LITERATURE REVIEW: CONCEPTS
2.3 Talent Management: Definitional Difficulties
The fourth category conceptualizes talent as a set of experience and learned behaviour. Hinrichs (1966) maintained that a vastly talented individual holds certain skills that are built on knowledge and insights gained via formal education and prior experiences. Supporting this view, Pfeffer and Sutton (2006) stated that in spite of all the myths, talent is not preset but depends on an individual‘s motivation and experience. Also, Gonzalez-Cruz et al. (2009: 22 quoted in Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013), indicated that talent is ―a set of competencies that when developed and applied, allow a person to perform a certain role excellently.‖
The last set of definitions of talent looks at the concept as commitment on the part of an individual. Jericó (2001 quoted in Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013), indicated that talent depends on three basic ingredients: commitment, capacities, and actions.
Subscribing to this, Ulrich (2007) stated that talent ―equals competence times commitment times contribution‖ [talent = commitment × competence × contribution].
Ulrich believes that talent is necessary but not sufficient and that it is always important for talented people to be committed in order to get the best out of them. In a similar way, Cubeiro (2008 quoted in Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013) conceptualised talent as ―capability multiplied by commitment in a certain context.‖ In this way talent is not only seen as an individual‘s competency but also as commitment to the organisation (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013).
From the above definitions and discussions, talent for the purpose of this dissertation is defined as the ―learned and innate ability, capabilities, skills, knowledge and experiences possessed by individuals in a firm that are committed and willing to apply these to the performance of their firms now and in the future.‖
Mensah, 2015). This interest is caused by the belief and evidence that TM has the potential to deliver superior results, to motivate and retain talented employees and is a tool for competitive advantage (Heinen and O‘Neill, 2004; Stuart-Kotze and Dunn, 2008; Jackson, Schuler and Werner, 2009; Sadler, 2009; Groves, 2011; Elegbe, 2010;
Bethke-Langenegger et al., 2011). As a result, most organisations are formulating and implementing TM strategies while a number of consulting firms are engaging in the design and formulation of TM systems for organisations.
With this popularity, one might think that TM has a well and generally-agreed definition. However, this is not the case. Indeed, one of the more unfortunate characteristics of the TM literature is its tendency to fall off into rather vague rhetoric.
For instance, Ashton and Morton (2005: 28) proclaim that ―good TM is of strategic importance,‖ although they fail to provide ―a single concise definition‖ of TM. In fact, ever since Lewis and Heckman (2006: 139) declared a complete lack of clarity concerning the definition, scope, and overall goals of TM, it appears that little has changed despite the exponential growth in TM research, leading to a recent comment by Cappelli and Keller (2014: 306) that TM has escaped a standard definition.
The chartered institute of personnel and development (CIPD) (2006) found that while 51 percent of organizations surveyed in the UK engaged in some form of TM, about 20 percent of these organisations are working with a formal definition of TM. This raises the question of how TM can be used to the strategic benefit of organizations when they cannot even define it. As a result, TM runs the risk of being merely a management ―fad‖ or ―fashion‖ in that organisations run along with it because their competitors are doing so. Just like talent, a number of definitions have been surveyed from the literature about TM and some of them are listed in table 2.2 for thorough discussion.
The varying definitions provided give an indication that it seems impossible to arrive at a universal definition of TM. This is not a surprise because Tansley (2011) has declared that a universal definition of talent is needed for TM, which appears to be non-existent. However, the difficulty in defining the concept also lies in the diverse perception of practitioners as well as researchers. Some authors argue that the term can be referred to as whatever a writer or a business manager wants it to mean because everyone has a different understanding of what the term means or does not means (Ulrich, 2011; Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013: 2). This has been clearly shown
in the academic (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013: 2) and HR practitioner (Tansley et al., 2007; Tansley, 2011) literature, where even the definitions are extremely prejudiced by the kind of business or work-related field.
According to the CIPD (2006), a survey conducted by Towers Perrin found that the studied companies did not use the same definition and that the definitions were highly influenced by the organisation‘s business strategy, the industry type, the competitive environment, and several other factors. It can be realised that most of the definitions of TM see the concept as part of organisational HRM strategy (Adamsky, 2003; Lewis and Heckman, 2006; Warren, 2006; Cappelli, 2008). Others on the other hand perceive TM as a ―mindset,‖ which is the organisational culture and includes every aspect of the organisation (Creelman, 2004; Chuai et al., 2008).
Also, several authors see TM as totally different from HRM and that the difference concerns the segmentation and differentiation of talented employees from the rest of the workforce (Boudreau and Ramstad, 2005; Huselid, Beatty and Becker, 2005; Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Minbaeva and Collings, 2013). Thus, whereas HRM is concerned with the whole workforce, the concern of TM is that of talented and employees with high potential that make significant contribution to the performance of the firm.
Table 2.2 Summary of Selected Definitions of Talent Management
Source Definition Gelens
et al.
(2013)
―TM is the differential management of employees according to their relative potential to contribute to an organization's competitive advantage‖ (p. 342)
Joshi and Agarwal (2011)
TM is about the process of development and integration of new workers, developing and retaining current workers, and attracting highly-skilled workers for a company.
Davies and Davies (2010)
TM is the systematic attraction, identification, development, engagement/retention and deployment of those individuals with high potential that are of particular value to the organisation.
Table 2.2 (Continued)
Source Definition Silzer and
Dowell (2010: 18)
―TM is an integrated set of processes, programs, and cultural norms in an organisation designed and implemented to attract, develop, deploy, and retain talent to achieve strategic objectives and meet future business needs‖
Armstrong (2010)
―TM is the use of an integrated set of activities to ensure that organisations attracts, retains, motivates and develops the talented people it needs now and in the future‖ (p. 390)
Avedon and Scholes (2010)
―TM is the an integrated set of processes and procedures used in an organisation to attract, onboard, retain, develop and move talent, as well as to exist talent, to achieve strategic objectives‖
Avedon et al. (2010)
―TM is attracting, retaining and developing the right people with the right skills in the right roles‖
Cappelli (2008)
―TM is simply a matter of anticipating the need for human capital and setting out a plan to meet it‖ (p. 1)
CIPD (2007)
―TM is the systematic attraction, identification, development, engagement/ retention and deployment of those individuals with high potential who are of particular value to an organisation‖ (p. 3)
Lockwood (2006)
―TM is the implementation of integrated strategies or systems designed to increase workplace productivity by developing improved processes for attracting, developing, retaining and utilizing people with the required skills and aptitude to meet current and future business needs.‖
Warren (2006)
―In its broadest sense, the term can be seen as the identification, development, engagement, retention and deployment of talent, although it is often used more narrowly to describe the short and longer-term resourcing of senior executives and high performers‖ (p.
26) Wellins
et al.
(2006)
―TM is the recruitment, development, promotion and retention of people, planned and executed in line with your organisation‘s current and future business goals‖ (p. 2)
Table 2.2 (Continued)
Source Definition Duttagupta
(2005)
―In the broadest possible terms, TM is the strategic management of the flow of talent through an organisation. Its purpose is to assure that a supply of talent is available to align the right people with the right jobs at the right time based on strategic business objectives‖ (p. 2)
Pascal (2004)
―TM encompasses managing the supply, demand, and flow of talent through the human capital engine‖ (p. 9).
Sloan et al. (2003)
―managing leadership talent strategically, to put the right person in the right place at the right time‖ (p. 236).
In recent times, the focus of TM has shifted from individuals to the strategic and pivotal positions that drive the performance of the organisation. In this way, Collings and Mellahi (2009: 311) define TM as follows:
activities and processes that involve the systematic identification of key positions which differentially contribute to the organisation‘s sustainable competitive advantage, the development of a talent pool of high potential and high performing incumbents to fill these roles, and the development of a differentiated human resource architecture to facilitate filling these positions with competent incumbents and to ensure their continued commitment to the organisation.
A number of researchers (Boudreau and Ramstad, 2005; Huselid et al., 2005;
Minbaeva and Collings, 2013) appear to agree with the view that the focus of TM should be shifted from individuals to strategic positions. Hence, they advocate for the identification of key, strategic, and ―A positions‖ which have the potential to differentially impact sustainable competitive advantage (Boudreau and Ramstad, 2005; Huselid et al., 2005; Collings and Mellahi, 2009). Strategic, pivotal, and ―A‖
positions are defined in terms of their potential outputs or their disproportionate contribution to the strategic intent of the organisation and the wide variability in the
quality of work displayed among the employees in these positions (Boudreau and Ramstad, 2005; Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Minbaeva and Collings, 2013).
According to Boudreau and Ramstad (2005), the connotation of this paradigm shift is the importance of identifying ―high impact‖ or ―pivotal‖ positions where variations in the quality and quantity of talent have the biggest effect on the processes and resources that most affect sustainable strategic success. In this way, TM can be seen as the attraction, development, and retaining of talented individuals that have the potential to fill key positions. Boudreau and Ramstad (2005) caution that strategic and key positions are not limited to top management but include different levels in the hierarchy among functional and operational units.
The key to understanding strategic positions is to take into consideration the contribution of the position to the realisation of the strategic objectives of the firm. In other words, what may be considered a strategic position in one organisation may not be in another. Also, key and strategic positions are not static and keep changing and evolving over time, as the business environment itself is constantly changing in response to customers and competition. This brings to mind the contingency nature of TM and that the context should which position is strategic.
From the above it can be seen that there is little agreement on the meaning of TM. Because of these controversies some researchers and professionals prefer to remain silent on the definition of TM in the conduct of TM research (Sharma and Bhatnagar, 2009; Lopes, Sarraquca, Lopes and Duarte, 2015). Some (Tulgan, 2001;
Frank and Taylor, 2004) have argued that there is little point in trying to define TM as in most cases management know their valued employees. While this controversy has compelled some researchers and professionals to stay quiet on the meaning of TM, these sorts of studies may hardly contribute to the understanding of the term. Again, the results of these studies may have little usefulness with respect to the sample from which research data were collected. One way of unravelling the difficulties inherent in defining TM, perhaps, is to examine the definitions, and their strengths and limitations. A meticulous assessment of the literature discloses five streams of definitions of TM.
The first set of definitions tends to substitute TM for HRM (Adamsky, 2003;
Lewis and Heckman, 2006; Warren, 2006; Cappelli, 2008). For instance, Cappelli
(2008) argued that a lot of the main ideas propagated by TM specialists such as assessment centres, succession planning, and 360 degree feedback are not new but HRM ideas. The argument is that in practice, TM does not have a different meaning from what HRM has been doing. Lewis and Heckman (2006) claim that TM may be a relabeling or rebranding exercise, replacing the word ―people‖ by the word ―talent,‖
which seeks to improve HR‘s trustworthiness or significance or to demonstrate its
―fashionability‖ and that helps smart organisations to re-examine what they were doing previously (Warren, 2006). These definitions are limited to certain HR practices such as leadership development, recruitment, succession planning, competency, and the like (Collings and Mellahi, 2009).
However, defining TM with respect to the traditional functions of HRM appears to add nothing new to our understanding of how to manage talented employees strategically. Again, such definitions tend to overlap with well-established and researched concepts such as leadership development, recruitment, succession planning, competency or career management. The second stream of definitions stresses the development of talent pools. Such definitions focus on employee needs for the organisation and managing their progression through various positions in the organisation (Lewis and Heckman, 2006). A typical definition was giving by Capelli (2008:1) as follows: ―TM is simply a matter of anticipating the need for human capital and setting out a plan to meet it.‖ While the second set of definitions provides a degree of differentiation between TM and HRM, they are relatively narrow and usually build on past research in the manpower or succession planning literature (Collings and Mellahi, 2009).
The third category of definitions advocate for the filling of all positions with
―A performers and releasing ―C players‖ or low performers from the organisation (Michaels et al., 2001). While every organisation would wish to fill all roles with ―A performers,‖ it is neither popular nor practical to fill all positions with such individuals (Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Minbaeva and Collings, 2013). In fact, filling all positions with ―A performers‖ will lead to over investment in non-pivotal roles (Huselid et al., 2005; Boudreau and Ramstad, 2007; Collings and Mellahi, 2009;
Minbaeva and Collings, 2013). Therefore, these categories of definitions have been criticized for their neglect of segmentation, differentiation, and strategic positioning,
which are the differentiating factors between TM and HRM (Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Silzer and Church, 2010; Minbaeva and Collings, 2013).
A fourth category related to the third involves the management of talented people. Such definitions emphasises the management of high performers, which is variously referred to as ―A performers,‖ ―high flyers‖ or ―topgrading‖ (Stahl et al., 2007). Some definitions in this category advocate filling all organisational roles with
―A performers‖ (Smart, 1999). The difficulty in this stream of definitions is the overemphasis on ―A performers.‖ This may run the risk of discouraging teamwork and collaboration since it places individual performance over group performance (Mellahi and Collings, 2010). The final category of definitions emphasises the identification of strategic positions which have the potential to differentially impact the competitive advantage of the firm (Boudreau and Ramstad, 2005; Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013; Minbaeva and Collings, 2013).
These definitions not only recognise the importance of workforce segmentation and differentiating in terms of people, but also positions. As a result, the starting point according to Collings and Mellahi (2009) is the identification of strategic positions rather than talented individuals per se. Whereas this category of definitions appears to end the controversy surrounding the definition of TM, it seems to be disconnected from the business strategy that calls for the implementation of TM strategy (McDonnell, 2011). This is what McDonnell (2011: 170) called the ―business case for talent.‖ It also appears to focus on filling key and strategic positions with high-performing incumbents. Therefore there was a need to redefine TM for this study and the next section explains the proposed definition.