APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2004, 53.docx

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 management), 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 between
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. Changing 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 highly relevant for the
wider perform-
ance management process. For example, Molleman and
Timmerman (2003)
describe the impact of shifts in organisational performance
indicators on
those of employees. They argue that as an organisation’s
leading perform-
ance indicators shift towards innovation and the creation of
knowledge,
more non-routine work and interdependence between workers is
found and
performance criteria at lower levels should shift to reflect this.
The context of performance management is changing, and
Fletcher (2001)
mentions cultural differences and the impact of new technology
as interesting

emerging areas of research. For instance, as more and more
organisations
work internationally, collaboration and coordination of people
located in
different nations increases. Often this collaboration within
organisations
567
takes the form of global work teams. Performance management
is problem-
atic in such teams as members are likely to have widely
differing viewpoints
about appropriate ways to reward, recognise, evaluate, and train
and
develop team members (Kirkman & Den Hartog, 2004). Another
point to
consider is the legal implications that the use of certain
practices may have,
which will differ for different countries. Thus, future research
on the wider
(and sometimes cross-cultural) context is of interest.
Obviously, additional theory-building in the area of
performance manage-
ment is needed. Although our model proposes a general process

involving
several different steps, it does not yet specify in detail all of the
processes
taking place. Research can focus on the model as a whole or try
to flesh out
in more detail what happens in specific parts of the process.
Gaining insight
into the processes and variables that play a role in the process
of performance
management is not only of academic interest. Companies in
many different
areas are trying to improve their output by implementing
performance manage-
ment systems and finding that this is an arduous and
complicated task.
Research may help improve such systems. Such similarity of
interests of aca-
demics and practitioners may help academics gain better
entrance to the em-
pirical reality, which is badly needed to perform the multi-level
research needed
to enhance understanding of how and why performance
management works.
REFERENCES
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000).
Manufacturing advantage:
Why high-performance work systems pay off
. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Arthur, J.B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on
manufacturing perform-
ance and turnover.
Academy of Management Journal
,
37
, 670 – 687.
Baron, A., & Armstrong, M. (1998). Out of the box.
People Management
,
23
, 38 – 41.
Becker, B.E., Huselid, M.A., Pickus, P.S., & Spratt, M.F.
(1997). HR as a source of
shareholder value: Research and recommendations.
Human Resource Management

,
36
, 39 – 47.
Boselie, P., Paauwe, J., & Jansen, P. (2001). Human resource
management and
performance: Lessons from the Netherlands.
The International Journal of Human
Resource Management
,
12
, 1107–1125.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O., & Ng,
K.Y. (2001).
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of
organizational
justice research.
Journal of Applied Psychology

,
86
, 424 – 445.
De Haas, M., Algera, J.A., Van Tuijl, H.F.J.M., & Meulman,
J.J. (2000). Macro
and micro goal setting: In search of coherence.
Applied Psychology: An Inter
-
national Review
,
49
, 579 – 595.
Delery, J.E. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource
management: Implica-
tions for research.

Human Resource Management Review
,
8
, 289 – 309.
Delery, J.E., & Doty, D.H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in
strategic human resource
management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and
configurational perform-
ance predictions.
,
39
, 802 – 835.
568

DEN HARTOG ET AL.
Den Hartog, D.N., & Koopman, P.L. (2001). Leadership in
organizations
.
In
N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.),
Handbook of indus-
trial, work and organizational psychology
:
Vol. 2
.
Organizational psychology
( pp. 166 –187). London: Sage.
Den Hartog, D.N., & Verburg, R.M. (2004). High performance
work systems,

organizational culture and perceived organizational
effectiveness.
Human
Resource Management Journal
,
14
, 55 – 78.
DeNisi, A.S. (2000). Performance appraisal and performance
management: A multi-
level analysis. In K.J. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.),
Multilevel theory, research and
methods in organizations
( pp. 121 – 156). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance appraisal and management:
The developing
research agenda.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
,

73
,
473 – 487.
Gerhart, B., Wright, P.M., & McMahan, G. (2000).
Measurement error in research
on the human resource and firm performance relationship:
Further evidence and
analysis.
Personnel Psychology
,
53
, 855 – 872.
Gratton, L., & Truss, C. (2003). The three-dimensional people
strategy: Putting human
resources policies into action.
Academy of Management Executive
,

17
, 74 – 86.
Guest, D.E. (1997). Human resource management and
performance: A review and
research agenda.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
,
8
,
263 – 276.
Guest, D.E. (1999). Human resource management: The workers’
verdict.
Human
Resource Management Journal
,
9

, 5 – 25.
Guest, D.E. (2001). Human resource management: When reality
confronts theory.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
,
12
, 1092 –1106.
Guest, D.E., Michie, J., Conway, N., & Sheehan, M. (2003).
Human resource
management and corporate performance in the UK.
British Journal of Industrial
Relations
,
41
, 291 – 314.
Guthrie, J.P. (2001). High-involvement work practices,
turnover, and productivity:

Evidence from New Zealand.
,
44
, 180 – 190.
Heinrich, C.J. (2002). Outcomes based performance
management in the public
sector: Implications for government accountability and
effectiveness.
Public
Administration Review
, 62, 712 – 726.
Hiltrop, J.M. (1999). The quest for the best: Human resource
practices to attract and
retain talent. European Management Journal, 17, 422 – 430.
Huselid, M.A. (1995). The impact of human resource
management practices on
turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance.
Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 38, 635 – 672.

Irving, P.G., & Meyer, J.P. (1994). Reexamination of the met-
expectations hypo-
thesis: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
79, 937 – 939.
Kirkman, B.L., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2004). Team performance
management. In
H.W. Lane, M.L Maznevski, M. Mendenhall, & J. McNett
(Eds.), The Blackwell
handbook of global management ( pp. 251 – 272). Malden:
Blackwell.
Kozlowski, S., & Klein, K.J. (Eds.) (2000). Multilevel theory,
research and methods
in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kristof, A. (1996). Person–organization fit: An integrative
review of its conceptual-
ization, measurement and implications. Personnel Psychology,
49, 1– 49.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 569
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (2002). Building a practically
useful theory of goal
setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705 –
717.
MacDuffie, J.P. (1995). Human resource bundles and
manufacturing performance:
Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the
world auto industry.

Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 197 – 221.
Molleman, E., & Timmerman, H. (2003). Performance
management when innova-
tion and learning become critical performance indicators.
Personnel Review, 32,
93 – 113.
Mondy, R.W., Noe, R.M., & Premeaux, S.R. (2002). Human
resource management
(8th edn.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Paauwe, J., & Richardson, R. (1997). Introduction to special
issue on HRM and
performance. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 8, 257 –
262.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational
support: A review
of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698 – 714.
Roberts, I. (2001). Reward and performance management. In I.
Beardwell &
L. Holden (Eds.), Human resource management: A
contemporary approach (3rd
edn., pp. 506 – 558). Edinburgh: Pearson.
Robinson, S.L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological
contract. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 41, 574 – 599.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989). Psychological contracts and implied
contracts in organ-
izations. Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 2, 121 –
139.

Rousseau, D.M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The
building blocks of the
psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology,
73, 511 – 533.
Rousseau, D.M., & Greller, M.M. (1994). Human resource
practices: Adminis-
trative contract makers. Human Resource Management, 33, 385
– 401.
Storey, J. (Ed.) (1995). Human resource management: A critical
text. London:
Routledge.
Wright, P.M., & Snell, S. (1998). Towards a unifying
framework for exploring fit
and flexibility in strategic human resource management.
Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 23, 756 – 772.
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 theories 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 variety
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
department’s
management (dean’s office) in cooperation with the HR advisor.
The management of
the law department did not feel the need for a very formalized
approach, because
64
ER
38,1

applying a recruitment and career policy that is not excessively
formalized TM approach
provided them with the room to maneuver in a highly
competitive labor market of jurists.
A wide variety of instruments and practices are applied, most of
them common HR
practices. The intended instruments and practices are ordered in
two broad categories:
selection and recruitment (Table II), and development,
performance and promotion
(Table III). Although it is well known that approximately 70
percent of the PhD’s and
postdocs in the Netherlands cannot pursue an academic career at
a Dutch university
(De Goede et al., 2013), none of the university departments had
an explicit policy to
support a transition to other work environments.
Selection and recruitment. In TM policy the emphasis is on the
selection and
development of talents. Most departments have explicit
protocols regarding the
selection and employment of junior staff, i.e. PhD’s (social
sciences, humanities and
medical sciences). For the recruitment of senior staff protocols
are also generally
accepted. Talent reviews and assessments are exceptional, but
do occur on an
incidental basis for senior positions.
In practice, the departments in our study particularly focus on
“making talents”:
attracting young high potentials and developing them toward the
senior position of

professor. The research master and the graduate school are
important “talent pools.”
In most departments the selection of academics at the beginning
of their career is the
responsibility of full professors. Regardless of the formal
protocols, in practice the full
professors involved frequently use their own non-formalized
selection criteria and
procedure, in which they focus on talents in their professional
network who have
attracted their attention. For the medium and senior academic
positions the protocols
regarding an open selection procedure and a selection
committee are also sometimes
neglected by academic leaders when a top talent can be
recruited: “In the battle for
talent you sometimes have to take unorthodox measures. You
have to respond
instantly, and risk your neck” (dean).
Humanities Junior staff: standardize procedure for selection and
employment of PhD students
For senior staff: personnel planning
Recruitment of senior staff:
Focus on external recruitment of generalist academics
Once a year for the entire department
In an open, international selection procedure
By a selection committee
Social
sciences
Junior staff: standardize procedure for selection and
employment of PhD students

Law Scouting potential PhD students in research master
Recruitment protocol for senior positions (including open
selection procedure and
involvement of selection committee)
STEM Active scouting and recruitment of external talent, e.g. at
international conferences
Senior positions:
Strategic personnel planning
Talent review
Medical
sciences
Honors programs for excellent students as talent pool for PhD
trajectories
For junior positions: grants offered to excellent master or PhD
students to finance their
temporary position
Senior positions:
Strategic personnel planning
Talent review
Table II.
Selection and
recruitment practices
(intended practices)
65
Exploration
of talent

management
in practice
Development, performance and promotion. The study reveals a
fragmented TM policy
regarding development, performance and promotion. First, the
formal TM system
focusses on the development of either academics in the junior
and senior academic
positions. The development of employees in medium positions
with a fixed-term
contract, such as postdoc researchers and lecturers, is hardly an
issue in policy
documents and the interviews. An exception is the humanities
department that invests
in developing the overall employability of temporary lectures.
In addition, the departments used different approaches for the
junior and senior
academics. For the academics at the beginning of their career
university departments
use an inclusive and “soft” approach to TM. PhD development
programs are standard
policy (except for the STEM department), and are available to
all PhD’s in the
department. In most of the investigated departments this
program consists of a
(mutually agreed) plan regarding training and supervision. In
practice many
supervising full professors devote little effort to the formal PhD
programs. There seems
Humanities Standardized supervision program for PhD’s
Obligatory teaching skills program for new employees

Introduction program for new assistant professors and
temporary lecturers
(Personalized) HRM-programs for associate and full professors
Additional temporary positions for talented associate professors
Social
sciences
PhD: structured educational and supervision program
Senior positions:
Structured program for support offered by external grant
application
Annual performance appraisals
Coaching and training
Experimenting with tenure track
Obligatory academic leadership training for new (associate)
professors
Law Educational and supervision program for PhD’s
Experimenting with tenure track (including pre-agreed
performance criteria,
performance appraisals and career advancements)
Some courses and seminars on academic leadership
Support offered by external grant application
STEM Tenure Track for senior staff:
Selective entrance criteria
Section via open procedure and selection committee
Clear, pre-agreed performance criteria and career steps
Training program: e.g. obligatory teaching skills program and
academic leadership
program

Medical
sciences
Structured educational and supervision program for PhD’s and
scholarships for junior
academics
Courses offered by career center
Top-talent program for assistant and associate professors:
Selective entrance criteria
Clear, pre-agreed performance criteria and career steps
Annually performance appraisals
Training program “Management in Research organizations,”
incl. talent
development assessment
Personal budget to spend on training or coaching
Additional temporary positions for talented professors
Personalized academic leadership program for full professors
Table III.
Development,
performance and
promotion practices
(intended practices)
66
ER
38,1
to be disagreement on whether talent can and should be
developed and nurtured or not.
Many professors use a laissez-faire style with little guidance

and control, while others
find it important to be actively involved in the development of
their staff and to show
concern for their well-being: “Active human resources
management implies that you
know the interests of a person, his drives, so you know what is
good for that person and
you can help him in his career”(full professor).
The TM policy for the more senior academic positions (assistant
professor and up)
can be characterized as exclusive and “hard.” Proven
performance gains importance,
and only the best performers are selected for tenure, or can
participate in a talent
program with the development opportunities included. Two out
of five departments
(STEM and medical sciences) had a top-talent program, and two
others (law and social
sciences) were experimenting with such a program because of
the expected positive
effects on the departments’ reputation. The competition to get
on the program is fierce,
and the performance demands are high. Once on the program,
the professional
development is supported in several ways: coaching, mentoring
or leadership training.
None of the top-talent programs is the same, even within a
department different forms
can exit. Unlike the PhD programs, the formal top-talent
programs for the senior staff
are often implemented with great care. Academic managers and
HR are aware of the
risks of dissatisfaction and turnover of top talents when the
procedures and protocol
are not handle with care.

Factors affecting the TM process. The TM strategy was affected
by factors at the
environmental and organizational level. Differences between the
academic disciplines-
divergent difficulties on the external and internal labor market,
but also difficulties in
obtaining the scarce financial resources-compel the university
departments to
differentiate in their TM strategy. For example, some
departments faced a weakened
financial position, forcing the dean to take economy measures
and terminated some TM
activities (e.g. humanities), while others made the acquisition of
external funding part
of the performance criteria and performance agreements of
talents (medical sciences),
or invested in coaching programs for academics in writing a
grant proposal (social
sciences). We also noticed that the dean, as the department’s
top manager, has a crucial
impact on the intended TM goals and policy. The HR policy
advisor of an department
argues: “Whether the talent development process turns out well
depends on the actions
of the dean and vice-dean. They have to carry the load. The
problem is, however, that
our managers come from the academic community to which they
will return again after
their period of governance as a dean is terminated. For some
this impedes them from
carrying out unpopular reforms” (HR policy official). In two
departments the new dean
was the initiator of major shifts in the TM strategy, while in
two other departments the
new dean did not bring a wind of change.

The implementation of the TM is mostly influenced by factors
at the
organizational, and particularly, at the individual level. An
organizational fit and
an internal fit of the TM practices increase the chance of being
implemented as
intended. Also being able to adjust to changing environmental
and internal
circumstances increased the chances for the organization to
achieve the outcomes it
aspired. However, the implementation is most of all influenced
by the intentions,
perceptions and actions of the full professors involved in the
day-to-day management
of a team of academics. They are searching for an acceptable
and adequate way to
handle the difficulties and challenges they are confronted with
in managing their
research group and the talents included.
67
Exploration
of talent
management
in practice
Perceived practices and employees reactions
Now we shift from the organizational level to the level of the
individual employee, and
discuss what the talented employees find important in TM and
their perception of the

TM inducements of their employer. The results illustrate a
discrepancy between the
perception of the organization and the talents regarding the TM
objectives. In the
talents perception TM is mainly meant to support the
professional development of the
academic. In contrast to the economic focus of the organization,
the talents in our study
mostly have non-economic goals they want to see fulfilled with
TM. It is their passion
for science that drives the academics, and all other job
preferences are related to the
challenging, creative and accomplishing work that talents want
to do. They want to
cooperate with the best academics in their field. Salary is not
alluring, but the
university that offers outstanding research facilities and
financial means to provide
those facilities is an attractive employer. Moreover, as young
academics gain
experience and progress in their professional development,
possibilities to make career
advancements become important, preferably resulting in a
tenure as full professor.
The academics are, generally speaking, not satisfied with the
inducements made by
the organization: “This organization flourishes because of its
human resources, but, in
my opinion, there is no human resources policy at all” (assistant
professor). The
university departments’ formal TM policy mainly focusses on
measuring performance,
and does not explicitly invest in the aforementioned work
aspects which motivate
talents. Some interviewees indicate that they attach more value

to informally organized
work practices – such as discussion meetings with colleagues
and cooperating with a
team of researchers – than to the training and courses organized
by the HRM
department as part of the TM policy.
A major point of dissatisfaction is the uncertainty about career
possibilities
because of unclear promotion criteria, and the continuing
insecurity regarding
their position due to a successive series of fixed-term contracts.
Academics with a
fixed-term contract feel hindered in their professional
development and undervalued:
“The university does not take temporary lecturers seriously.
You put a lot of effort
into the things they tell you to do, but management does not
show their appreciation”
(temporary lecturer).
Moreover, the talents criticize the actual implementation of the
TM practices. They
detect a great deal of variation in the implementation by the
supervising professors,
and this causes talents (at all levels) to question whether the
treatment has been just
and fair. One of the interviewees described it as a “lottery of
positions”: “I would like
some more transparency. It is a kind of mystery if positions are
vacant or not. […]
The assignment of positions is arbitrary and that creates
confusion” (PhD).
What are the effects of these unsatisfactory working conditions
and TM policies and

practices? The talents in our study are not easily discouraged
when times are rough.
Regardless of the talents’ dissatisfaction with their employers’
TM approach, the data
from the online survey shows that most of them (67 percent; n
¼ 49) stayed with their
employer of 2009. In total, 22 percent of the respondents (n ¼
16) accepted a position at
another (inter)national university, mainly to get a permanent
contract or a promotion to
a higher academic position; 10 percent was unemployed or had
left academia.
The majority of the respondents who stayed in academia have
made career progression;
they received a permanent contract and/or have made upward
progression, mostly one
(25 percent), two (27 percent) or even three steps (10 percent)
on the academic
hierarchical ladder. The latter is exceptional because on average
scholars in the
Netherlands need up to five or six years to progress to the next
career level (De Goede
68
ER
38,1
et al., 2013). Yet, in the talents’ view their development cannot
be attributed to the
departments’ TM practices, but rather to their own efforts and
the support of their
supervising professor.

TM outcomes
In the second round of data collection, we asked the university
departments if they
achieved their intended objectives. The interviewees mentioned
positive results and
effects. In particular objectives at the HRM level – i.e. the
replacement of retiring
professors – were successfully met. The open job positions were
filled with new talents,
or would be in the near future by a talented academic currently
on a tenure track. The
flexibility of the workforce improved through the increased
usage of fixed-term
contracts, or, in the case of the humanities department, the
recruitment of generalists
employable in related academic subfields. It is, however,
remarkable that none of the
departments was able to illustrate their observations on the
effects with quantified
data. It is not a habit to evaluate and to measure the outcomes
of policy intentions.
Discussion
In this paper the HRM-process models of Paauwe (2004) and
Wright and Nishii (2013)
have provided a more enriched and complete view of the talent
challenges
organizations have to face, how they deal with these issues in
practice and how well
they do this, than the one-dimensional and limited TM approach
that is dominant in the
current TM literature. The findings are interesting for the field
of TM in several ways.
First, in line with the HRM-process model of Wright and Nishii
(2013) the study showed
that that implementing TM is not as easy as the TM literature

predicts. There is a
discrepancy between intended and actual practices, and the
perception of the
employees of those practices. In accordance with Paauwe (2004)
the study identified
factors at the institutional, organizational and individual level
causing variance in the
chain of processes. It is essential to acknowledge this possible
variance in developing
and implementing a TM strategy, and to anticipate by
developing a TM approach that
fits the organization and its context (Collings and Mellahi,
2009; Paauwe et al., 2013)
instead of copying best practices from other organizations.
Second, besides clarifying the multiple underlying processes,
the study showed that
TM is more than a system. The interests and talent philosophies
of multiple actors have
a significant impact on TM (Meyers and van Woerkom, 2013).
Despite the formal TM
policy, the actors involved in the implementation process,
specifically line management
and the talented employees, can act in a different and
unforeseen way. Although this is
confirmed in previous studies online management enactment in
HR (Sikora and Ferris,
2014; Guest and Bos-Nehles, 2013), we are aware that the
findings in this study are
strongly related to the specific context of universities in which
professional autonomy
is highly rated and accepted. We therefore see this study as a
first step in opening the
“black box” in TM, and we encourage more multi-level studies,
in particular in in
organizations in different sectors of industry and/or in other

countries.
Third, the study could not prove whether the TM approaches
investigated were
indeed effective. In the case studies it was not common to
evaluate HR policies. We
therefore recommend more research of the effectiveness and
actual value of TM,
preferably using a multi-perspective approach.
Finally, the multi-level design of the study enabled us to
compare the perspectives of
the organization and the talents, which showed that the two
crucial actors in TM have a
different perception of the intended and actual value of TM. The
economically oriented
69
Exploration
of talent
management
in practice
needs of the organization collide with the non-economic
interests of the talents. They
also have a different view on how this value could be created,
and this results in an
unbalanced employee-organization relationship in favor of the
organization (Tsui and
Wang, 2002) since the hard and exclusive TM policy and
practices are mostly aimed at
satisfying organizational needs. According to Tsui and Wang’s

(2002) an
overinvestment relationship in favor of the employee, or at least
a mutual
investment relationship, would be more useful to retain
employees in scare jobs or
with rare and valuable skills, in other words: talents. Yet, in the
study the unbalanced
relationship did not result in massive turnover. This is not
consistent with
psychological contract theory, and a clarification is required.
Probably contextual
factors play a crucial role in this situation, particularly the
difficulties for young
academics to get another job inside and outside academia,
combined with the
academics’ perseverance to pursue an academic career anyway.
Yet, it would be
interesting to investigate the employment relationship of talents
into more detail,
including the factors that explain whether or not contract breach
occurs and what
happens when it does.
References
Beechler, S. and Woodward, I.C. (2009), “The Global ‘War for
Talent’ ”, Journal of International
Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 273-285.
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.
Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Höglund, M., Mäkelä, K., Smale,

A. and Sumelius, J. (2013), “Talent or
not? Employee reactions to talent identification”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 52
No. 2, pp. 195-214.
Boxall, P., Purcell, J. and Wright, P. (2007), “Human resource
management: scope, analysis, and
significance”, in Boxall, P., Purcell, J. and Wright, P. (Eds),
The Oxford Handbook of
Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 1-16.
Cappelli, P. (2008), “Talent management for the twenty-first
century”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 86 No. 3, p. 74.
Cappelli, P. and Keller, J.R. (2014), “Talent management:
conceptual approaches and practical
challenges”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 305-331.
Collings, D.G. (2014), “Toward mature talent management:
beyond shareholder value”, Human
Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 301-319.
Collings, D.G. and Mellahi, K. (2009), “Strategic talent
management: a review and research
agenda”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 304-313.
Collings, D.G., Scullion, H. and Vaiman, V. (2011), “European
perspectives on talent
management”, European Journal of International Management,
Vol. 5, pp. 453-462.

De Goede, M., Belder, B. and De Jonge, J. (2013), Feiten en
cijfers: Academische carrières en
loopbaanbeleid, Rathenau Institute, The Hague.
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited:
institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 48
No. 2, pp. 147-160.
Dries, N. (2013), “The psychology of talent management: a
review and research agenda”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 272-285.
70
ER
38,1
Dries, N. and Pepermans, R. (2008), “ ‘Real’ high-potential
careers: an empirical study into the
perspectives of organizations and high potentials”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 85-108.
Dries, N. and De Gieter, S. (2014), “Information asymmetry in
high potential programs a potential
risk for psychological contract breach”, Personnel Review, Vol.
43 No. 1, pp. 136-162.
Enders, J., De Boer, H.F., File, J., Jongbloed, B. and
Westerheijden, D.F. (2011), “Reform of higher
education in Europe”, in Enders, J., De Boer, H.F. and
Westerheijden, D.F. (Eds), Reform of

Higher Education In Europe, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp.
1-10.
Festing, M. and Schäfer, L. (2014), “Generational challenges to
talent management: a framework
for talent retention based on the psychological-contract
perspective”, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 262-271.
Florida, R. (1999), “The role of the university: leveraging
talent, not technology”, Issues in Science
and Technology, Vol. 15, pp. 67-73.
Fruytier, B. and Timmerhuis, V. (1995), Mensen in onderzoek.
het mobiliseren van human
resources In wetenschapsorganisaties, Van Gorcum, Assen.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Nijs, S., Dries, N. and Gallo, P. (2015),
“Towards an understanding of talent
management as a phenomenon-driven field using bibliometric
and content analysis”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 264-
279.
Gilliot, D., Overlaet, B. and Verdin, P. (2002), “Managing
academic personnel flow at universities”,
Tertiary Education and Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 277-295.
Greenwood, M.R. (2002), “Ethics and HRM: a review and
conceptual analysis”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 261-278.
Groves, K.S. (2011), “Talent management best practices: how
exemplary health care organizations
create value in a down economy’”, Health Care Management
Review, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 227-240.

Guest, D.E. (2007), “HRM and the worker: towards a new
psychological contract?”, The Oxford
Handbook of Human Resource Management, pp. 128-146.
Höglund, M. (2012), “Quid pro quo? Examining talent
management through the lens of
psychological contracts”, Personnel Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp.
126-142.
Iles, P., Preece, D. and Chuai, X. (2010), “Talent management
as a management fashion in HRD:
Towards a research agenda”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 125-145.
Legge, K. (2005), Human Resource Management: Rhetorics And
Realities, Anniversary ed.,
Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke.
Lewis, R.E. and Heckman, R.J. (2006), “Talent management: a
critical review”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 139-154.
Meyers, M.C. and van Woerkom, M. (2013), “The influence of
underlying philosophies on talent
management: theory, implications for practice, and research
agenda”, Journal of World
Nijs, S., Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N. and Sels, L. (2013),
“A multidisciplinary review into the
definition, operationalization, and measurement of talent”,
Journal of World Business,
Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 180-191.

Paauwe, J. (2004), HRM and Performance: Achieving Long-
Term Viability, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Paauwe, J. and Boselie, J.P.E.F. (2003), “Challenging
‘strategic’ human resource management and
the relevance of the institutional setting”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 56-70.
Paauwe, J., Boon, C., Boselie, P. and Den Hartog, D. (2013),
“Reconceptualizing fit in strategic
human resource management: ‘lost in translation?’ ”, in Paauwe,
J., Guest, D. and Wright, P.
(Eds), HRM and Performance. Achievements and Challenges,
Wiley, Chichester, pp. 61-78.
71
Exploration
of talent
management
in practice
Scullion, H., Collings, D.G. and Caligiuri, P. (2010), “Global
talent management”, Journal of World
Sikora, D.M. and Ferris, G.R. (2014), “Strategic human
resource practice implementation: the critical
role of line management”, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 271-281.

Smeenk, S. (2007), “Professionalism versus managerialism? A
study on HRM practices, antecedents,
organizational commitment, and quality of job performances
among university employees in
Europe”, PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen,
Nijmegen.
Stahl, G.K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S.S., Paauwe,
J., Stiles, P., Trevor, J. and Wright, P.M.
(2012), “Six Principles of effective global talent management”,
MIT Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 24-32.
Suchman, M. (1995), “Managing legitimacy: strategic and
institutional approaches”,
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 571-
610.
Tansley, C. (2011), “What do we mean by the term ‘Talent’ in
talent management?”, Industrial and
Commercial Training, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 266-274.
Thunnissen, M., Boselie, P. and Fruytier, B. (2013), “ ‘Talent
management and the relevance of
context: towards a pluralistic approach”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 326-336.
Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P. and
Stiles, P. (1997), “Soft and hard models
of human resources management: a reappraisal”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 53-73.
Tsui, A. and Wang, D. (2002), “Employment relationships from
the employer’s perspective:

current research and future directions”, International Review of
Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 17, pp. 77-114.
Wright, P. and Nishii, L. (2013), “Strategic HRM and
organizational behaviour: integrating
multiple levels of Analysis”, in Paauwe, J., Guest and Wright,
P. (Eds), HRM and
Performance. Achievements and Challenges, Wiley, Chichester,
pp. 97-110.
Further reading
Davies, B. and Davies, B. (2010), “Talent management in
academies”, International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 418-426.
Garavan, T.N., McGuire, D. and O’Donnell, D. (2004),
“Exploring human resource development:
a levels of analysis approach”, Human Resource Development
Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 417-441.
Guest, D.E. and Bos-Nehles, A.C. (2013), “HRM and
performance: the role of effective
implementation”, in Guest, D.E., Paauwe, J. and Wright, P.
(Eds), HRM and Performance:
Achievements and Challenges, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp.
79-96.
About the author
Dr Marian Thunnissen (PhD) has 20 years of experience as a
Researcher and a Consultant
in the field of Human Resource Management (HRM). Since
2008 she is a Lecturer at the HU
University of Applied Sciences Utrecht (The Netherlands). Her
teaching and research concentrate

on issues like talent management, employability and HRM in
public organizations. Marian
Thunnissen wants to make a positive contribution to the
knowledge transfer between scholars
and practitioners in these academic fields. Dr Marian
Thunnissen can be contacted at:
[email protected]
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: [email protected]
72
ER
38,1
mailto:[email protected]
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

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2004, 53.docx

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2004, 53.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2004, 53.docx

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

More from festockton

More from festockton (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2004, 53.docx