LITERATURE REVIEW: CONCEPTS
2.7 Talent Management: HRM or Not
subscribers will only assess talents according to their output, performance, achievements, and results. In other words, whatever approach one subscribes to determines how employees are recruited, treated, and managed. Table 2.4 presents a summary of the various perspectives of TM.
such as selection, training, and appraisal. Iles, Preece, and Chuai (2010) have argued that TM is not fundamentally different from HRM in that it is an integrated HRM with a selective focus.
One the other hand, there are several authors that have a different view and believe that TM is totally different from HRM/D and for that matter cannot be merely a management ―fad‖ or ―fashion‖ (Duttagupta, 2005; Moran, 2005; CIPD, 2007;
Chuai, Preece and Iles, 2008; Minbaeva and Collings, 2013). Thus, while TM is often used interchangeably with HRM, they are different. From this perspective, Moran (2005) strongly argued that TM is not a fashionable HRM term or management ―fad‖.
In the view of Duttagupta (2005: 2) TM is more than an HRM process and the talent mindset is not another HRM ―fad.‖ According to Blass, Knights, and Orbea (2006), TM as an activity is narrower than HRM in that it falls within the umbrella of HRM.
Blass et al. (2006) noted that TM is different from HRM. It is a broad approach to recruiting, selection, developing, and retaining talent within an organisation for its present and future benefits and goes beyond to include strategy, organisational culture, and change management. Therefore the objectives and goals of TM are beyond the general and traditional HRM functions that apply to all employees (Blass et al., 2006). Not only is TM tactical in scope but is also incorporated with the general organisational strategy and goals. Workforce segmentation and differentiation are generally seen as the key differentiating principles between TM and HRM (Boudreau and Ramstad, 2005; Chuai et al., 2008; Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Gelens et al., 2013; Minbaeva and Collings, 2013) and they are essential to TM (Berger and Berger, 2004; Ledford and Kochanski, 2004).
In fact Gelens et al. (2013) stated that there seems to be opposition to segmenting employees on the basis of talent and the strategic significance of their jobs. This opposition is based on the view that all employees possess talent and that all jobs are uniformly significant. However, if this were true, one could argue that all employees should be given the same amount of salary, which appears not to be the case in any organisation. The reality is that there appears to be some jobs that are considered more important than others in all organisations, which is mostly signalled through higher perceived salary and status (Gelens et al., 2013). However, this may not be true in some organisations, especially in the public sector where position and salary are mostly based on long service.
In HRM and HRD practices, one finds rewards, selection and recruitment, training and development, job/work design, appraisal, job security and performance management (Townley, 1991). TM practices also appear to feature HRM/D practices as a part of talent strategies (Lewis and Heckman, 2006; Silzer and Church, 2010).
However, the critical distinction between TM and HRM is the segmentation, differentiation, and strategic positioning of talented employees that drive the performance of other employees and the organisation (Boudreau and Ramstad, 2005;
Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Silzer and Church, 2010; Minbaeva and Collings, 2013).
This is based on the fact that HRM practices signify investments in human capital but failure to differentiate between employees will lead to over investment in non-pivotal positions or roles (Huselid et al., 2005; Boudreau and Ramstad, 2007; Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Minbaeva and Collings, 2013).
As noted by Collings and Mellahi (2009), TM is fundamentally about developing high-potential incumbents to fill the roles that differentially contribute to a firm‘s sustainable competitive advantage. They added that firms should differentiate between employees based on performance. Strategic or pivotal positions have a fundamental impact on the firm‘s performance if they are filled with high-performing or high-potential employees (Huselid et al., 2005; Collings and Mellahi, 2009).
Hence, TM is essentially about employee differentiation, as it is not realistic or possible to fill all positions with ―A‖ performers and this makes the hub of TM different from that of HRM (Huselid et al., 2005; Collings and Mellahi, 2009;
Minbaeva and Collings, 2013).
Indeed, Chugh and Bhatnagar (2006) maintained that TM guarantees that HR functions have a direct impact on the performance of the firm through the careful management of its talent pool. In other words, TM requires that the HR manager have a talent mindset (Creelman, 2004; Chuai et al., 2008) in investing in the strategic positions that drive organisational performance (Hatum, 2010). Doing this will lead to a deep conviction that better talent in strategic positions leads to better performance as opposed to the HRM notion where people are considered the most important asset (Silzer and Dowell, 2010: 22). Therefore, TM applies the basic practices of SHRM/HRM/HRD/HPWP, but the difference is the emphasis on talented employees in strategic positions. Table 2.5 presents a summary of the above discussion.
Table 2.5 Summary of Whether TM is HRM or Not
Believe Author(s) Reasons
TM is HR
Iles et al. (2010); Cappelli (2008); Stewart (2008); Barlow (2006); Lewis and Heckman (2006); Warren (2006); Adamsky (2003)
Repackaging of old ideas under a new name
─ ―old wine in new bottles‖
TM is not HR
Minbaeva and Collings (2013); Collings and Mellahi (2009); Chuaiet al. (2008); CIPD (2007); Boudreau and Ramstad (2005);
Duttagupta (2005); Huselid et al. (2005);
Moran (2005)
Strategic positioning, workforce
differentiation and segmentation is the key differentiating principle between TM and HRM Similarly, concerns have been raised as to whether GTM is the same as international human resource management (IHRM). It has been generally agreed that even though they do have some practices in common, they are different (Tarique and Schuler, 2010). Indeed, Tarique and Schuler (2010) are of the view that there are three main differences between GTM and IHRM. First, IHRM is broad and includes a large variety of stakeholders (Briscoe and Hall, 1999).These include investors, customers, employees, suppliers, society, and the organisation itself. Even though efficient GTM can improve the efficiency of MNCs, which implies an impact on the same variety of stakeholders, the generally-immediate impact of GTM is on the employees and organisation itself (Tarique and Schuler, 2010).
Second, Tarique, and Schuler (2010) argued that because IHRM has more stakeholders, its concerns and criteria are broad and go beyond attracting, developing, and retaining employees. Even though these are equally important in GTM, the focus is more on employees and organisation as stakeholders, and hence the evaluation criteria in GTM are specifically on the employee‘s morale and engagement and organisational innovation and productivity. Third, Tarique and Schuler (2010) posited that IHRM includes more HR practices and policies. Dowling, Festing, and Engle (2008) and Briscoe and Hall (1999) made the point that IHRM consists of quite a lot
of HR practices and policies such as staffing, planning, training and development, compensation, appraising, labour relations, safety and health issues, and that each of them is also made up of several issues. GTM however only focuses on HR practice and policy, including activities such as staffing, planning, appraising, training, and compensating (Collings and Mellahi, 2009).