Based on our in-depth historical review of the literature on talent management, we can
only conclude that there is a fundamental lack of consensus as to the meaning of ‘talent’
in the world of work. However, a clear framework for the conceptualization of talent
within the business realm can be established (see Figure 2.2).
Figure1. 2
Framework for the conceptualization of talent within the world of work
As we have discussed throughout this chapter, within the world of work talent is
conceptualized in two broad ways—i.e., talent as object versus talent as subject—which
can, in turn, be further subdivided. Within the object approach, talent is conceptualized
as exceptional abilities and attitudes demonstrated by an individual. It should be noted
that throughout the years talent definitions within this approach have been simplified at
the same time that behavioral components have been added. Although, outstanding
accumulation of intangible terms such as gifts, knowledge, skills, and abilities.
However, recent definitions (cf. González-Cruz et al., 2009; Ulrich, 2007; Ulrich &
Smallwood, 2012) refer to competence, since it can be argued that most of the terms
associated with talent can be subsumed under this concept(see Table 2.3). According to
Nordhaug and Gronhaug (1994) competencies as individual characteristics are labeled
as SKAs (Skills, Knowledge and ability). Talent as competence, then, could replace
talent as the sum of individual’s skills, abilities and knowledge. Moreover, it is
interesting to note that the suitability for describing talent in terms of competencies can
be endorsed by the fact that the foremost exponents of research on competencies at
work (Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer & Spencer, 1993) usually describe competence as an
underlying characteristic of a person with an effective and/or superior performance in a
job or situation. Thus, what is the added value of the talent concept above and beyond
existing concepts that have a much longer academic history and are more established (e.g. competence)? Even though some authors (Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer & Spencer, 1993) try to differentiate levels of performance among competences (threshold
competencies were basic requirements to carry out the job, whereas performance or
differentiate competencies imply above average performance), talent is supposed to lead
to a superior level of performance than a competence. According to Gagné (2004),
“competence corresponds to levels of mastery ranging from minimally acceptable to
well above average, yet below the defined threshold for ‘talented’ or ‘expert’ behavior”
(Gagné, 2004). Probably, because as we have seen before, talent also implies
commitment to do the job, i.e. willingness to work hard and give a discretionary effort
in what is doing. According to our literature review, talent cannot only be defined in
terms of competence but also by some behavioral (e.g. commitment, motivation) and
the different sub-approaches of the object approach identified in the present review (i.e.,
talent as natural ability, talent as mastery, talent as commitment, and talent as fit) are to
be seen as complementary, rather than supplementary. Commitment and fit,
specifically—no matter how high—will never be used as sole indicators of talent, but
always as complimentary to measures of ability (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2012).
Within the subject approach talent, talent is understood as people of an organization (all
the people or some of them). It is interesting to note that this approach to talent can
perfectly complement the object one. Simply put, applying the object approach to (all
or just some) people in the organization. Consequently, both approaches can coexist in
the same organization, as it really happens at present in some cases. How this can be
implemented? If the organization has an inclusive interpretation of talent as subject, by
using a universalistic perspective to competency management, HR managers or TM
managers just only need to adapt preexisting competency codebooks and standard
profiles to those at their organization. However, the effectiveness of this approach has
often been questioned due to several and practical limitations (cf. Capaldo, Iandoli &
Zollo, 2006). A situationalist perspective to competency management in which
“competencies are deeply influenced by organizational culture, social interaction and
the unique way people make sense of their jobs within organizations” (Capaldo et al.,
2006, p. 430) might be a good option in order to take into consideration the
contingencies. Nevertheless, it would generate also problems to differentiate TM from
Competency Models due to its inclusive orientation. In addition, if the organization has
an exclusive interpretation of talent as subject, and as mentioned before, TM managers
will only focus on organizational élites that are high performers and/or high potentials.
differentiation (Becker & Huselid, 2006; Becker et al., 2009), and not all strategic jobs
of an organization are going to be leadership ones. So, we argue that the principal
differentiation between TM and Succession Planning is that TM focuses on assuring the
adequate flow of employees in those strategic jobs. This will reinforce the statement
that TM is not egalitarian by nature, since it is only interested in a group of employees
where additional investments generate high additional returns.
Finally, we can also conclude that the literature on talent management, although diverse
in terms of underlying concepts, is rather normative. In fact, the assumptions underlying
the different approaches to talent discussed in this chapter are often ‘sold’ as objective
facts, even though little empirical evidence of their accuracy has been provided by
academics and/or HR practitioners to date.