013). This emphasis on
organizations’ interest is also noticeable in empirical research
on TM, in which HR
professionals, managers and executives are the commonly
targeted research
population (e.g. Stahl et al., 2012). Just a few empirical studies
examine TM from an
employees’ perspective (e.g. Björkman et al., 2013; Dries and
Pepermans, 2008). So, even
though talent or talented employees are the central subjects in
TM, there is little
interest in their experiences and opinions.
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 organizations,
multinationals and organizations in the US context (Collings et
al., 2011). It is, however,
questionable whether the current concepts and assumptions in
the TM literature related
to this specific Anglo-Saxon context help us to understand and
explain TM issues in
organizations in other contexts and geographies (Thunnissen et

al., 2013).
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 (and
according to whom) TM really works in practice. According to
Boxall et al. (2007) the
academic field of HRM should provide an alternative for the
tendency for “best
practicism” which is dominant in HRM and TM. They argue for
an “analytical
approach to HRM” that concentrates on careful descriptive
research to address the
“what, why, how and for whom” questions that underpin the
HRM activity. The
authors underline the importance of contextually-based
research, the integration of
models and theories from related academic subfields in models
on the HRM process,
and assessing outcomes at multiple levels. In accordance with
the principles of the
analytical HRM approach, this paper aims to identify and
clarify what actually
happens in practice, in order to contribute to the building of a
broader and more
balanced theoretical framework for TM which considers the
impact of the
organizational context and its interrelated actors.
Theoretical approaches from related academic fields were used
to expand the
narrow, managerial orientation toward TM. These theori es are
explained in the next
section. Furthermore, this study focussed on TM in a specific
context, i.e. publicly

funded Dutch universities. In the methodology section the
research design is presented.
Moreover, outcomes at multiple levels are investigated, since
the interests and
perceptions of both the organization and talented employees are
considered in the
study. The results are presented in the third section. The paper
ends with a discussion
of the theoretical and practical contributions.
TM and the TM process: a theoretical exploration
TM is often described as the systematic attraction,
identification, development,
engagement/retention and deployment of talents (e.g. Scullion
et al., 2010). Within
their TM definitions authors adopt different terms for “talent,”
for example
58
ER
38,1
“excellent abilities,” but also terms like “key employees,” “high
potentials” or “those
individuals with high potential who are of particular value to an
organization” are
used. The variety of terms used to define talent reflects one of
the most central
debates in TM, i.e. whether TM is an inclusive approach which
focusses on (the
talents of) all employees, or an exclusive approach aimed at
attracting and retaining a
select group of employees (Tansley, 2011). Subsequently, the

outcomes of TM and the
TM practices necessary to obtain the intended outcomes are key
issues. In general,
the TM literature provides a rational and instrumental
interpretation of the TM
process: talents are recruited and developed with a broad va riety
of TM practices to
direct their behavior in a direction that fits the organizational
needs, and, as a result,
the individual is happy and motivated, and individual and
organizational
performance increases. The general assumption in this approach
is that the
effectiveness of TM primarily depends on the strategic
alignment of TM. In doing so,
the TM process is disconnected from other influences in the
external and internal
organizational context. However, in the field of HRM it is
widely acknowledged that
the process through which HR strategy leads to performance is
not as simple as the
TM literature suggests. The route from HR strategy to
organizational performance
consists of a set of underlying processes at multiple levels, and
in each process
different actors and hindering and enabling factors are involved,
through which
variance can occur at each of those levels. Though, these
insights for the field of
strategic HRM have not yet entered the TM domain.
In this section we take the HRM-process models of Paauwe
(2004) and Wright and
Nishii (2013) as our starting point, and elaborate in more detail
on: first, the intended
TM strategy (i.e. the intended TM objectives and the intended

TM practices); second,
the implementation of the actual TM practices; third, the
employees’ perception of the
TM practices and their reactions; and fourth, the outcomes of
TM.
The (intended) TM strategy
Intended TM objectives. According to Paauwe (2004) the
decisions regarding the
(intended) HR goals and the related HR practices are made by
the dominant decision
makers within the organization, such as top management,
supervisory board and HR
management. The room to maneuver of this dominant coalition
is determined by the
overall strategy of the organization – as is recognized in TM
literature – but also by
internal settings and by external factors (Paauwe, 2004).
Moreover, the interests, values
and norms of the actors involved in the dominant coalition also
have an impact on the
choices made regarding the intended HRM strategy (Paauwe and
Boselie, 2003).
In contemporary TM literature mainly organizational objectives
are emphasized.
In general, TM is meant to fulfill the quantitative and
qualitative needs for human
capital, and to contribute to the overall firm performance (in
terms of profit, competitive
advantage and sustainability) (e.g. Beechler and Woodward,
2009; Cappelli, 2008).
The assumption is that every stakeholder in the organization
shares this economic,
organizational interest. In doing so, current TM literature
emphasizes the rational

and economic side of work and organizations. Yet, Collings
(2014) argues that the
failure to effectively manage and develop talent can be traced to
this narrow
conceptualization of outcomes in terms of shareholder returns.
New institutionalists
claim that, besides market pressure, also institutional pressures
exerted by other
stakeholders in the broader organizational context affect the
organization, and create
norms for how organizations should be designed, function and
manage their human
59
Exploration
of talent
management
in practice
capital (Suchman, 1995; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). For
public sector organizations
these institutional pressures are more important than market
pressures.
Yet, the interests and well-being of others who have a stake in
or a claim on the
organization, such as employees or society (Greenwood, 2002),
and “non-economic”
objectives are largely neglected in the TM literature. Collings
(2014) and Thunnissen
et al. (2013) recommend a broader approach to TM, in which
both the economic and

non-economic value of TM is considered, as well as outcomes at
the level of the
organization, the talented employee and society.
Intended TM practices. Now the question arises what practices
and instruments are
implemented by organizations to achieve the intended TM
objectives. However, up until
now the majority of publications on TM have lacked a clear
description of relevant
practices involved in TM (Dries, 2013). A broad variety of
instruments regarding
recruitment, staffing, development and retention has been
presented and prescribed, with
no further classification or structuring. To identify and explain
what happens in practice
the distinction between “hard”-production focussed HRM
practices and “soft”-people
focussed HRM practices (Truss et al., 1997; Legge, 2005) can
be helpful. This
classification is based on opposing belief systems on human
nature and managing
control strategies (Truss et al., 1997). The “hard” approach is
based on McGregor’s theory
X, and reflects an instrumental and utilitarian perspective on
humans: employees are
seen as objects (resources) that need to be controlled and
managed effectively so that
organizational objectives can be met (Truss et al., 1997;
Greenwood, 2002; Legge, 2005).
HR instruments and practices in this approach focus on
measuring, controlling and
increasing performance and productivity of employees. Current
TM literature seems to
promote the “hard” production focussed approach to TM, with
its prevalence for high

performance (in the exclusive approach) and organizational
objectives
Conversely, the “soft” approach to HRM is based on
McGregor’s theory Y, and
assumed that employees are humans with their own emotions
and needs that direct
their behavior. The interests and rights of the employee are a
concern, parallel to the
interests of the organization (Greenwood, 2002). Instead of
exerting control by
sanctions and pressure, supporters of the “soft” approach
believe that managers need
to have confidence in the responsibility of the employees
themselves, and support and
stimulate employees in their development, preferably with
practices that enhance
commitment and personal and professional development (Truss
et al., 1997; Legge,
2005). In TM, the “soft” approach can be connected to the
inclusive TM approach that is
adopted by some TM scholars, in which the strengthening and
developing of the
talents of all employees is underlined.
Actual TM practices
Wright and Nishii (2013) acknowledge that the actual
implementation of the intended HR
practices is often done by other actors than the decision makers
in the dominant coalition,
and that those practices implemented are often applied in ways
that differ from the initial
intention. They argue that obstacles at both the organizational
and the individual level
may interfere with the implementation process. Obstacles at the
organizational level refer

to a lack of internal consistency of the HRM practices, the
absence of adequate and
consistent processes and infrastructure to support the
implementation and so on
(Paauwe et al., 2013; Wright and Nishii, 2013). Obstacles at the
individual level are related
to the actors involved in the implementation process. In
particular the crucial role of line
managers in the implementation process is highlighted in the
literature. Line managers’
60
ER
38,1
poor HR implementation efforts can result in unfavorable
employee attitudes, leading to
outcomes that include less job performance and satisfaction and
higher turnover
intentions (Sikora and Ferris, 2014). Managers might have
several reasons to obstruct the
implementation of HR practices: they could be unwilling to
perform HR responsibilities,
or unable due to a lack of time or sufficient HR-related
competencies. But also a lack of
support and advice from the HR staff on how to perform their
HR role, or the absence of
clear policies and procedures concerning their HR
responsibilities can hinder managers
(Guest and Bos-Nehles, 2013).
There is little conceptual and empirical information in the TM
literature on

differences between intended and actual TM practices, nor on
the factors causing
variability. The literature focusses on either a conceptualization
of (best) practices
(e.g. Groves, 2011), or, but in a lesser extent, on the employees’
perception of the
implemented practices and their reactions (e.g. Dries and De
Gieter, 2014; Höglund,
2012). The latter refers to the next phases in the chain of
processes in Wright and
Nishii’s (2013) model, discussed below.
Perceived practices and employees reactions
The effect of the actual practices does not exist in the practices
themselves, but rather
in the perceptions individual employees have of those practices
(Wright and Nishii,
2013). HRM practices, intentionally and unintentionally, send
signals that employees
interpret and make sense of, in order to form an understanding
of the desired behaviors
and related rewards (Guest, 2007). Based on their perceptions
employees will react in
various ways (Wright and Nishii, 2013).
Referring to employees’ perceptions and reactions, we enter the
area of
psychological contract. This theoretical concept and its relation
to employees’
behavioral and attitudinal reaction is a rising research topic in
TM literature, and in
particular the presumed consequences of contract breach (e.g.
Höglund, 2012; Festing
and Schäfer, 2014). As in other studies on the psychological
contract, these TM studies
show that non-fulfillment or breach of the psychological

contract leads to reduced
organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior
and job satisfaction
and an increased turnover intention.
TM outcomes
The presumed effects of TM on organizational performance are,
as mentioned before,
discussed in conceptual TM literature, but the actual
effectiveness of TM is hardly
empirically explored. The study of Bethke-Langenegger et al.
(2011) on the
effectiveness of TM practices of 138 Swiss companies is a rare
exception. Their
study showed that different sets of TM practices result in
different organizational
outcomes. Although this study is an important contribution to
the field, it focusses only
on organizational objectives, and neglects outcomes of other
stakeholders inside and
outside the organization.
Methodology
In this study we will focus on explaining what actually happens
in practice, and in line
with the above reasoning, explores the potential and actual
value of TM for the
organization and the talented employees, and the factors that
affect the design,
implementation and effectiveness of TM. The empirical data
were collected in a specific
context: Dutch publicly funded universities. The university is an
outstanding example
61

Exploration
of talent
management
in practice
of a talent organization. The terms “talent,” “highly-gifted” or
“genius” are often used to
refer to a scientist with extraordinary insights, a great mind who
realized critical
breakthroughs in his or her academic field. 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, although the
quest for talent seems to be more grounded in economic factors.
In particular in Europe,
universities are ascribed an important role in the strengthening
of the European
position in the global knowledge economy (Enders et al., 2011).
The production of
useful knowledge and relevant teaching necessary to solve
societal and economic
issues has been emphasized. To improve the competitive
position of the European
higher education system great value is attached to quality and
excellence, which is
combined with increasing demands for transparency,
accountability and efficiency by
local governments (Enders et al., 2011). 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 et al., 2011). A “war for talent” is inextricably bound up
with this shift toward
competition and excellence. For some academic disciplines this
is problematic and they
suffer chronic shortages of talented people (e.g. technology and
engineering) while
other disciplines face a surplus of young academics wanting to
pursue an academic
career (e.g. humanities) (Gilliot et al., 2002). This raises the
question if, and how, this
typical talent organization attracts and develops their academic
staff. Several studies
showed that businesslike elements are seeping into the academic
management systems,
and that Dutch universities have shifted from a collegial system
to manage the
recruitment and employment of personnel, to a more managerial
model in which
practices from private sector organizations are adopted (e.g.
Fruytier and Timmerhuis,
1995; Smeenk, 2007). On the other hand, not all signals from
outside the academic
organization come through. The classic academic norms and
values such as autonomy,
independence and creativity are still vital in the organizational
culture and the
professional values and orientations of academics. These
professional norms and
values have an impact on the academic organization and
academic HRM as well
(Smeenk, 2007). The managerial and professional pressures co-
exist in today’s
academic organization and create tensions which affect HRM
policy and practice.

Whether this is also the case in TM is elucidated in the result
section. Before presenting
the results, this section describes the case selection, the data
collection and analysis.
Case selection
The empirical data were collected in an explorative,
longitudinal study on TM policies
and practices in five Dutch university departments of five
different universities. The
selection of the five university departments was based on three
criteria. First, each
selected department had to represent one of the core academic
disciplines: humanities,
social sciences, law, medical sciences and science, technology,
engineering,
mathematics (STEM). Second, general, technical and smaller
universities had to be
included. Third, a regional spread was important. Within each
case data were collected
in 2009 and 2013.
Data collection
The study focussed on the TM policy and practice regarding the
academic staff, in
particular on the talented academics at the beginning of their
academic career. We did
not have a predetermined definition of talent and TM at the start
of the study, because
62
ER
38,1

we wanted to explore the conceptualizations of the departments
involved in the study.
We therefore focussed on academics who were identified by
their dean as “rising stars.”
The data were collected by interviewing both employees and
key figures around
HRM and TM. The latter group consisted of members of the
university executive
board, department’s deans, research directors, managing full
professors and policy
advisors from the HRM department or the academic affairs
office (30 persons;
see Table I). Regarding the employees the study focussed on
academics with a position
as PhD – PhD’s in the Dutch academic system are not students,
but have an employee
status with a temporary contract – postdoctoral researcher and
lecturers (both
temporary positions), and assistant professors recently granted
tenure or on a tenure
track (70 persons in total, see Table I). The selection of the
interviewees was based on
predetermined selection criteria developed by the researchers –
i.e., position and a
spread between male and female – but also on the availability of
respondents in a
specific group. In case of a surplus of respondents in a
particular group a selection was
made by the researchers.
Data collection 2009. In 2009 we started with collecting and
analyzing relevant
policy documents on university departments’ strategy, HRM and
TM policy to gain an

understanding of the intended TM strategy. Second, semi
structured interviews were
held with key figures around HRM and TM to gather
information on the objectives of
TM and the intended TM practices, TM in practice, and the
opportunities and obstacles
concerning the identification, development and retention of
talent. Third, with the
employees focus groups and individual interviews were held, in
which we focussed on
their needs and preferences regarding their work environment
and employment
relation, and also asked how they evaluated the TM practices of
their employer in order
to gain insight into whether the TM system addressed their
needs. In addition, ten
telephonic interviews were held with talented scholars who had
left the university
department to evaluate their perception of the TM approach of
their former employer.
Data collection 2013. In 2013 the deans, research directors and
policy officials were
interviewed again as key figures around HRM and TM. Due to
personnel changes we
could not interview all interviewees of 2009, which resulted in a
lower amount of
interviews than in 2009. In the interviews we evaluated the TM
objectives and policies
investigated in 2009, reflected on the effects in 2013 and on the
factors that influenced
the effectiveness of the TM system.
Representatives organization Employeesa
Board members/

Research directors/
Full professors
Policy officials
(HR/Academic
affairs) PhD/postdocs
Recently appointed
assistant professor/
Tenure trackers
Departed
talents
Subfields 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009
Humanities 3 1 2 1 13 11 17 11 2
Social Sciences 3 1 4 2 4 4 2 1 1
Law 3 1 3 1 5 4 2 2 3
STEM 4 1 3 1 9 4 3 1 2
Medical sciences 3 1 2 2 5 4 10 6 2
Total 16 5 14 7 36 27 34 21 10
Notes: aThe labels of the positions of the employees refer to the
position the respondents had in 2009. So, 11 of the
13 postdoctoral researchers interviewed in 2009 also filled in
the questionnaire in 2013
Table I.
Overview of
interview
respondents per
subfield

63
Exploration
of talent
management
in practice
To gather new information on behalf of the talented employees
we developed a small
online survey, and all interviewed academics of 2009 received
an e-mail to participate in
the study (excluded the ten “departed” interviewed academics).
The survey contained
fourteen questions: nine items focussed on their employment
position in 2009 and in
2013, two items on their evaluation of the TM objectives of
their employer and three
items on their opinion on the contribution of their employer’s
TM approach to their
development. The questionnaire was sent to 73 persons,
including three employees who
were invited for the interviews in 2009 but did not participate;
the e-mail list of all 73
persons were used. In total, 48 questionnaires were returned
(response rate 66 percent).
Information on the careers of the non-responding 25 talents was
retrieved by a search
on LinkedIn or personal websites.
Data analysis
All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The interview
reports were submitted

for approval to the interviewees. Only the approved interview
reports were used for the
further analysis. After both rounds of data collection the
analysis were started by
scanning and coding the transcribed interviews, using emerging,
open codes. IBM
SPSS statistics software was used to analyze the quantitative
data of the survey.
Findings
Intended TM objectives
In 2009 all five cases (humanities, social sciences, law, medical
sciences and STEM) had
TM high on the strategic HR agenda, mainly to achieve
economic organizational goals
(flexibility and efficiency). In particular objectives at the HRM
level are relevant: all
departments wanted to create a flexible workforce, in quantity
and quality, which
enables the organization to respond adequately to external
demands. Moreover, all
departments faced an ageing workforce and one of the key
priorities was to attract a
new generation of academics to fulfill (now or in the future) the
vacant positions of full
professor. For the law, STEM and medical sciences departments
this was problematic,
because they were confronted with a highly competitive, tight
labor market and they
experienced difficulties in attracting and retaining young
academics. The humanities
department, on the other hand, had to cope with plentiful junior
staff, with limited
career possibilities in general and a scarcity of top-level
positions due to low mobility
in the upper ranks, and a lack of financial resources to create

extra positions. Instead
of “exploiting” the over-supply in the humanities labor market,
the organization took
on the responsibility of improving organizational flexibility
together with enhancing
the overall employability of its academics to strengthen their
position at the external
labor market. Therefore, the humanities department is the only
department in
our study which specifically showed consideration for employee
well-being as a formal
TM objective. None of the university departments has
formulated TM goals at the
societal level.
TM practices: intended and actual
Now the question arises as to what TM practices were
developed and actually
implemented by the organization to achieve these goals. Four
out of five departments had
a well-documented and formalized TM policy developed by the
…
Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 326–336
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Human Resource Management Review
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/humres
Talent management and the relevance of context:
Towards a pluralistic approach
Marian Thunnissen a,⁎ , Paul Boselie b, Ben Fruytier c

a Research Centre for Social Innovation, HU University of
Applied Sciences, The Netherlands
b School of Governance, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
c Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University
Nijmegen, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e i n f o
⁎ Corresponding author at: Research Centre for Soc
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Thu
1053-4822/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. A
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.004
a b s t r a c t
This paper aims to contribute to the development of a broader,
more balanced approach to talent
management that will help in studying and implementing talent
management across different
contexts. The paper starts with an overview of the advances
made in previous reviews and studies
with respect to three central themes: the definition of talent,
intended outcomes of talent
management, and talent management practices. We identify the
one-dimensional and narrow
approach to the topic as a main limitation of the existing talent
management literature. Through
the use of theories from the organizational theory and the
strategic HRM domain, we add new
perspectives and develop a multilevel, multi-value approach to
talent management. In so doing,
we offer an in-depth discussion of the potential economic and
non-economic value created by
talent management at the individual, organizational, and
societal level.
© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords:

Talent management
Balanced approach
Human resource management
Employee well-being
Societal well-being
1. Introduction
Talent management has been one of the most debated themes in
human resource management (HRM) theory and practice in
recent years. Next to leadership development, value-based
recruitment and performance management, talent management is
seen as one of the key human resource themes and challenges by
leading multinational companies such as IBM and Shell
(Paauwe, 2007). Business leaders expect that the intensifying
competition for talent will have a major effect on their
companies.
In spite of the economic recession, they regard the search for
talented people as the single most important managerial
preoccupation for this decade (Deloitte, 2010; Guthridge,
Komm, & Lawson, 2008).
Articles published in the popular and practitioner press, as well
as consulting companies, pay a great deal of attention to talent
management and how to win the ‘war for talent’ (Iles, Preece, &
Chuai, 2010; Vaiman, Scullion, & Collings, 2012). Over the
course
of the past decade academics have produced a considerable
amount of publications on talent management as well. This,
however,
does not imply that all talent management scholars speak the
same language. Consensus on the meaning and underlying
principles of talent management is lacking. In their 2006
review, Lewis and Heckman stressed the point that talent
management,
as a field of study was still in its infancy as it lacked a clear and
consistent definition of its core construct as well as a clearly

defined scope and a conceptual framework based on empirical
research. In 2009, Collings and Mellahi came to the same
conclusion. Yet, a few years later, Collings, Scullion, and
Vaiman (2011) observed some progress regarding the
establishment of a
definition and conceptual boundaries of talent management, and
concluded that the field was moving from infancy into
adolescence. The authors state that many, mainly US-based,
scholars have contributed to this advance.
However, Collings et al. (2011) reported a biased approach to
talent management in their review of the literature. Specifically,
they noticed a dominant influence of the US context on the
debate, because of the adoption of Northern American thinking
and
research by the US based scholars (Collings et al., 2011). In
addition, Powell et al. (2012) identified a strong focus on the
private
ial Innovation, HU University of Applied Sciences, Postbus
85397, 3508 AJ Utrecht, The Netherlands.
nnissen).
ll rights reserved.
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10534822
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.0
5.004&domain=pdf
327M. Thunnissen et al. / Human Resource Management Review
23 (2013) 326–336
sector and on multinational companies in contemporary talent
management literature. These observations raise the question of

whether current assumptions and concepts in the talent
management literature, which are strongly embedded in the
context of
multinational, private, and US-based organizations, are
appropriate for describing and studying talent management i n
organizations in other contexts, such as small and medium
enterprises, public organizations, and organizations located
outside
of the US. Consequently, Collings et al. (2011) urge the need
for new influences “[…] as the field moves into adolescence it
is
important that insights from beyond the US context influence
the debate. This is not a critique of the significant contributions
which have emerged from the USA, but rather a call for a
counterbalance from different perspectives and traditions” (p.
455).
In this paper we will respond to the call of Collings et al.
(2011). The main aim of this paper is the development of a
broader,
more balanced approach to talent management that takes into
account the importance of context, and of the different actors
involved. This approach to talent management will support the
study and implementation of talent management practices in a
wider range of organizations than has been the case to date. The
paper starts with an overview of the achievements so far in the
existing academic talent management literature and research.
Subsequently, we scrutinize these advances with a critical eye,
and
discuss possible limitations of the dominant views expressed in
the talent management literature. We move on to add new
perspectives originating in organizational theory and strategic
human resource management (SHRM), thus placing talent
management in a broader perspective. These new perspectives
are then integrated into a multilevel, multi-value approach to
talent management. In so doing, we offer an in-depth discussion

of the potential economic and non-economic value of talent
management at the individual, organizational, and societal
level. From all of the above, we formulate an agenda for future
talent
management research, suggesting new directions for empirical
research in a wide range of organizations with the ultimate goal
of
advancing academic knowledge about talent management
processes and success factors.
2. Mapping the field of talent management: achievements so far
Recently, Thunnissen, Boselie, and Fruytier (2013) conducted a
literature review in which they analyzed 62 academic
publications on talent management (published between 2001 and
2012). The authors conclude that, up until 2012, most of the
academic publications on talent management have been
conceptual, approaching the field from many different angles.
Talent
management literature is built on a broad range of academic
traditions, including SHRM (e.g., linking strategy to the
management
of valuable talents), international HRM (e.g., managing talent in
a multinational and/or cross-cultural context), and
organizational
behavior (OB) (e.g., linking talent management to career
development and management development). Thunnissen et al.
(2013)
also conclude that, although progress is being made, there is
still only a limited amount of empirical research on talent
management (as was the conclusion of Lewis & Heckman,
2006). Rather, the academic literature on talent management
focuses
on (1) the conceptualization of talent and talent management;
(2) the intended outcomes and effects of talent management;
and

(3) talent management activities and practices (Thunnissen et
al., 2013). In the following paragraphs we will give a short
overview of the existing literature on each of these themes.
One of the key issues in the talent management literature is
answering the question ‘What is talent?’. To advance the study
of
talent management, consensus on the conceptualization of talent
is important, both for scholars and practitioners (see also
Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries & González-Cruz, 2013-in this issue;
Tansley, 2011). Today, no unanimous definition of talent exists.
Opinions differ on whether or not to differentiate the workforce
and, if so, according to which principles. There is also a debate
on the
question of whether talent is innate or acquired, and the extent
to which it should be characterized as potential or as manifested
performance (see also Dries, 2013-in this issue; Meyers, Van
Woerkom & Dries, 2013-in this issue; Tansley, 2011). Gallardo-
Gallardo
et al. (2013-in this issue) propose that two dimensions are of
importance in defining talent in the context of the world of
work. The
first dimension makes a distinction between talent as people
(subject approach) and talent as characteristics of people (object
approach). The subject approach to talent management focuses
on valuable, scarce, inimitable and difficult-to-replace
individual
employees. It reflects the basic assumptions of human capital
theory as described, among others, by Lepak and Snell (2002) in
their
HR architecture model. Scholars supporting the object
approach, on the other hand, regard talent as individual
attributes, such as
abilities, knowledge, and competencies. This approach is related
to the AMO paradigm (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg,
2000),

which proposes that employee performance is a function of the
employee's ability (A), motivation (M) and opportunity (O) to
perform (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). The second dimension of
Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2013-in this issue) makes a distinction
between
inclusive (i.e., all employees) and exclusive (i.e., a specific
employee group) approaches to talent management. Sparrow,
Hird, and
Balain (2011), as well as Stahl et al. (2012), point out that
organizations use both the inclusive and exclusive approach,
although the
exclusive approach seems to be most preferred. Taken together,
the two dimensions (subject–object and inclusive–exclusive)
generate a number of plausible talent management models—for
example, a small defined talent management model
(exclusive-subject approach) that focuses on a select group of
high-performing and/or high-potential employees; or a broadly
defined talent management model (inclusive-object approach)
that encourages every employee to fulfill his or her potential.
Empirical research is required to test the prevalence and utility
of these different models in practice.
A second key issue in the talent management literature is the
operationalizing of the intended outcomes and effects of talent
management. According to most scholars in the field of talent
management the main objective of talent management is to
achieve
organization related goals. At this organizational level, several
types of outcomes and effects are discussed in the academic
talent
management literature. First, some authors describe outcomes at
the level of the HRM subsystem. According to this type of
approach, talent management should be aimed at fulfilling the
quantitative and qualitative needs for human capital, thus
narrowing the supply–demand gap organizations are confronted
with (e.g., Beechler & Woodward, 2009; McCauley &

Wakefield,
2006). Others claim that talent management should contribute to
overall firm performance (e.g., Cappelli, 2008; Cheese, Farley,
&
328 M. Thunnissen et al. / Human Resource Management
Review 23 (2013) 326–336
Gibbons, 2009; Collings & Mellahi, 2009), and therefore stress
the importance of the strategic fit of talent management
practices
and activities (e.g., Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Christensen
Hughes & Rog, 2008; Schuler, Jackson, & Tarique, 2011; Stahl
et al.,
2007, 2012). Both short-term (e.g., profits) and long-term goals
(e.g., gaining sustained competitive advantage) emerge as
objectives at the organizational level. Goals at the level of the
individual employee are distinguished as well, in particular
employee motivation, commitment and engagement. Motivation
and engagement are mostly presented as means to achieve
(high) individual performance, and through that high
organizational performance (e.g., Cheese et al., 2009;
Christensen Hughes &
Rog, 2008; Collings & Mellahi, 2009). This type of approach
builds on the assumption that a highly engaged workforce
produces
better business results than a disengaged one (Cheese et al.,
2009).
The third key issue in the talent management literature involves
talent management practices and activities. A wide variety
of practices and activities is addressed in the academic talent
management literature. Overall, scholars tend to focus mostly
on
(1) recruitment, staffing and succession planning, (2) training

and development, and (3) retention management. How to handle
the exit and turnover of talent, and possibly even take advantage
of it, is hardly an issue in the talent management literature.
Most of the reviewed practices and activities linked to talent
management are common HR practices, now applied to the
notion
of talent management or to the management of ‘excellence’
(Burkus & Osula, 2011). Special attention is paid to talent
pools, the
pros and cons of recruiting high-performing employees from
outside the organization versus the development of high-
potential
or high-performing employees from the inside (i.e., buy or make
talent), and the importance of positioning the organization as
an appealing employer (i.e., employer branding) (e.g., Cappelli,
2008; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Pfeffer, 2001; Stahl et al.,
2007,
2012). Most scholars do not prescribe specific practices or
activities, but merely claim that talent management should be
aligned
with the internal and external environment of the organization
(e.g., Sparrow et al., 2011; Stahl et al., 2007, 2012). Many
authors
thus promote a ‘best fit’ approach to talent management
although some best principles with a broad application are
presented
(e.g., Stahl et al., 2007).
In sum, over the course of the last decade talent management
has received a great deal of attention in the academic literature.
Scholars from a broad range of academic traditions, such as
strategic HRM, international HRM, and OB have contributed to
the
debate. These different lenses have each in their way
contributed to our current understanding of the various
important aspects

and issues concerning talent management. The definition of
talent and talent management, its intended outcomes and
effects, and
talent management practices and activities are key issues. Even
though the field has evolved, scholars did not succeed in
establishing unambiguous definitions of talent and talent
management. Talent management is a relatively young academic
field
that lacks a solid base of empirical research to test and validate
core conceptual ideas. Therefore, we can conclude that the field
is
partly still in its infancy, with some progress towards
adolescence.
3. A critical view of the talent management literature
Although the field of talent management is built on a broad
range of HRM and OB theories, in most academic publications
talent management is approached from a single perspective. The
academic traditions are rarely integrated or linked and put into a
broader perspective. In addition to being one-dimensional, the
dominant views in academic talent management literature are
too
narrow and biased. We see these issues as crucial gaps in the
academic talent management literature. In the following
paragraphs
we expand upon these critical remarks.
First of all, in the literature talent management is often
narrowed down to (the impact of) a limited set of HR practices
and
activities. These practices and activities refer to what Boxall
and Macky (2009) call employment practices, i.e. “[…] all the
practices used to recruit, deploy, motivate, consult, negotiate
with, develop and retain employees, and to terminate the
employment relationship” (p. 7). However, according to Boxall

and Macky (2009) any HRM system should encompass both
employment practices and work practices. Work practices, from
their side, involve the organization and structuring of work in
the
organization, including opportunities for employees to engage
in problem solving and change management regarding work
processes. Yet, in the literature work practices are hardly ever
taken into account as talent management practices. According to
the study of Stahl et al. (2007), job rotation and challenging
assignments are in fact seen by organizations as useful
instruments by
HR practitioners, but are seldom used because of the strong
tendency of managers to give priority to their own unit, rather
than to
focus on the interests of the organization as a whole. In addition
to the lack of attention to work practices, the contemporary
talent management literature hardly acknowledges the notion of
the impact of processes and practices that fall beyond the
control of the HR function (such as leadership, organizational
culture and communication) on organizational performance
(Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001). The talent management
literature thus consistently overestimates the importance of
human
capital, or talents, and the potential impact of a narrow set of
employment practices.
Second, the academic talent management literature adopts a
unitarist approach. The organization is typically presented as a
unified actor, in which all actors systematically and
unanimously work together to reach organizational goals, such
as
organizational flexibility and profitability. Top management,
line management and HR are all attributed a significant role in
talent
management (e.g., Burbach & Royle, 2010; Farndale, Scullion,
& Sparrow, 2010; Garrow & Hirsh, 2008; Stahl et al., 2007).

The
underlying assumption is, however, that all of these
organizational actors share mutual goals and interests. In this
respect, the
term alignment (of the needs of the organization and its
employees) is often used (e.g., Garrow & Hirsh, 2008; Ulrich &
Ulrich,
2010). Just a few scholars refer to the potentially conflicting
goals and needs of different internal stakeholders. For example,
Martin and Schmidt (2010), and Guthridge, Komm, and Lawson
(2006) discuss management's short-term orientation and its
tendency towards ‘silo thinking’ —i.e., a focus on the interests
of one part of the organization rather than the whole. In
addition,
the employee is presented as an object to be managed by talent
management, leaving their needs and goals underexamined.
329M. Thunnissen et al. / Human Resource Management Review
23 (2013) 326–336
Scholars in the field of talent management also seem to assume
that organizational–traditional careers are still the norm—i.e.,
careers
characterized by upward mobility and long-term full-time
employment in one and the same organization. However,
organizational
career systems have witnessed major changes in recent decades.
The proactive role of the employee in shaping his or her own
career
(reflected in concepts such as the boundaryless career, the
protean career, and multidirectional career paths) is steadily
gaining
influence in the field of career management (Baruch, 2004;
Biemann, Zacher, & Feldmann, 2012; Sullivan & Baruch, 2009).
These

insights are largely neglected in the talent management
literature; exceptions are the publications of Dries and others on
the careers
of employees identified as high potentials (Dries, 2011; Dries &
Pepermans, 2008; Dries, Van Acker, & Verbruggen, 2011).
Third, the current talent management literature can be
characterized as managerialist, comparable to criticism of the
field of
human resource management (see for example Delbridge &
Keenoy, 2010; Delbridge, Hauptmeier, & Sengupta, 2011;
Paauwe,
2009). More specifically, talent management literature reflects a
belief in systems, instruments and tools that can help managers
and HR professionals solve the talent management challenges
the organization is confronted with. Talent management is
presented as a tool to manage the talent, in the sense of both
people and characteristics present in an organization,
effectively so
that individual and organizational performance is under control
and can be improved. Underlying this instrumental and rational
point of view, we identify an economic orientation towards the
intended effects of talent management. Cappelli (2008)
explicitly
states that talent management exists to support the
organization's overall objective, “which in business essentially
amounts to
making money” (Cappelli, 2008, p. 3). In his view, firm
performance is narrowed down to meeting financial and
shareholder
needs. Many scholars in the field of talent management seem to
support his view (e.g., Cheese et al., 2009; Stahl et al., 2007).
4. Adding new perspectives
The one-dimensional and biased approach to talent management

may be suitable for studying and implementing talent
management in multinational and private organizations, but it is
probably inadequate to describe talent management in, for
example, public organizations or small enterprises. In the
following paragraphs, we will argue that it is necessary to
broaden the
existing one-dimensional and narrow approach to talent
management into a more pluralistic one. A pluralistic approach
implies
the use of multiple perspectives at the same time: “using
theories in concert” (Greenwood & Miller, 2010, p. 82).
According to
Greenwood and Miller (2010) scholars in the field of
organizational theory, in their need to understand complex
organizations,
have narrowed their scope of interest from organizational -level
phenomena to understanding parts of the overall organization.
The authors acknowledge the growing complexity of
organizations, but they claim that focusing on a single aspect of
the
organization, disconnected from the full pattern, is not an
adequate way to gain understanding of complex organizatio ns
and their
functioning in relation to their environment. They make a plea
to refocus on the organization as a whole again, and to use
multiple
theoretical lenses together to fully understand the nuances and
complexity of an organization and its behavior. We support this
recommendation and believe that a pluralistic approach, using
multiple lenses or frames, is most likely to lead to an enriched
and
complete view of organizations and the talent challenges they
face.
To put talent management in a wider perspective and to build a
broader, more balanced theoretical framework, we will

introduce
new viewpoints which take into account the organizational
context and its interrelated actors. Many of the theories and
models cited
here originated in organizational theory, and are already
generally accepted within the field of strategic HRM (e.g.,
Boxall & Purcell,
2011; Paauwe & Boselie, 2007). Nevertheless, they are still
quite uncommon in the field of talent management. Below, we
present
three new perspectives that are to be seen as extensions to the
existing literature on talent management. An overview of the
new
perspectives is presented in Table 1. Subsequently, we will
discuss to what extent the existing talent management literature
pays
attention to these alternative views.
4.1. Focus on both the employment and the work relationship
The first critical argument we raised in this paper was that in
many talent management publications the scope is narrowed
down
to (the impact of) a limited set of HR practices. In line with
Boxall and Macky (2009) we argue that this scope should be
broadened
from a narrow focus on practices to a focus on the people in the
organization and their work (Boxall & Macky, 2009). The
importance
of people to organizations in today's knowledge economy is
widely recognized. Exactly this sense of importance has put
talent
management high on the strategic agenda of CEOs and
management (Deloitte, 2010; Guthridge et al., 2008; Paauwe,
2007). In an
organization, the employee and the organization—in its role as

an employer—enter into “a cooperative framework for the
supply of
Table 1
Identification of limitations in the existing talent management
literature and new perspectives.
Limitations: one-dimensional and biased approach New
perspectives
– Focus on a narrow set of HR practices Focus on people and
their work—i.e., both on the employment and the work
relationship (Boxall &
Macky, 2009);
– Unitarist approach: Organization presented as unified actor
unanimously working to obtain organizational goals
Consider the influence and well-being of actors at multiple
levels;
Organizations are neither purely instrumental systems (i.e.,
system-structural view) nor purely
political arenas (i.e., action theory approach) (e.g., Bourdieu,
1988);
– Managerialist view: Instrumental point of view and economic
orientation
Consider the multifaceted value creation of talent management:
Impact of economic and institutional pressures on value
creation by the organization and HRM
(e.g., Kalleberg, 2009; Suchman, 1995).
330 M. Thunnissen et al. / Human Resource Management
Review 23 (2013) 326–336

labor services” (Marsden, 2004, p. 674), i.e. an employment
relationship. Basically, this relationship is an exchange
relationship. The
employer wants employees who contribute to the production of
goods and services. Therefore, the relationship needs to be
productive, minimizing the costs and risks to the organization.
The employee offers his or her time and capabilities to the
organization, expecting financial and non-financial rewards in
return (Rubery & Grimshaw, 2003).
However, the employment relationship is more than just an
economic exchange. As Tsui and colleagues state, it rests on the
logic of social exchange: employees reciprocate in ways
comparable to how they are treated by their organizations (Hom
et al.,
2009; Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli, 1997; Tsui & Wu, 2005).
If an employer invests in the well-being of its employee (for
example, by offering job security and developmental
opportunities), the employee is willing to do more than the
prescribed tasks
and shows extra-role behavior, such as helping co-workers. This
refers to what Marsden calls (2004) the informal rules and
non-codified elements of the psychological contract. Boxall and
Macky (2009) expand the organization–employee relationship
beyond the usual employment relationship, and add the work
relationship. This expansion enables organizations to apply a
wider
set of practices and activities than the limited set of practices
discussed in existing talent management literature, even
activities
beyond the control of the HR department.
Although there is a tendency in the current talent management
literature to emphasize employment practices, the
employment relationship itself is not an issue that is widely
discussed in the talent management literature. In fact, only a

handful
of talent management publications pay attention to the
employment relationship. Cappelli (2000, 2008), for instance,
refers to the
economic aspects of the employment relationship. He discusses
how organizations can gain control over insecurity in the
employment relationship, and how they can maximize
organizational flexibility while maintaining increasing
employee
performance (Tsui et al., 1997). Other authors do not explicitly
mention the employment relationship, but do pay attention to
the
psychological contract, which has to be managed effectively to
retain talented employees (Blass & April, 2008; Garrow &
Hirsh,
2008; Höglund, 2012; Sonnenberg, 2010). To date, the work
relationship has attracted hardly any attention in the talent
management literature.
4.2. Consider the influence and well-being of actors at multiple
levels
In our critique of the existing talent management literature, we
also described the literature as unitarist and predominantly
orientated towards systems and instruments. This approach in
the talent management literature fits the system-structural view
in organizational theory. The system-structural approach
considers an organization as a system that consists of
interrelated
elements, and that interacts with its environment (Astley & Van
der Ven, 1983; Nadler & Tushman, 1980). The structural
elements are interrelated in such a way that they serve the
achievement of shared organizational goals in a highly
instrumental
fashion. The basic components of the structure are roles and
functions. Human beings occupy these roles and therefore must
be

carefully selected, trained and controlled to meet the
requirements of the position they occupy. The system-structural
view of
organizations is challenged by scholars who believe that
organizational behavior is strongly influenced by the needs and
preferences of different actors inside and outside the system
(Astley & Van der Ven, 1983). One of the schools is better
known as
the action theory approach. According to action theory,
organizations are continuously constructed, sustained and
changed by
different actors' …
Talent management covers a range of long-standing strategies
that helps an organization to recruit and retain desired talent in
their respective work field. Some of these practices include
workforce planning and employee development which must be
well thought out in order to produce intended results. It has
become the dominant human capital topic of the early twenty-
first century. There are some tested and true approaches to
talent management which makes an organization distinct from
its market competitors. However, the Human Resources
department face numerous challenges in designing talent
management tools. These include high compensation demand,
unappealing organizational culture and high employee turnover
rate. Implementing talent management tools also call for
attention. There are several strategies proposed to combat these
challenges effectively.
Furthermore, the scheme of talent management is not simply a
program which the people in a company follow, however, it is
strategy which the top-tier company management implements in
order to allow the individuals within the organizational
structure develop as extremely talented professionals.
Moreover, the company management at times develops
individual development plans for the employees in order to
speed up the skills which they want to incorporate in the

company culture. For example, the management can arrange
certain programs such as the career architecture program which
allows employees to figure out training courses which the
employees need take and also inform the employees about the
skills which they should learn in relevance to their career paths.
The programs revitalize the spirit of Talent Management and
allow the company management to categorically plan and
implement a strategic effort towards the improvement of
employees’ skills. Therefore, it only makes sense that the
demand for Talent Management is only increasing and
employers look for individuals who can exhibit Talent
Management as a skill set.
Talent management constitutes of certain development
techniques and training method which allow the betterment of
employees. Moreover, the department of talent management i s
also charged with the responsibility of bringing the factor of
novelty into the department’s training methods and development
techniques. Furthermore, the impact of STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Math) skills is observed to be
pivotal for creativity hence, providing the customers with novel
and innovative products which can allow them to develop a
sentiment of attachment with the company. STEM skill set is
becoming more and more attractive as employers now do not
wish to invest in employees to incorporate the element of
creativity in the employees’ over personality. Apart from
finding creative individuals, another issue which rises is the
search for individuals with utmost leadership skills so that can
be considered to be a candidate for upcoming managerial roles.
The requirement of the employers is in accordance with the fact
that the new generation looks out for opportunities to develop
and progress, therefore, they are also more attracted towards
managerial positions.
The first approach is to develop Job Description is the most
vital approach to talent management. Any job opportunity
posted for a company; the description provided holds a
significant value. Making evident what duties count towards

performance will ensure that the candidates applying for that
particular job know exactly what is expected of them. This leads
to a lower turnover rate as the recruits are not misled about,
they are expected to do in a workplace. Moreover, the talent
acquisition team should list all the necessary requirements for
applying to narrow down their search of qualified candidates.
The second approach is providing development opportunities to
existing employees enable them to perform everyday duties
more efficiently. The opportunities can include a training
session on a newly developed software or a management trainee
program for entry-level professionals to help them gain valuable
insights or rich experiences.
The third approach to talent management is performance
evaluation. A review of employee's job performance and
accomplishments during a time period tracks whether an
individual has achieved desired results or not. It also helps the
employees find loopholes in their performances and find out
ways to improve in their assessments. Progressive organizations
are now leveraging systems to ensure delivery of non-monetary
drivers such as recognition, praise, and feedback.
The fourth approach to talent management is the selection
process. The process has to be fair and true to select the right
person for the job from a big pool of applicants. The
recruitment team has to make sure the requirements are met, and
references checked out. A tried and tested process makes
decision making efficient as well as effective.
Lastly, an effective approach to talent manageme nt is providing
good compensation to hire good talents. Effective compensation
packages distinct a highly reputed company who provide
additional perks to obtain talent and retain it. Additionally,
bonuses and allowances keep employees motivated and provide
an incentive for them to find their niche work harder towards
the company's vision.
Human resources departments have various tasks to fulfil but
hunting for talent and retaining it is of utmost importance. One
of the biggest challenges in designing talent management is

higher compensation demands. The pay is the most contributing
factor in an individual's performance and job satisfaction. This
creates a challenging situation for the HR team to retain talents
without exceeding cost barriers.
Another big challenge is that companies with unappealing
culture are hard-pressed to find suitable employees. Young
generations expect a livelier workplace environment than their
predecessors did. The HR team has the challenge to create a
positive environment that adds up to employee's motivation and
improves productivity.
In addition, another challenge is the high employee turnover
rate. Top positions in a company experience highest turnover
rate and therefore there is an overall lack of leadershipwithin an
organization. HR managers are required to create plans to train
recruits which incurs huge costs. High turnover can affect a
healthy bottom line.
However, there are several ways to combat these challenges.
The HR team can adopt various strategies to cope up with the
dynamic markets niche. One possible solution to cater to high
compensation demand is to promote employees based on their
performance allowing all team members collectively to
participate. Provide benefits and perks to employees who
perform up to the desired level of expectation. Consequently, all
the employees will be motivated to work harder. HR teams can
organize various activities and create a friendly environment to
boost healthy company culture. Perks such as relaxed, open
communication policy, flexible job hours, and meaningful
duties with clearly defined objectives aid in creating a positive
workplace environment. Moreover, HR managers can consult
current top executives to develop new plans for training new
executives as old ones are replaced. Introduce motivational
drivers such as praise and recognition to boost up confidence in
employees. Rewarding success can drastically improve people
management results.
Talent acquisition and employee retention is a key concern for
HR teams. Human Resources in a versatile field and the experts

need to work out effective techniques to implement talent
management according to dynamic industry requirements and
challenges.
Firstly, increased digitization of HR means that companies will
now have to learn how to "be digital" rather than just buying
digital equipment. For recruitment, this includes processes of
interviews, reference checking, scheduling to be done through
machine learning systems and talent analytics. The challenge
for HR managers here is to stay fully updated about the new
technologies to mitigate the risk of lagging behind their
competitors.
Secondly, a multi-generational workforce creates a diverse
environment where the distribution of roles and responsibilities
in a workplace is a recurring challenge. The current workplace
will typically be comprised of three different generations: baby
boomers, generation X and millennial - while generation Z will
be entering the workforce soon. Generations have varying goals
and visions which leads them to different expectations from
their managers.
Thirdly, a key concern for candidates applying for a job is
feedback. The traditional annual or semi-annual appraisals are
being increasingly replaced by continuous sand consistent
feedback systems. Candidates consider new learning and
development opportunities essential as it is a precursor to their
career paths. Therefore, there is a high appetite for continuous
performance management.
There are several practices to ensure the effective
implementation of talent management tools. To cope with the
increased digitization, HR departments should start with the
simplest goals and proceed in one area at a time (recruiting,
training, evaluation). It is important to prioritize high-impact
operations requiring minimal resources in order to stay cost-
effective. Training can be outsourced in order to familiarize
employees with the latest digital trends. In order to manage
multi-generational workforce employers should look for
commonalities to build collaboration and mutual trust among

their employees. Set up informal mentoring opportunities for
employees to share rich insights on career growth. Additionally,
avoid a one-size-fits-all approach and manage people based on
their respective skills and abilities. HR departments are required
to build updated, real-time feedback systems and mentoring
processes. Ongoing feedback tools give employees an
opportunity to share their views about their workplace which
ultimately leads to improved transparency and benchmarking.
In conclusion, talent management is an approach to anticipating
the need for human capital. It includes setting out plans to cater
to the organization's need for a productive workforce. Over the
past decades, talent management tools have by and large been
dysfunctional which led organizations to lurch from shortfall of
talents to surpluses and vice versa. Talent management has
evolved over the past generations as the companies are looking
for new ways to overcome the challenges faced in designing and
implementation of talent management. Some of the practices
include focusing on employee development opportunities, non-
monetary drivers, increasing collaboration between employees,
and investing in high-impact operations.

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2004, 53

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2004, 53

Similar to APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2004, 53 (20)

More from GrazynaBroyles24

More from GrazynaBroyles24 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2004, 53