A Coalesced Framework Of Talent Management And Employee Performance For Further Research And Practice

A “coalesced framework”
of talent management and
employee performance
For further research and practice
James Kwame Mensah
Graduate School of Public Administration,
National Institute of Development Administration, Bangkok, Thailand
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual framework that demonstrates
the mechanisms through which talent management (TM) leads to the various dimensions of employee
performance.
Design/methodology/approach – A literature-based analysis was employed by combining
concepts from TM and employee performance. The syntheses of these two concepts lead to the
development of the conceptual framework.
Findings – The findings show that, implementation of a TM system leads to employee performance,
but a TM output mediates the relationship between TM and employee performance.
Originality/value – This paper has contributed to the conceptualisation of TM and employee
performance which will help to improve theory, research and practice in all fields concerned with
individual work performance.
Keywords Performance management, Talent management, Employee performance, Dimensions
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
After McKinsey consultants coined the expression “the war for talent” in 1997, talent
management (TM) has increasingly and consistently gained attention in both the
practitioner and the academic literature (Kang and Sidhu, 2014; Sonnenberg et al., 2014;
Collings and Mellahi, 2009). In recent years, TM has been high on the agenda of most
organisations because of the belief in the importance of talent in achieving organisational
excellence (Iles et al., 2010; Beechler and Woodward, 2009; Michaels et al., 2001). While it
has been generally accepted that all employees possess talent and that all jobs are equally
important (Buckingham and Vosburgh, 2001; Ashton and Morton, 2005; O’Reilly and
Pfeffer, 2000), the reality is that there are jobs in all organisations that are considered to be
more important and this is reflected through a higher perceived status and salary (Ulrich
and Smallwood, 2011; Berger, 2004; Gagné, 2004).
This belief in the potential of TM has led to research into the various aspects of
the concept. In spite of its growing popularity, however, there is no clear conception
of how TM connects to employee performance, even though it is well acknowledged
that the sum total of an individual’s performance leads to organisational
performance. This paper is motivated by two main reasons. First, despite the
enormous literature on TM for over a decade now, it is still not clear how TM is
related to the various dimensions of employee performance. Second, the current
state of TM seems to lack a conceptual framework of the mechanisms through
which TM leads to employee performance. This paper will therefore help to
understand and provide a clear relationship between TM and the various
International Journal of
Productivity and Performance
Management
Vol. 64 No. 4, 2015
pp. 544-566
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-07-2014-0100
Received 1 July 2014
Revised 12 September 2014
22 December 2014
Accepted 30 December 2014
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm
544
IJPPM
64,4

dimensions of employee performance. This field will benefit from the coalesced
framework that is provided in this study.
These limitations in the literature on TM have a number of implications. First, it has
limited scholarly understanding of how TM influences the various dimensions of
employee performance differently. Second, organisations implementing TM systems
may not have understood the clear mechanisms through which TM leads to employee
performance. This paper makes a contribution by drawing a clear link between TM and
various dimensions of employee performance. The paper also develops a conceptual
framework to demonstrate the mechanisms through which TM leads to employee
performance. This will aid future research in applying and testing the framework
empirically while it helps managers and organisations to have a clear path for
implementing a TM strategy to get the expected results.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. The next section examines definitions
of TM. This is followed by an examination of the various perspectives that can be used
to study TM. The fourth section discusses how TM is conceptualised in the literature
while the fifth section reviews TM outputs. The sixth section provides an examination
of the definitions of employee performance and this led to the explanation of the
various dimensions of employee performance in the seventh section. The eighth section
provides a coalesced framework by combining TM, TM outputs and employee
performance. In the ninth section, the paper provides a discussion and
recommendations for further studies. The final section concludes the paper.
2. TM: the search for definition
Since the term TM was coined in the 1990’s, it has received a remarkable degree
of practitioner and academic interest as well as becoming increasingly common in the
world of human resource management (Cooke et al., 2014; Collings and Mellahi, 2009;
Cascio and Aguinis, 2008; CIPD, 2006). As a result of its popularity, one might not
doubt that TM is a well-defined area with a precise definition and a clear understanding
of what it actually entails. However, this is not the case. A comprehensive review of
the literature by Lewis and Heckman (2006) reveals a total lack of clarity regarding the
definition, scope and overall goals of TM. Similarly, Ashton and Morton (2005) came to
the conclusion that there isn’t a single universal definition of TM. In fact, Cappelli and
Keller (2014, p. 306) put it that “the term TM has escaped a standard definition”.
The difficulty in defining the concept lies in the diverse perceptions by both
practitioners and researchers. For instance, Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2013, p. 2) and
Ulrich and Smallwood (2011) are of the view that the term can mean whatever a writer
or business leader wants it to mean, as everyone has his or her own idea of what
the term does and does not involve/mean/imply. This has been clearly shown in the
academic (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013, p. 2) and HR practitioner (Tansley et al., 2007)
literature where even the definitions are highly influenced by the type of industry
or occupational field that appear to use the concept. Thus, according to CIPD (2007)
a survey conducted by Towers Perrin shows that none of the companies surveyed used
the same definition, and definitions adopted depended on an organisation’s business
strategy, the type of firm, the overall competitive environment and other factors.
In spite of this definitional confusion in the literature, some attempts have been
made to define the concept. One such popular definition is given by Collings and
Mellahi (2009). They argue that TM starts from the identification of pivotal positions
which contribute differentially to the competitive advantage of an organisation. This is
then followed by the development of high potential and performing incumbents to fill
545
Talent
management
and employee
performance

these roles, and the development of a differentiated human resource architecture to
manage the incumbents and to ensure their continued commitment to the organisation.
In the view of Lockwood (2006), TM is the implementation of integrated strategies
designed to increase workplace productivity by developing improved processes for
attracting, developing, retaining and utilising people with the required skills and aptitude
to meet current and future business needs. Similarly, Warren (2006, p. 26) defined TM as:
[…] the identification, development, engagement, retention and deployment of talent,
although it is often used more narrowly to describe the short and long term resourcing of
senior executives and high performers.
Despite the difficulty of defining TM, there is however a general consensus that
it is very important to the success of every organisation (Gelens et al., 2013; Iles et al., 2010;
Collings and Mellahi, 2009). Based on this, TM is defined in this paper as the identification
of key strategic positions and the use of differentiated human resource architecture to
recruit, manage and retain talented employees on the basis of their performance.
Of critical importance is the question of whether TM is the same as human resource
management (HRM), an aspect of HRM, or a new concept. On the one hand, some argue
that many of the key ideas promulgated by TM researchers and practitioners are not new,
but are HRM ideas, and that TM is just a rebranding of HRM (Iles et al., 2010; Cappelli,
2008; Stewart, 2008; Barlow, 2006; Lewis and Heckman, 2006; Warren, 2006). On the other
hand, some argue that TM is fundamentally different from HRM, and that workforce
differentiation is the key differentiating principle between TM and HRM (Collings and
Mellahi, 2009; Chuai et al., 2008; CIPD, 2007; Blass et al., 2006; Boudreau and Ramstad,
2005; Duttagupta, 2005). A thorough review of the literature shows that HRM and TM
seem to have some practices in common, but the critical distinction is that of
the differentiation and the strategic positioning of talented employees to drive the
performance of other employees and the organisation. This is because HRM practices
represent investments in human capital but a failure to differentiate between employees
will result in an over investment in non-pivotal roles in the organisation (Minbaeva and
Collings, 2013; Collings and Mellahi, 2009). It is often the case that people tend to have
different concepts or to perceive concepts from different standpoints. To better
understand the concept of TM, some perspectives need to be explored.
3. Perspectives on talent
Apart from the disagreement about what exactly TM is, there are also different
perspectives about talent. Thus, the inability to reach a generally accepted definition of
talent has led some authors to state that there is little point in trying to define TM
(Frank and Taylor, 2004; Tulgan, 2001). Therefore to further boost our understanding
of TM, some new perspectives have emerged in the literature. The first controversy is
whether TM in an organisation should be holistic to cover all employees or narrow to
cover only employees called “talents”. The second is whether talent is in-born or
learned, while the third concentrate on talent as an object or subject. Lastly, there is
a controversy about whether we should consider talent as an input or an output.
These controversies have implications for how employees are managed in an
organisation, and understanding these helps managers make the appropriate decisions.
3.1 Exclusive vs inclusive perspective
The crux of the controversy here is whether talent should be regarded as holistic or
narrow in an organisation. The exclusive perspective takes a narrow view and
546
IJPPM
64,4

concentrates on specific individuals in an organisation called “talented”, “superstars”,
“A players” and “high flyers”. The exclusive advocates are of the view that it is not
possible for everyone in an organisation to be considered as talent, and that talented
employees are fundamentally different from others in terms of their current performance,
their past performance and their competence, as well as their potentials (Gallardo-Gallardo
et al., 2013; Swailes, 2013; Iles et al., 2010). Advocates of this approach even agree that there
are certain percentages of an organisational workforce that can be considered as talents
and they argue that “exceptional performers” belong to the top 10 per cent of peers in
one’s specific area of expertise (Ulrich and Smallwood, 2011; Berger, 2004; Gagné, 2004).
Others segment their employees into categories “A” (the top 10-20 per cent), “B”
(the middle 70 per cent) and “C” (the lowest 10-20 per cent) (Larson and Richburg, 2004;
Ledford and Kochanski, 2004). This approach is based on the notion of a workforce
segmentation (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013; Collings and Mellahi, 2009) and that
successful organisations tend to have a dominant talent segment, while their weaker peers
have a bit of everything (Ledford and Kochanski, 2004).
In contrast, the inclusive perspective is of the view that potentially everyone in the
organisation has “talent” and that the task is to manage all employees to deliver high
performance. As a result this approach has a broader view and uses terms such as
“whole workforce”, “broad based”, “egalitarian”, and “strength based”. This approach
is based on the assumption that, ideally, everyone in an organisation has a role to play
and can contribute something. For instance, Buckingham and Vosburgh (2001,
pp. 17-18) claim that “talent is inherent in each person […] to be successful in the future
we must restore our focus on the unique talents of each individual employee and on the
right way to transform these talents into lasting performance”. Similarly, Ashton and
Morton (2005) argue that the aim of TM is to yield an enhanced performance among all
levels in the workforce by allowing everyone to reach his/her potential, no matter what
that might be. Stainton (2005) maintains that TM should adopt a broad approach by
recognising that everyone has the capability and potential to display talent and
therefore everyone should go through the same talent identification process. Indeed,
O’Reilly and Pfeffer (2000, p. 52) state that organisational success stems from
“capturing the value of the entire workforce, not just a few superstars”.
There is no doubt that every employee counts and contributes to the overall
performance of the organisation, but it is also a fact that some employees contribute
more and do have the rare skills that are so critical to the survival of the
organisation (Gelens et al., 2013). Looking at the difficulties in recruiting and
retaining talents and that not all positions in the organisation are strategic, TM
seems to be more practical for the exclusive approach, while the inclusive approach
is aligned more to HRM.
3.2 Innate vs acquired perspective
The innate perspective vs the acquired perspective discusses the controversy of
whether talent is in-born or acquired (Dai, 2009; Dai and Coleman, 2005). Advocates
of the innate approach believe that talent, for the largest part, is in-born (Tsay and
Banaji, 2011). Believers in this approach painstakingly search for, select and recruit
people considered to be highly-talented (Dries, 2013; Cappelli, 2008). According to Dries
(2013) this is because some organisational decision makers believe that people “are who
they are” and the odds of people changing over time are low. This tends to have
implications for how talent can or cannot be managed. For instance, Buckingham and
Vosburgh (2001) and Davies and Davies (2010) explain that whilst skills and
547
Talent
management
and employee
performance

knowledge are relatively easy to teach, talent pertains to characteristics much more
enduring and unique and therefore almost impossible to learn or teach.
The acquired perspective, on the other hand, conceives talent as deliberate practice
and continuous learning from experience. This perspective focuses on education,
training, experience and learning as tools for talent development (McCall, 1998). Pfeffer
and Sutton (2006) argue that in spite of all the myths surrounding talent, it is always
a function of experience and effort. Even though not all people have the same amount of
ultimate potential, there seems to be some agreement in the literature on deliberate
practice (Ericsson, 2006) and learning from experience (Briscoe and Hall, 1999).
As noted by Meyers et al. (2013), when assuming that talent can be developed, TM
might have a strong focus on the training and development of employees, and selection
decisions might be based on applicants’ prior learning experiences.
Most scholars agree that talent comprises both innate and acquired components,
even though they differ greatly with the extent to which they ascribe importance to
either of the components (Walker et al., 2010). Therefore, conservative definitions
of talent used by these scholars can be placed on a continuum, ranging from completely
innate to completely acquired. In addition, the manifestation of talent in the workplace
depends not only on innate factors, but latent (hidden, untapped), intervening
(concerted, deliberate), and evolving (experience-based) components (Silzer and Church,
2010). Whereas it is true that some employees may be genuinely talented, learning is
the greatest contribution to talent. In fact, there is no denying, that no matter how
talented someone is born, he/she needs some kind of training to be able to work in the
corporate environment, only that he/she may learn faster. On the other hand, no matter
how untalented someone is, his/her performance can be improved through education
and training. So in the continuum of innate and acquired, talents seems to lean more
towards acquired.
3.3 Subject vs object perspectives
This approach conceptualises talent as exceptional characteristics demonstrated by
individual employees (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013). In this way, Gallardo-Gallardo
et al. (2013) propose that two dimensions are of importance in defining talent in the
context of the world of work. These dimensions make a distinction between talent as
people (subject approach) and talent as characteristics of people (object approach).
The subject approach 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.
The object approach, on the other hand, regard talent as individual attributes, such
as abilities, knowledge and competencies. This approach is related to the Ability
Motivation and Opportunity (AMO) paradigm (Appelbaum et al., 2000), which
proposes that employee performance is a function of the employee’s ability (A),
motivation (M) and opportunity (O) to perform (Boxall and Purcell, 2011). Critically,
TM in the world of work has to do more with the object approach than the subject
approach. In other words the object approach, which comprises employees’ abilities
and motivations to perform, leads to the subject approach (being scarce, inimitable
and difficult to replace).
3.4 Input vs output perspective
The input and output perspective is concerned about whether talent depends on ability
or motivation. The input perspective focuses on effort, motivation, ambition and career
548
IJPPM
64,4

orientation in assessments of talent. Output perspectives on the other hand, focus on
output, performance, achievements and results. Appropriate theoretical frameworks
for the input perspective are mostly found in industrial and organisational psychology
literature (Hough and Oswald, 2000). They emphasise passion (Vallerand et al., 2003)
and the love for one’s job (Kelloway et al., 2010). However, most organisations focus
solely on the output perspective (past performance) in their assessments of talent (Silzer
and Church, 2010). For these organisations, identifying talent based on performance
data is less politically charged than identification based on motivational variables
(Larsen et al., 1998). However, Ulrich and Smallwood (2011) argue, that different
elements of talent should be seen as multiplicative rather than additive and that
“talent ¼ competence × commitment × contribution”. They indicate that a high score
on one element cannot compensate for low scores on another.
The various perspectives have implications for how employees are recruited and
managed in an organisation. For instance, believers of the exclusive perspective tend to
consider and to treat a few employees in organisation as “talents”, while inclusive
advocates will adopt a holistic approach by treating every employee equally on the
assumption that they all contribute to the performance of the organisation. Similarly,
supporters of the innate perspective will pay more attention to the recruitment process
by selecting employees considered to be talented. On the other hand believers of the
acquired approach will be interested in employees who can learn and who can be
developed, based on the employees’ previous experience. Furthermore, the subject
perspective will concentrate on some employees considered as scarce, inimitable and
difficult to replace, while those in favour of the object approach will emphasise abilities,
knowledge and competencies. Lastly, if one is in favour of the input perspective, the
focus will be on the effort, the motivation and the ambition of the employees, while
output perspective subscribers will only assess talents from their output, performance,
achievements and results. In other words, whatever approach one subscribes to
determines how employees are recruited, treated and managed in the organisation.
4. Conceptualising TM
Consistent with this variation in what constitutes talent according to the various
perspectives, there is also no clear cut conceptualisation of TM. TM has been
conceptualised from different perspectives. For instance, many studies conceptualise the
TM strategy as a process of attracting; selecting; engaging; developing; and retaining
talented employees (Hajimirarab et al., 2011; Hartmanna et al., 2010; Tarique and Schuler,
2010; Deborah and Kathy, 2009; CIPD, 2006). These approaches of conceptualising TM are
usually seen as traditional because they are linear, which normally begins with acquiring
talent and ends with retaining talent. On the other hand, some conceptualisations of the
concept are broad and holistic. Thus, Bersin and Associates (2007) provide a
comprehensive framework of TM and argue that the TM process is a continuous cycle
instead of a linear approach. The framework highlights a critical skills gap analysis for
recruitment, training and development, and compensation and benefits for talented
employees. Similarly, SHL (2007, 2008) conceptualise the TM strategy as interconnected
processes of recruitment, selection, performance, development, succession and
competency management of talented employees in core and pivotal positions. The basic
idea of this holistic approach is that even though TM starts with attracting talented
employees and then moves on to consider retention of talented employees, the concept
remains that they are continuously managed to ensure that they contribute significantly
to the performance of the organisation.
549
Talent
management
and employee
performance

The identification of pivotal positions is the first stage in any strategic TM system
(Collings and Mellahi, 2009). Similarly, Boudreau and Ramstad (2007, 2005) advocate
a focus on the identification of key positions or “A positions” which have the potential
to differentially impact on a sustainable competitive advantage. In this way, Huselid (1995,
p. 2) define “A positions” on the basis of their disproportionate importance to
a company’s ability to execute its strategy and the wide variability in the quality of work
displayed among the employees in these positions. Meanwhile Collings and Mellahi (2009)
define pivotal positions in terms of potential outputs or the potential for roles to contribute
to the organisational strategic intent. This resonates in the approach referred to as
“position oriented”. This approach relies on the view that people who occupy key positions
or key roles should be considered as talented employees. DiRomualdo et al. (2009) state that
the identification of key roles is very important as it helps to ensure that the right people at
the right jobs are properly matched with the right roles and responsibilities.
After this, organisations can now put in place appropriate strategies to recruit the best
and most talented employees to fill these positions. Collings and Mellahi (2009) maintain
that in order for pivotal jobs to have a differential impact on the organisational
performance, it is important that such jobs are filled with high performing or potential
employees. DiRomualdo et al. (2009) argue that once the key roles are identified, the next
step is to take an inventory of the skills to determine the availability of the skills for the
critical jobs and to identify the possible solutions in case of the unavailability of the same.
This is principally about talent recruitment strategies and it entails a shift from vacancy-
led recruitment towards recruiting ahead of the curve (Sparrow, 2007) and should be
linked to the requirements of the job (Kumari and Bahuguna, 2012).
Two main ways of getting talents are internal identification and external
recruitment (Cappelli, 2008). An internal identification of talents requires specific
established and widely communicated criteria that are consistent as well as broad but
are not subjective or biased (Tansley et al., 2007; Stahl et al., 2007). In external
recruitment, organisations should recognise the importance of the external labour
market in their TM system (Collings and Mellahi, 2009) as increasing career mobility
makes it possible to recruit high-performing candidates from the external labour
market. In this way, a person can be hired with experience from one firm to be
pre-socialised and pre-trained to perform similar tasks in another firm. A number
of recruitment strategies such as behavioural interviews, assessment of attitudes,
practice-based methods and aptitude tests can be used to recruit talents who are not
already working. A number of strategies such as employer branding (Iles et al., 2010;
Glen, 2007) as employer of choice (Lockwood, 2006) can also be used by organisations
to make them attractive to talented employees.
The third part of a TM strategy is the management of the employees. As noted by
Collings and Mellahi (2009), this is about the development of a differentiated HR
architecture to facilitate the management of talented employees and as indicated above,
insights can be drawn from SHRM. CIPD (2006) argues that once an organisation has
identified its talented individuals, it has to find ways of enhancing their skills and
competences in order to keep up with the challenges of its business environment.
Employee development is an endeavour to update employees’ knowledge, skills and
ability. A number of HR practices have been raised in the extant literature to ensure
the appropriate management of talented employees. Among these are training and
development (Cairns, 2009), performance management (Wright, 2006), compensation
and reward management (Kumari and Bahuguna, 2012; Collings and Mellahi, 2009;
CIPD, 2006).
550
IJPPM
64,4

The last stage of the TM system is retention management. Thus, merely attracting
talented employees does not solve the problem and therefore there is the need to retain
them (Iles et al., 2010; Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Edgar and Geare, 2005). Organisations
should get involved in different practices to promote and retain key talent (Collings and
Mellahi, 2009). Career management, work life balance, flexible working hours and work
arrangements, and promotion opportunities can be used to stimulate and have
a positive effect on retaining talented employees (Mahapatro, 2010; Cappelli, 2008).
Berger (2004) points out, that talented employees have the luxury of picking and
choosing employers who offer them the right form of currency, such as work life
balance; an effective work diversity policy; or a context where talented people have
a strong voice in the organisation. Hence, the importance of retention management in
a TM strategy cannot be down played. In spite of the importance of talent retention,
a lot of organisations are finding it a challenge to retain their talented employees
(Vaiman et al., 2012; Schuler et al., 2011; Tarique and Schuler, 2010).
5. TM outputs
Even though the management of talented employees is very challenging, it is
associated with a multiplicity of outcomes (Dries et al., 2012). The ultimate aim of TM is
to make maximum use of talented employees and to utilise them appropriately.
The extant literature shows that investment in TM practices can help to achieve
outcomes such as employee satisfaction, engagement, motivation, commitment and
perceived organisational support (POS) (Collings and Mellahi, 2009; De-Meuse
et al., 2009). Barkhuizen et al. (2014) and Lockwood (2006) in their studies argue that the
immediate outcomes of TM include employee satisfaction, motivation, commitment and
POS. Several studies have found that TM positively relates to employee engagement
(Anand, 2011; Hughes and Rogs, 2008; Bhatnagar, 2007; Lockwood, 2006).
TM has been found to relate to employee commitment (Chami-Malaeb and Garavan,
2013; Vural et al., 2012; Collings and Mellahi, 2009). Similarly, one of the immediate
outcomes of TM is employee satisfaction (Gelens et al., 2013; Tobias, 2007). Other studies
have established a link between TM and employee motivation (Collings and Mellahi, 2009;
Bhatnagar, 2007; Gandossy and Kao, 2004). Walner (2000) maintains that TM is related
to POS. These immediate outcomes are collectively termed here as TM outputs.
Thus, whereas the purpose of TM is to ensure employee performance and ultimately
organisational performance, it nonetheless leads to TM outputs which serve as antecedents.
It has been observed that TM leads to employee performance while at the same time
it helps organisations respond to challenges, enter new markets and move ahead of the
competition. Managing talented employees helps to reduce expenses and labour costs,
to improve competitiveness and efficiency, to solve organisational problems and
ultimately helps to maximise return on investment (Jackson et al., 2009; Sadler, 2009;
Yapp, 2009; Hengst, 2007). In other words, TM leads to employee performance leading
to organisational performance.
6. Employee performance: definitional mystification
The concept of performance is of high relevance for individuals and organisations
alike. As a result of its importance, it has received considerable research and practical
attention. In spite of its significance and different researches in the field over the years,
there is still no consensus and universally accepted definition of what performance is.
This has made Sonnentag and Frese (2002) believe that despite the great relevance
of individual performance and the widespread use of job performance as an outcome
551
Talent
management
and employee
performance

measure in empirical research, relatively little effort has been spent on clarifying the
performance concept. Similarly, Campbell (1990, p. 704) described the literature on
the structure and content of performance as “a virtual desert” while Lebas and Euske
(2002, p. 67) stated that “performance is one of those ‘suitcase words’ in which everyone
places the concepts that suit them, letting the context take care of the definition”.
In spite of the controversies about the definition of performance, some attempts have
been made by researchers, authors and practitioners to define the concept. For instance,
Viswesvaran and Ones (2000) indicate that job performance refers to how resourcefully
individuals take actions and contribute with behaviours that are in line with an
organisation’s objectives. Performance as defined by Campbell et al. (1990, p. 314) refers
to “observable things people do that are relevant for the goals of the organisation”.
Campbell (1990), on the other hand, defines performance as what the organisation hires
one to do and do well. Generally, performance has been assumed to be associated with
an individual’s ability to realise his/her work goals, fulfil expectations as well as attaining
job targets and/or accomplish standards that are set by their organisation (Maathis and
Jackson, 2000; Bohlander et al., 2001). I prefer to define performance as the positive
contribution of an employee to the performance of the organisation. A detailed
understanding of the concept requires a discussion of its dimensions.
7. Dimensions of employee performance
Researchers and authors agree that performance is a multi-dimensional concept
(Sonnentag and Frese, 2002; Borman and Motowidlo, 1993). Borman and Motowidlo
(1993) divided performance in two: task and contextual performance. Later Allworth
and Hesketh (1999), Pulakos et al. (2000), Sinclair and Tucker (2006) and Griffin
et al. (2007) came up with the concept of adaptive performance. In recent years,
attention has been given to negative work behaviours that harm the organisation
(Rotundo and Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran and Ones, 2000). This has led to the addition
of counterproductive performance as a dimension.
Task performance has to do with behaviours that contribute to the core
transformation and maintenance activities in an organisation (Van Scotter et al., 2000;
Motowidlo and Schmit, 1999; Borman and Motowidlo, 1993). Generally, task
performance covers actions that are part of the formal reward system and addresses
the requirements as specified in job descriptions (Williams and Karau, 1991; Campbell,
1990). What constitute core job tasks can differ from job to job. For example, Arvey
and Mussio (1973) use working accurately, showing concern for time and detail, and
planning to describe the task performance of clerical workers; while Tett et al. (2000)
divide task performance of managers into traditional functions and occupational
acumen and concerns. Furthermore, Engelbrecht and Fischer (1995) divide task
performance of managers into action orientation, task structuring and probing,
synthesis and judgment. Hence, task performance has to do with one’s core duties as
stated in one’s job description. Other names that have been used for task performance
in the extant literature include job-specific task proficiency (Griffin et al., 2007),
technical proficiency (Lance et al., 1992) and in-role performance (Maxham et al., 2008).
Contextual performance, on the other hand, has to do with factors that are not
directly concerned with the job. In other words, contextual performance involves
behavioural patterns that support the psychological and social context in which task
activities are performed (Sonnentag and Frese, 2002; Van Scotter et al., 2000;
Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996). In this way, Koopmans et al. (2011) noted that
contextual performance comprises behaviours that go beyond the formally prescribed
552
IJPPM
64,4

work goals, such as taking on an extra task, showing initiative or coaching newcomers
on the job. Contextual performance is a non-direct work behaviour that is necessary for
the achievement of direct work results. Just like for task performance, several labels
have been used for contextual performance. Among them are non-job-specific task
proficiency (Wisecarver et al., 2007; Campbell et al., 1990), extra-role performance
(Maxham et al., 2008; Bakker et al., 2004), organisational citizenship behaviour
(Rotundo and Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran and Ones, 2000; Organ, 1988), interpersonal
relations (Murphy, 1989), pro-social organisational behaviour (Brief and Motowidlo,
1986) organisational spontaneity by George and Brief (1992) and Van Dyne et al. (1995)
argued for the use of extra-role behaviour.
In making a distinction between task and contextual performance, researchers
such as Borman and Motowidlo (1993); Motowidlo et al. (1997) and Motowidlo and
Schmit (1999) stated that there are three basic differences between them: contextual
performance activities are comparable for almost all jobs whereas task performance is job
specific; task performance is predicted mainly by ability whereas contextual performance
is mainly predicted by motivation and personality; and lastly, task performance is
in-role behaviour and part of the formal job description, whereas contextual performance
is extra-role behaviour and discretionary (not enforceable), and often not rewarded
by formal reward systems or directly or indirectly considered by the management
(Sonnentag and Frese, 2002).
Sinclair and Tucker (2006), Pulakos et al. (2000) and Smith et al. (1997) are of the view
that the work environment is constantly changing, which has made it necessary for the
need for an adaptive performance by employees. Hence, Pulakos et al. (2000) presents
an eight dimensional taxonomy of adaptive performance: handling emergencies or
crisis situations; handling work stress; solving problems creatively; dealing with
uncertain and unpredictable work situations; learning work tasks, technologies and
procedures; demonstrating interpersonal adaptability; demonstrating cultural
adaptability; and demonstrating physically oriented adaptability. Griffin et al. (2007)
define adaptive performance as the extent to which an individual adapts to changes in
a work system or work roles. Therefore, adaptability in the context of work refers to
how employees deal with unexpected changes in work tasks or contexts which includes
versatility and flexibility (Dorsey et al., 2010; Pulakos et al., 2000). Because of the
importance of adaptability in the current rapidly changing work environment, some
researchers have expanded contextual performance to include pro-activity,
innovativeness and taking initiative (Sonnentag and Frese, 2002).
Counterproductive performance is generally seen as non-task behaviours that have
negative consequences for both the organisation and the individual (Rotundo and Sackett,
2002; Viswesvaran and Ones, 2000; Hunt, 1996). They include behaviours such as
absenteeism, being late for work, engaging in off-task behaviour, theft, continuously
arguing with co-workers, deviant behaviour, destructive/hazardous behaviour, antisocial
behaviour, unruliness and lack of personal discipline and substance abuse. According
to Mount et al. (2006) a counterproductive performance violates organisational norms, is
detrimental to the interest of the organisation and hinders the attainment of organisational
goals’, and therefore should be avoided because it is costly and pervasive. However,
Krischer et al. (2010) found that counterproductive performance in the form of production
deviance and withdrawal may benefit employees especially to reduce their emotional
exhaustion in the face of low distributive justice. Sometimes talented employees in their
attempt at making innovations may engage in behaviours that seem counterproductive, but
that may lead to adaptive performance. Viswesvaran and Ones (2000) explain that
553
Talent
management
and employee
performance

counterproductive performance can vary along two dimensions: organisational/interpersonal
and serious/minor. Therefore on the basis of these two dimensions, they classify employee
deviance into four categories: property deviance (serious deviance directed at the
organisation), production deviance (minor deviance directed at the organisation), personal
aggression (serious deviance directed at other individuals), and political deviance
(minor deviance directed at other individuals).
According to Koopmans et al. (2011) these four dimensions are related to each other.
First, both task and contextual behaviour independently contribute to overall
performance, but through different means. Second, some behaviours can be seen
as task behaviours in some jobs, while they may be seen as contextual behaviours in
other jobs. Third, the relationship between task and counterproductive performance
is inconclusive but found to be either moderately or strongly negative (Conway, 1999).
Also, studies have found a strong negative correlation between contextual and
counterproductive performance. Lastly, because adaptive performance is a behaviour
that positively influences individual work performance, one can expect a positive
relation between task and contextual performance, and a negative relation with
counterproductive performance (Koopmans et al., 2011).
While these four dimensions are gaining popularity, earlier studies on employee
performance make a distinction between typical and maximum job performance.
These have been used by Sackett et al. (1988) to describe variations in performance.
Generally, they see typical performance as what employees will do and maximum
performance as what employees can do. In other words, in typical performance
employees are not aware that they are evaluated and therefore it reflects what they will
do. In maximum performance employees are aware of the monitoring and evaluation of
their performance, hence they tend to put in more effort (Witt and Spitzmüller, 2007;
Sackett et al., 1988). While typical and maximum performance constructs have been
widely used in employee selection (Witt and Spitzmüller, 2007); their indicators, such as
critical analytical skills to solve problems, effectual multitasking, working and
successfully tackling complex issues, broadly fall under the four dimensions of
employee performance captured by Koopmans et al. (2011).
8. Coalesced framework of TM and employee performance
The aim of this section is to develop a conceptual framework of TM and employee
performance. This framework may serve as a guide for both academics and
practitioners towards understanding the mechanisms through which TM can lead to an
enhanced employee performance in the field of human resources. A conceptual
framework is an image or symbolic representation of an abstract idea. It can be seen as
a complex mental formulation of experience (Chinn and Kramer, 1999). Chinn and
Kramer explain that while the theoretical framework is the theory on which a study is
based, the conceptual framework is the operationalisation of the theory. It is the
researcher’s own position on the problem, and it gives direction to the study. It may
be new, or an adoption of, or adaptation of, a model used in a previous study with
modifications to suit the inquiry (Chinn and Kramer, 1999).
This framework consists of three parts: TM, TM output and employee performance.
The review of the extant literature on TM and employee performance provides the
necessary information for the construction of the framework. First, the extant literature
on TM shows that TM should start with the identification of pivotal positions that
contribute differentially to the performance of the organisation (Collings and Mellahi,
2009). After that, the organisation can go ahead to recruit the required talents, and
554
IJPPM
64,4

manage them well by taking the necessary steps to retain them. This was used as
a base for constructing the TM component of the framework.
The second component of the framework is TM output. As discussed earlier, TM
leads to immediate outcomes called TM outputs. From the literature TM outputs
include employee satisfaction, POS, engagement, motivation and commitment. There is
evidence supporting the mediating role of TM output in the TM employee performance
relationship (Barkhuizen et al., 2014; Chami-Malaeb and Garavan, 2013; Gelens
et al., 2013; Anand, 2011; Collings and Mellahi, 2009). In this framework it is observed
that TM outputs are antecedents of employee performance. Hence, TM outputs mediate
the relationship between TM and employee performance. The third component of the
framework is employee performance. This component was adopted from Koopmans
et al. (2011). Koopmans et al. (2011) conducted a comprehensive review of the employee
performance literature and concluded that the totality of employee performance
consists of four components: task, contextual, adaptive and counterproductive
performance. Therefore, to capture all the dimensions of employee performance, this
was adopted. This framework is presented in Figure 1. A distinctive feature of
this framework is that it captures all the dimensions of employee performance, and
enables the organisation implementing TM strategy to have a comprehensive view of
how TM will impact on the various dimensions.
It can be seen from Figure 1, that TM corresponds directly to employee performance.
Apart from the fact that TM relates to employee performance, it also relates to the
various dimensions. The implication here is that TM affects the various dimensions
of employee performance differently. That is, not only is TM related to the general
employee performance, but the interesting question is how TM relates to the various
dimensions of employee performance. First, let us take a look at task performance.
Bethke-Langenegger et al. (2011) found that employees who are perceived by their
organisations as talents show higher levels of in-role performance. Aswathappa (2005)
posits that research studies have found a strong relationship between coherent TM
processes on the one hand and the employee’s job, knowledge, quality and quantity of
output, initiative, leadership abilities, supervision, dependability, co-operation,
Task
Performance
Employee
Performance
Contextual
Performance
TM
Output
Commitment
Satisfaction
Engagement
POS
Motivation
Talent
Management
Pivotal
Positions
Talent
Recruitment
Managing
Talents
Retention
Management
Adaptive
Performance
Counterproductive
Performance
Figure 1.
A coalesced
framework of
talent management
and employee
performance
555
Talent
management
and employee
performance

judgement, versatility and health on the other hand. In this way Wurim (2012) notes
that TM practices, where they exist, significantly impact on employee productivity.
Schiemann (2014) came to a similar conclusion.
Similarly, TM is also related to contextual performance. Bish and Kabanoff (2014)
found that people are very unlikely to be described by their managers as outstanding
performers without above average levels of both task and contextual performance.
They added that both task and contextual performance had a role in judging an employee
as a star performer, but the contextual performance was the best indicator. Empirical
evidence shows that the identification of employees for TM leads to higher levels of extra-
role performance (Bethke-Langenegger et al., 2011; Collings and Mellahi, 2009).
The works of Wyatt (2001) maintain that there is significant correlation between TM
and employee level outcomes, such as creativity and innovativeness, competence
development and flexibility at work place. Gubman (1998) submits that talent generates
high performance and innovation. According to Thomas (2009) research show that
92 per cent of senior business executives believe access to talented staff is crucial for
any successful innovation. Tyrell (2009) also argues that TM and innovation are
inextricably linked. Counterproductive performance is those behaviours that harm the
well-being of the organisation. Even though, lacking empirical evidence, it can
generally be assumed that TM strategies will be negatively related to
counterproductive performance. Two reasons may account for this. First, TM puts
emphasis on the identification of talented individuals, i.e. the “A” performers or high
flyers, and on managing them very well; therefore their performance is likely to be
positive. Second, most performing employees will not engage in behaviours that harm
their organisation. Based on this discussion, I propose that:
H1. There is a significant and positive relationship between TM and employee
performance.
The second part of the conceptual framework (Figure 1) is the TM output. This is
made up of employee commitment, satisfaction, motivation, engagement and POS. This
framework’s view is that the relationship between TM and employee performance is not
straight and that the TM output mediates the relationship. Here insights can be drawn
from the AMO theory and the social exchange theory. The AMO theory states that
an employee’s performance is a function of ability, motivation and opportunity to
participate (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Bailey et al., 2001). Thus, talented employees have
the ability and the opportunity because they are placed in strategic positions and
therefore are motivated to perform and hence, motivation tends to mediate the
relationship between TM and employee performance (Collings and Mellahi, 2009).
Similarly, the social exchange theory represents an exchange relationship between an
organisation and its employees (Blau, 1964; Settoon et al., 1996; Takeuchi et al., 2007).
Thus, the recruitment, management and retention of talented employees reflects an
investment in employees who are then felt obligated to reciprocate with beneficial
attitudes and behaviours (Kuvaas and Dysvik, 2010) of motivation, satisfaction,
commitment and engagement in their jobs (Bethke-Langenegger et al., 2011).
They also perceive their organisation to be supportive (Nishii et al., 2008). Collings and
Mellahi (2009) add that investing in talented employees enhances their motivation
and commitment to the organisation. Indeed, Bhatnagar’s (2007) study of 272 employees
in the business process outsourcing sector found that adopting a TM strategy to manage
talented and skilled employees has a positive impact on employee engagement. TM, in
which ever form, leads to job satisfaction and loyalty which in turn leads to good
556
IJPPM
64,4

performance (Festing and Schafer, 2014). The implication here is, that TM outputs mediate
the positive relationship between task, contextual and adaptive performance (Allen et al.,
2003) and will negatively relate to counterproductive performance (Takeuchi et al., 2007).
Several other studies, which deal with one or more of these TM outputs, have found
a similar trend and conclude that the TM output mediates the relationship between TM
and performance (Barkhuizen et al., 2014; Chami-Malaeb and Garavan, 2013; Gelens
et al., 2013; Collings and Mellahi, 2009). The totality of this will give a positive performance
from talented employees. In this way, I propose that:
H2. TM outputs (motivation, satisfaction, commitment, POS and engagement)
mediate the relationship between TM and employee performance.
Thus this framework shows that the implementation of the TM system will lead to employee
performance, but instead of suggesting that TM leads directly to employee performance, the
paper introduces a number of mediating variables to reflect the significance of attitudes and
behaviours of talented employees in achieving this performance.
9. Discussion and recommendations
Giving the current pressure on organisations to increase their performance and satisfy
their ever demanding clients, most organisations have adopted TM to survive in the
turbulent business environment. TM is the systematic identification of pivotal
positions, the recruitment, training and development, the compensation management
and retention management of talented employees. This is widely believed to lead to an
enhanced employee performance. Employee performance is concerned with the
delivery of the employee’s job duties by avoiding negative behaviours and the delivery
of any other responsibilities towards the achievement of the organisation’s goals.
Employee performance consists of four dimensions: task, contextual, adaptive and
counterproductive performance. The combination of TM and employee performance
forms the coalesced framework. TM positively relates to task, contextual and adaptive
performance but is negatively related to counterproductive performance. However, this
relationship is mediated by the TM output. This paper has contributed to the
conceptualisation of TM and employee performance and will help to improve theory,
research and practice in all fields occupied with individual work performance.
TM seems to overlap with a number of concepts such as emotional intelligence and
work competence. Mayer et al. (2008, p. 511) define emotional intelligence as the ability
to carry out accurate reasoning about emotions and the ability to use emotions and
emotional knowledge to enhance thought. This seems to overlap with TM as the concept
of talent, as it is about the ability to use natural ability and experience to achieve
higher performance. Menges (2012) in a study found that organisational emotional
intelligence is positively associated with organisational performance and employees’
health. I do not have qualms with this, but I think TM is broader than emotional
intelligence, because emotional intelligence is part of a person’s talent. Talent is the totality
of a person’s attributes, which include intelligence, skills, abilities, knowledge, intrinsic
gifts, behaviours, judgment, attitude, character and drive (Michaels et al., 2001). From this
perspective, emotional intelligence seems to fall under the broader ambit of TM.
Another major concept that overlaps with TM is work competences. Work
competences have been defined as the combination of tacit and explicit knowledge,
behaviour and skills that gives someone the potential for effectiveness in task
performance (Draganidis and Mentzas, 2006). Clearly, both concepts seem to overlap.
Most studies on TM, on the other hand, see competences as a component of TM (Bersin
557
Talent
management
and employee
performance

and Associates, 2007; Gubman and Green, 2007). As noted by Collings and Mellahi
(2009) and Sadeli (2012) it is important for organisations to take into consideration how
employee competences fit with the strategic requirements of the organisation and the
potential contribution of these employees to organisational performance. It therefore
seems that TM is taking a broader perspective as it tries to bring all the characteristics
of the individual together to make them perform.
From this framework, several areas of research can be pursued to be beneficial to
research and practice of HRM. First, it is suggested that future research will have to
determine empirical support for this coalesced framework. This is because with the
exceptions of few studies, most of the studies on TM are conceptual, reviews and
anecdotal from the perspective of consultants and human resource practitioners. More
empirical research is still needed. It is also observed that most of the studies are
predominantly from developed countries with only a few from Asian countries. It is
therefore suggested, that research be conducted in other developing countries to
confirm the validity or otherwise of these findings. Whereas measurement of the
components of employee performance and TM outputs are available in the literature,
that of the TM component in this framework is non-existent. Future studies should
endeavour to come out with valid and reliable measurements so that this framework
can be tested. For the purpose of practice, this framework can be used in all
organisations that are practising TM, recognising the importance of employee
behaviours such as satisfaction, commitment, motivation, engagement and POS.
10. Conclusions
The concept of talents can be seen as any kind of exceptional competence of an
individual, innate or acquired, difficult to imitate and to replace with any resources,
which are strategically essential to the performance of the organisation. It therefore
requires the management of this special talent’s competitive advantage. As a result,
most organisations have embraced the tenets of TM to cope with the ever changing,
competitive and demanding clients. The paper discusses the difficulties in defining TM
and the various perspectives through which talent/TM has been viewed. The paper
also discusses the concept of employee performance and shows, that the four main
dimensions captured the concept comprehensively. These two streams of literature
serve as the basis for the development of the conceptual framework. The coalesced
framework of TM and employee performance shows that TM has a positive
relationship with employee performance through the mediating role of TM outputs.
This paper is among the first to provide a framework for TM at the employee level.
As such it can provide a valuable contribution to research and practice of TM.
References
Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M. and Griffeth, R.W. (2003), “The role of perceived organisational support
and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 99-118.
Allworth, E. and Hesketh, B. (1999), “Construct-oriented biodata: capturing change-related and
contextually relevant future performance”, International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 97-111.
Anand, P. (2011), “Talent development and strategy at telecom major Bharti Airtel”, Strategic
Human Resource Review, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 25-30.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. (2000), Manufacturing Advantage: Why
High Performance Work Systems Pay Off, ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.
558
IJPPM
64,4

Arvey, R.D. and Mussio, S.J. (1973), “A test of expectancy theory in a field setting using female
clerical employees”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 421-432.
Ashton, C. and Morton, L. (2005), “Managing talent for competitive advantage”, Strategic Human
Resources Review, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 28-31.
Aswathappa, K. (2005), Human Resource and Personnel Management, Tata McGraw-Hill,
Kuala Lumpur.
Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Sandy, C. (2001), “The effect of high-performance work practices on
employee earnings in the steel, apparel, and medical electronics and imaging industries”,
Industrial and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 525-543.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Verbeke, W. (2004), “Using the job demands-resources model to
predict burnout and performance”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 83-104.
Barkhuizen, N., Welby-Cooke, G., Schutte, N. and Stanz, K. (2014), “Talent management and
leadership reciprocity: the case of the South African aviation industry”, Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 9, pp. 11-17.
Barlow, L. (2006), “Talent development: the new imperative?”, Development and Learning in
Organisations, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 6-9.
Beechler, S. and Woodward, I.C. (2009), “The global ‘war for talent’ ”, Journal of International
Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 273-285.
Berger, L.A. (2004), “Creating a talent management system for organisation excellence:
connecting the dots”, in Berger, L.A. and Berger, D.R. (Eds), The Talent Management
Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 3-21.
Bersin and Associates (2007), “Talent management changes HR”, available at: http://joshbersin.
com/2007/06/01/talent-management-changes-hr/ (accessed 20 March 2014).
Best, J.W. and Kahn, J.V. (1999), Research in Education, 7th ed., Prentice Hall, New Delhi.
Bethke-Langenegger, P., Mahler, P. and Staffelbach, B. (2011), “Effectiveness of talent management
strategies”, European Journal of International Management, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 524-539.
Bhatnagar, J. (2007), “Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES
employees: key to retention”, Employee Relations, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 640-663.
Bish, A.J. and Kabanoff, B. (2014), “Star performers: task and contextual performance are
components, but are they enough?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 52 No. 1,
pp. 110-127.
Blass, E., Knights, A. and Orbea, A. (2006), “Developing future leaders: the contribution of talent
management. Ashridge business school”, presented at Fifth International Annual
Conference on Leadership, Cranfield, 14-15 December.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bohlander, G., Snell, S. and Sherman, A. (2001), Managing Human Resources, South-Western
College, Cincinnati, OH.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance”, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C. (Eds), Personnel Selection in
Organisations, Jossey-Bass, New York, NY, pp. 71-98.
Boudreau, J. and Ramstad, P. (2005), “Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: a new
HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition”, Human Resource
Boudreau, J. and Ramstad, P. (2007), Beyond HR: The New Science of Human Capital, Harvard
Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.
Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2011), Strategy and Human Resource Management, 3rd ed., Palgrave
Macmillan, New York, NY.
559
Talent
management
and employee
performance

Brief, A.P. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1986), “Task and contextual performance: the meaning for
personnel selection research”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 99-109.
Briscoe, J.P. and Hall, D.T. (1999), “Grooming and picking leaders using competency frameworks:
do they work? An alternative approach and new guidelines for practice”, Organisational
Dynamics, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 37-52.
Buckingham, M. and Vosburgh, R. (2001), “The 21st century human resources function: it’s the
talent, Stupid!”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 17-23.
Cairns, T.D. (2009), “Talent management at homeland security: a corporate model suggests
a recipe for success”, Employment Relations Today, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 19-26.
Campbell, J.P. (1990), “Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organisational
psychology”, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and
Organisational Psychology, Vol. 1, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 687-732.
Campbell, C.H., McHenry, J.J. and Wise, L.L. (1990), “Modelling job performance in a population of
jobs”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 313-343.
Campbell, C.H., Ford, P., Rumsey, M.G. and Pulakos, E.D. (1990), “Development of multiple job
performance measures in a representative sample of jobs”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 43
No. 2, pp. 277-300.
Cappelli, P. (2008), “Talent management for the twenty-first century”, Harvard Business Review.
Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 74-81.
Cappelli, P. and Keller, J.R. (2014), “Talent management: conceptual approaches and practical
challenges”, Annual Review of Organisational Psychology and Organisational Behaviour,
Vol. 1, pp. 305-331.
Cascio, W.F. and Aguinis, H. (2008), “Research in industrial and organisational psychology from
1963 to 2007: changes, choices, and trends”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 5,
pp. 1062-1081.
Chami-Malaeb, R. and Garavan, T. (2013), “Talent and leadership development practices as
drivers of intention to stay in Lebanese organisations: the mediating role of affective
commitment”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 21,
pp. 4046-4062.
Chinn, P.L. and Kramer, M.K. (1999), Theory and Nursing: Integrated Knowledge Development,
5th ed., Mosby Inc, St Louis.
Chuai, X., Preece, D. and Iles, P. (2008), “Is talent management just ‘old wine in new bottles’?”,
Management Research Review, Vol. 31 No. 12, pp. 901-911.
CIPD (2007), Talent Management. Research Insight, CIPD, London.
CIPD (2006), Talent Management: Understanding the Dimensions-Change Agenda, CIPD, London.
Collings, D. and Mellahi, K. (2009), “Strategic talent management: a review and research agenda”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 304-313.
Conway, J.M. (1999), “Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for
managerial jobs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Cooke, F.L., Saini, D.S. and Wang, J. (2014), “Talent management in China and India:
a comparison of management perceptions and human resource practices”, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 225-235.
Dai, D.Y. (2009), “Essential tensions surrounding the concept of giftedness”, in Shavinina, L.V.
(Ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 39-80.
Dai, D.Y. and Coleman, L.J. (2005), “Introduction to the special issue on nature, nurture, and the
development of exceptional competence”, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, Vol. 28
Nos 3-4, pp. 254-269.
560
IJPPM
64,4

Davies, B. and Davies, B.J. (2010), “Talent management in academies”, International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 418-426.
Deborah, R.P. and Kathy, O.R. (2009), “A framework for talent management in real estate”,
Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 7-16.
De-Meuse, K.P., Dan, G., Hallenbeck, G.S. and Tang, K.Y. (2009), “Global talent management:
using learning agility to identify high potentials around the world”, Korn/Terry
International Report No. 9932, Korn Terry, Los Angeles, CA.
DiRomualdo, T., Joyce, S. and Bression, N. (2009), Key Findings from Hackett’s Performance Study
on Talent Management Maturity, Hackett Group, Palo Alto, CA.
Dorsey, D.W., Cortina, J.M. and Luchman, J. (2010), “Adaptive and citizenship-related behaviours
at work. In book”, in Farr, J.L. and Tippins, N.T. (Eds), Handbook of Employee Selection.
Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 463-487.
Draganidis, F. and Mentzas, G., (2006), “Competency based management: a review of systems and
approaches”, Information Management and Computer Security, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 51-64.
Dries, N. (2013), “The psychology of talent management: a review and research agenda”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 272-285.
Dries, N., Van Acker, F. and Verbruggen, M. (2012), “How ‘boundaryless’ are the careers of high
potentials, key experts and average performers?”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 81
No. 2, pp. 271-279.
Duttagupta, R. (2005), Identifying and Managing Your Assets: Talent Management,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, London.
Edgar, F. and Geare, A. (2005), “Human resource management practice and employee attitudes:
different measures”, Different Results. Personnel Review, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 534-549.
Engelbrecht, A.S. and Fischer, A.H. (1995), “The managerial performance implications of a
developmental assessment center process”, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 387-404.
Ericsson, K.A. (2006), “The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development
of superior expert performance”, The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert
Performance, in Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Hoffman, R.R. and Feltovich, P.J. (Eds),
Chapter 38, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 685-705.
Festing, M. and Schafer, L. (2014), “Generational challenges to talent management: a framework
for talent retention based on the psychological-contract perspective”, Journal of World
Frank, F.D. and Taylor, C.R. (2004), “Talent management: trends that will shape the future”,
Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 33-41.
Gagné, F. (2004), “Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory”, High
Ability Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 119-147.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N. and González-Cruz, T.F. (2013), “What is the meaning of ‘talent’
in the world of work?”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 290-300.
Gandossy, R. and Kao, T. (2004), “Talent wars: out of mind, out of practice”, Human Resource
Planning, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 15-19.
Gelens, J., Dries, N., Hofmans, J. and Pepermans, R. (2013), “The role of perceived organisational
justice in shaping the outcomes of talent management: a research agenda”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 341-353.
George, J.M. and Brief, A.P. (1992), “Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood
at work organisational spontaneity relationship”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112 No. 2,
pp. 310-329.
Glen, C. (2007), “Foresting talent opportunity: getting past first-base”, Emerald, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 3-5.
561
Talent
management
and employee
performance

Griffin, M.A., Neal, A. and Parker, S.K. (2007), “A new model of work role performance: positive
behaviour in uncertain and interdependent contexts”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 327-347.
Gubman, E.L. (1998), The Talent Solution Aligning Strategy and People to Achieve Extraordinary
Results, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Gubman, E.L. and Green, S. (2007), The Four Stages of Talent Management, Executive Networks,
San Francisco, CA.
Hajimirarab, S.M., Nobar, M.N. and Ghalambor, M.A. (2011), “Identifying and improving the
talent management indicators”, Business and Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 1-8.
Hartmanna, E., Feisel, E. and Schober, H. (2010), “Talent management of Western MNCs in China:
balancing global integration and local responsiveness”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 45
No. 2, pp. 169-178.
Hengst, A. (2007), “Talent management FAQ”, available at: www.hrworld.com/features/talent-
management-faq-112007/ (accessed 12 December 2013).
Hough, L.M. and Oswald, F.L. (2000), “Personnel selection: looking toward the future –
remembering the past”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 631-664.
Hughes, J.C. and Rog, E. (2008), “Talent management: a strategy for improving employee
recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality organizations”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 743-757.
Hunt, S.T. (1996), “Generic work behaviour: an investigation into the dimensions of entry-level,
hourly job performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 51-83.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity and corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 635-672.
Iles, P., Chuai, X. and Preece, D. (2010), “Talent management and HRM in multinational
companies in Beijing: definitions, differences and drivers”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 179-189.
Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S. and Werner, S. (2009), Managing Human Resources, 10th ed.,
South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH.
Kang, L.S. and Sidhu, H. (2014), “Talent management at Tata Consultancy Services”, Global
Business Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 459-471.
Kelloway, E.K., Inness, M., Barling, J., Francis, L. and Turner, N. (2010), “Loving one’s job:
construct development and implications for individual well-being”, Research in
Occupational Stress and Well-Being, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 109-136.
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C.M., Hildebrandt, H.V., Schaufeli, W.B., DeVet, H.C.W. and
Van der Beek, A.J. (2011), “Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance:
a systematic review”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 53 No. 8,
pp. 856-866.
Krischer, M.M., Penney, L.M. and Hunter, E.M. (2010), “Can counterproductive work behaviours
be productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 154-166.
Kumari, P. and Bahuguna, P.C. (2012), “Measuring the impact of talent management on employee
behaviour: an empirical study of oil and gas industry in India”, Journal of Human Resource
Management and Development, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 65-85.
Kuvaas, B. and Dysvik, A. (2010), “Exploring alternative relationships between perceived
investment in employee development, perceived supervisor support and employee
outcomes”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 138-156.
562
IJPPM
64,4

Lance, C.E., Teachout, M.S. and Donnelly, T.M. (1992), “Specification of the criterion construct
space: an application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis”, Journal of Applied
Larson, P.W. and Richburg, M.T. (2004), “Leadership coaching”, in Berger, L.A. and Berger, D.R.
(Eds), The Talent Management Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 307-319.
Larsen, H.H., London, M., Weinstein, M. and Raghuram, S. (1998), “High-flyer management-
development programs: organisational rhetoric or self-fulfilling prophecy?”, International
Studies of Management and Organisation, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 64-90.
Lebas, M. and Euske, K. (2002), “A conceptual and operational definition of performance”,
in Neely, A. (Ed.), Business Performance Measurement, Cambridge University Press, pp. 65-79.
Ledford, E.G. and Kochanski, J. (2004), “Allocating training and development resources based on
contribution”, in Berger, L.A. and Berger, D.A. (Eds), The Talent Management Handbook,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 218-229.
Lepak, D.P. and Snell, S.A. (2002), “Examining the human resources architecture: the relationships
among human capital, employment and resource configurations”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 517-543.
Lewis, R.E. and Heckman, R.J. (2006), “Talent management: a critical review”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 139-154.
Lockwood, N.R. (2006), “Talent management: driver for organisational success”, Human Resource
Magazine, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1-11.
McCall, M.W. (1998), High Flyers: Developing the Next Generation of Leaders, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Maathis, R.L. and Jackson, J.H. (2000), Human Resource Management, College Publishing,
South-Western.
Mahapatro, B.B. (2010), Human Resource Management, New Age International, New Delhi.
Maxham, J.G.I., Netemeyer, R.G. and Lichtenstein, D.R. (2008), “The retail value chain: linking
employee perceptions to employee performance, customer evaluations, and store
performance”, Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 147-167.
Mayer, D.M., Roberts, R.D. and Barsade, S.G. (2008), “Human abilities: emotional intelligence”,
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 507-536.
Meyers, M.C., Van Woerkom, M. and Dries, N. (2013), “Talent – innate or acquired? Theoretical
considerations and their implications for talent management”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 305-321.
Menges, J.I. (2012), “Organizational emotional intelligence: theoretical foundations and practical
implications”, in Neal, M.A., Charmine, E.J.H. and Wilfred, J.Z. (Eds), Experiencing and
Managing Emotions in the Workplace, Vol. 8, Emerald Group Publishing Limited,
pp. 355-373.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H. and Axelrod, B. (2001), The War for Talent, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Minbaeva, D. and Collings, D.G. (2013), “Seven myths of global talent management”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 1762-1776.
Motowidlo, S.J., Barman, W.C. and Schmit, M.J. (1997), “A theory of individual differences in task
and contextual performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 71-83.
Motowidlo, S.J. and Schmit, M.J. (1999), “Performance assessment in unique jobs”, in Ligen, D.R.
and Pulakos, E.D. (Eds), The Changing Nature of JobPerformance: Implications for
Staffing, Motivation, and Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 56-86.
563
Talent
management
and employee
performance

Mount, M., Illies, R. and Johnson, E. (2006), “Relationship of personality traits and
counterproductive work behaviours: the mediating effects of job satisfaction”, Personnel
Murphy, K.R. (1989), “Dimensions of job performance”, in Dillon, R. and Pelligrino, J. (Eds),
Testing: Applied and theoretical perspectives, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 218-247.
Nishii, L.H., Lepak, D.P. and Schneider, B. (2008), “Employee attributions of the ‘why’ of HR
practices: their effects on employee attitudes and behaviours and customer satisfaction”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 503-545.
O’Reilly, C.A. and Pfeffer, J. (2000), “Cisco systems: acquiring and retaining talent in
hypercompetitive markets”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 38-52.
Organ, D. (1988), Organisational Citizenship Behaviour: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R.I. (2006), “Evidence-based management”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 62-74.
Pulakos, E.D., Arad, S., Donovan, M.A. and Plamondon, K.E. (2000), “Adaptability in the
workplace: development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance”, Journal of Applied
Rotundo, M. and Sackett, P.R. (2002), “The relative importance of task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance to global ratings of performance: a policy capturing
approach”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 66-80.
Sackett, P.R., Zedeck, S., Fogli, L. (1988), “Relations between measures of typical and maximum
job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 482-486.
Sadeli, J. (2012), “The influence of leadership, talent management, organizational culture and
organizational support on employee engagement”, International Research Journal of
Business Studies, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 30-51.
Sadler, K. (2009), “Talent management”, available at: www.trainingjournal.com (accessed 18 May 2014).
Schiemann, W.A. (2014), “From talent management to talent optimization”, Journal of World
Schuler, R.S., Jackson, S.E. and Tarique, I. (2011), “Global talent management and global talent
challenges: strategic opportunities for IHRM”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 46 No. 4,
pp. 506-516.
Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N. and Liden, R.C. (1996), “Social exchange in organisations: perceived
organisational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 219-227.
SHL (2007), “Talent management issues and observations”, SHL Whitepaper Series, London.
SHL (2008), “Guidelines for best practice in integrated talent management”, SHL Best Practice
Series, London.
Sinclair, R.R. and Tucker, J.S. (2006), “Stress-CARE: an integrated model of individual differences
in soldier performance under stress”, in Britt, T.W., Castro, C.A. and Adler, A.B. (Eds),
Military Life: The Psychology of Serving in Peace and Combat (Vol. 1): Military
Performance, Praeger Security International, Westport, CT, pp. 202-231.
Silzer, R.F. and Church, A.H. (2010), “Identifying and assessing high-potential talent. Current
organisational practices”, in Silzer, R.F. and Dowell, B.E. (Eds), Strategy-Driven Talent
Management: A Leadership Imperative, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 213-279.
Smith, E.M., Ford, J.K. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1997), “Building adaptive expertise: implications for
training design strategies”, in Quinones, M.A. and Ehrenstein, A. (Eds), Training for a
Rapidly Changing Workplace: Applications of Psychological Research, American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 89-118.
564
IJPPM
64,4

Sonnenberg, M., Zijderveld, V. and Brinks, M. (2014), “The role of talent perception
incongruence in effective talent management”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 49 No. 2,
pp. 272-280.
Sonnentag, S. and Frese, M. (2002), “Performance concepts and performance theory”,
in Sonnentag, S. (Ed.), Psychological Management of Individual Performance, John Wiley
and Sons, LTD, Chichester.
Sparrow, P. (2007), “Globalisation of HR at functional level: four UK-based case studies of the
international recruitment and selection process”, International Journal of Human Resource
Stahl, G.K., Bjorkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S.S., Stiles, P. and Trevor, J. (2007), “Global talent
management: how leading multinationals build and sustain their talent pipeline”, Faculty
and Research working paper, INSEAD, Fontainebleau.
Stainton, A. (2005), “Talent management: latest buzzword or refocusing existing processes?”,
Competency and Emotional Intelligence, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 39-43.
Stewart, J. (2008), “Developing skills through talent management”, SSDA Catalyst, Vol. 1 No. 6,
pp. 1-14.
Swailes, S. (2013), “Troubling some assumptions: a response to the role of perceived
organsiational justice in shaping the outcomes of talent management: a research agenda”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 354-356.
Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D., Wang, H. and Takeuchi, K. (2007), “An empirical examination of the
mechanisms mediating between high-performance work systems and the performance of
Japanese organisations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 1060-1083.
Tansley, C., Turner, P., Carley, F., Harris, L., Sempik, A. and Stewart, J. (2007), Talent:
Strategy, Management, Measurement, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
(CIPD), London.
Tarique, I. and Schuler, R.S. (2010), “Global talent management: literature review, integrative
framework, and suggestions for further research”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 45 No. 2,
pp. 122-133.
Tett, R.P., Guterman, H.A., Bleier, A. and Murphy, P.J. (2000), “Development and content
validation of a ‘hyperdimensional’ taxonomy of managerial competence”, Human
Performance, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 205-251.
Thomas, K. (2009), “Talent strategies for innovation”, Economist Intelligence Unit Supported by
the Government of Ontario, September 1-10, available at: http://graphics.eiu.com/marketing/
pdf/Ontario_Innovation.pdf
Tobias, C. (2007), “Talent retention strategy in high performing work organisations”, Managerial
Planning Review, Oxford, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 25-43.
Tsay, C. and Banaji, M.R. (2011), “Naturals and strivers: preferences and beliefs about sources of
achievement”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 460-465.
Tulgan, B. (2001), “Wining the talent wars. New York: WW Norton and company. Walker, J.
(2002). Perspectives: talent pools: the best and the rest”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 12-14.
Tyrell, P. (2009), “Fertile ground cultivating a talent for innovation”, Economist Intelligence Unit
Supported by the Government of Ontario, February 2-22, available at: http://graphics.eiu.
com/marketing/pdf/ Invest%20in%20Ontario.pdf
Ulrich, D. and Smallwood, N. (2011), “What is talent?”, Leader to Leader, Vol. 2012 No. 63, pp. 55-61.
Vaiman, V., Scullion, H. and Collings, D. (2012), “Talent management decision making”,
Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 925-941.
565
Talent
management
and employee
performance

Vallerand, R.J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G.A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C., Leonard, M., Gagne, M. and
Marsolais, J. (2003), “On obsessive and harmonious passion”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 756-767.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L. and Parks, J.M. (1995), “Extra-role behaviours: its pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters)”, in Cummings, L.L. and
Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 17, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 215-285.
Van Scotter, J.R. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1996), “Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as
separate facets of contextual performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 5,
pp. 525-531.
Van Scotter, J.R., Motowidlo, S.J. and Cross, C.T. (2000), “Effects of task and contextual
performance on reward systems”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 526-535.
Viswesvaran, C. and Ones, D.S. (2000), “Perspectives on models of job performance”, International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 216-226.
Vural Y., Vardarlier, P. and Aykir, A. (2012), “The effects of using talent management with
performance evaluation system over employee commitment”, 8th International Strategic
Management Conference, Vol. 58, Elsevier B.V., Kocaeli, 12 October, pp. 340-349.
Walker, I.J., Nordin-Bates, M. and Redding, E. (2010), “Talent identification and development in
dance: a review of the literature”, Research in Dance Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 167-191.
Walner, J. (2000), “Trust employees’ talent to succeed”, Business and Management Review, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 48-69.
Warren, C. (2006), “Curtain call”, People Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 24-29.
Williams, K.D. and Karau, S.J. (1991), “Social loafing and social compensation: the effects of
expectations of co-worker performance”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 570-581.
Wisecarver, M.M., Carpenter, T.D. and Kilcullen, R.N. (2007), “Capturing interpersonal
performance in a latent performance model”, Military Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 83-101.
Witt, L.A. and Spitzmüller, C. (2007), “Person-situation predictors of maximum and typical
performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 305-315.
Wright, R. (2006), The Strategic Value of People: Human Resource Trends and Metrics,
Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa.
Wurim, B.P. (2012), “Talent management and employee productivity in public sector organisations
of Nigeria”, Journal of Management and Corporate Governance, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Wyatt, W.W. (2001). Watson Wyatta Human Capital Index, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Arlington, VA.
Yapp, M. (2009), “Measuring the ROI of talent management”, Strategic Human Resource Review,
Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 5-10.
Further reading
Kerr-Phillips, B. and Thomas, A. (2009), “Macro and micro challenges for talent retention in South
Africa”, South African Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Corresponding author
James Kwame Mensah can be contacted at: mensjam@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
566
IJPPM
64,4

A Coalesced Framework Of Talent Management And Employee Performance For Further Research And Practice

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Coalesced Framework Of Talent Management And Employee Performance For Further Research And Practice

Similar to A Coalesced Framework Of Talent Management And Employee Performance For Further Research And Practice (20)

More from Sean Flores

More from Sean Flores (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Coalesced Framework Of Talent Management And Employee Performance For Further Research And Practice