ESTRUCTURA CASE

The existing literature on TM indicates that the concepts of talent and TM still lack a unified definition and theoretical development (Collings and Mellahi 2013;

Sparrow et al. 2014; Collings et al. 2015; Cascio and Boudreau 2016).

Furthermore, in order to implement an effective TM system within an organisation, it is first critical that the meaning of talent and TM are properly understood as this will influence how TM systems are formed. Accordingly, this section highlights the predominant definitions of talent and TM developed by scholars such as (Collings and Mellahi 2009; Meyers et al. 2013). One example of these definitions is the suggestion by Meyers et al. (2013) that the meaning of talent is dependent on three main dimensions: talent as innate (nature); talent as mostly acquired; or an interaction of both, innate and acquired.

Table 3.1: the Different Definitions of Talent

Talent Theme

“The product of nature-nurture interactions, talent identification benefits from the assessment of factors that reflect the ability to learn - and, specifically, the ability to learn the things that are important for a job task - whereas talent development can be further enhanced by influencing personal and environmental catalyst” (Meyers et al. 2013: p.318).

Innate-Acquired

“Regularly demonstrate exceptional ability and achievement either over a range of activities and situations, or within a specialized and narrow field of expertise” Williams (2000: p.35)

Exceptional ability

“…managerial talent is some combination of a sharp strategic mind, leadership ability, emotional maturity, communications skills, the ability to attract and inspire other talented people, entrepreneurial instincts, functional skills, and the ability to deliver results” (Michaels et al. 2001: p.xiii)

Collective abilities

Talent as Innate (nature)

Talent is defined as “innate” when an individual is considered to possess “a natural ability to be good at something, especially without being taught” (Meyers et al. 2013: p.306). In other words, this would be where an individual is born with unique or exceptional abilities that have not been taught or developed and which lead to a superior level of performance. Often referred to as “gifted” or “talented”, this perspective of talent being innate is commonly associated with musical and mathematical ability, as well as high-level sporting endurance. The majority of HR scholars and practitioners (Williams 2000; Michaels et al. 2001; Tansley 2011) believe that talent is at least innate to some extent when there is a unique mix of collective abilities, such as being able to provide innovative solutions to problems, and also the personal skills that make an individual effective in relationships with peers, subordinates and managers. This is underpinned by the assumption that talented individuals achieve superior performance that helps firms to achieve competitive advantage (Collings and Mellahi 2013). Thus, in respect of performance, the literature supports the idea that only a small subset of employees are capable of achieving what is considered an “excellent” level of performance, which means that talented employees may learn faster than their peers who lack this innate ability. This approach would suggest that nurture (e.g.

practising or learning) may not actually play a major role in the formation of talent, but rather that innate factors are the driving influence (Guest 2004).

Furthermore, talent as a natural ability (innate) has important implications for how talent can or cannot be managed. Buckingham and Vosburgh (2001) stress that, whilst skills and knowledge are easy to teach and learn, the talent of an individual pertains to characteristics that are much more stable and unique and therefore talent may be difficult to acquire through development or training. The difficulty in sourcing talented individuals through training and development could result in a scarcity of talent and a difficulty in retaining these individuals, which in turn leads to global competition for these talented employees (Meyers and van Woerkom 2014). According to Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2013), this perception of talent as an innate ability implies that organisations will adopt an exclusive TM practice and that these practices will focus primarily on the identification and recruitment of these talented individuals. This will be further discussed in the coming section.

However, there is ongoing debate as to whether talent should be defined as innate or whether these same abilities could be acquired through learning and development processes within a workplace environment. For example, Howe et al. (1998) demonstrates that the more a person trains and practises a given skill-set, the higher that individual’s level of performance. These correlations could indicate that individuals who are successful in, and committed to, a field of expertise are likely to spend more time practising than those who are less successful. According to Howe and Sloboda (1991), highly successful young musicians admitted that, without a strong commitment to practice, the same extent of their excellent progress would never have been achieved. Thus the significance of practising a given ability in order to achieve a level considered as

“talented” has led to further debate and confusion as to whether talent is innate or can be acquired through learning opportunities.

Given the importance of continual practice and the studies that indicate that individual talent stems from innate ability, several HR scholars (Buckingham 2005; Yost and Chang 2009) argue that talent can be also viewed as acquired, which means that every person possesses unique abilities and skill-sets that can be acquired through further development and training. As a result, Meyers et al.

(2013) suggest that talent can be conceptualised as “acquired”.

Talent as Acquired (nurture)

The conceptualisation of talent as being “acquired” suggests that learning, continual practice and experience from a young age are the main determinants of talent and are ultimately the factors that lead to a superior level of performance (Howe et al. 1998). For instance, some scholars (de Bruin et al. 2008) argue that deliberate practice of a given skill is a major factor in improving an individual’s performance, whereas other research found that experience, and especially early experience, of developing a given skill plays a significant role in achieving these high-level results. For example, in the literature on leadership, Arvey et al. (2006) found that 30% of leadership capabilities were explained by innate factors, while 70% of these capabilities could be linked back to prior experience and training.

The results of this study indicated that the meaning of talent is very much related to environmental factors, considered as “nurture” rather than the innate abilities

often referred to as “nature”. These findings also explain that the meaning of talent can encompass both innate and nurture-driven factors that collectively enable an individual to deliver outstanding results. Furthermore, Trait theory stipulates that the traits of a given individual underpin and shape his/her leadership qualities which are perceived as either innate or developed (Kirkpatrick and Locke 1991). However, such a stance has been criticised for focusing on the key elements of a person’s character that may be responsible for encouraging leadership qualities (Avolio and Gardner 2005). Given this ambiguity in the roles played by these innate and environmental factors, this has led to the third tension in defining talent which is that talent can be an interaction of both innate and acquired capabilities (Meyers et al. 2013).

Talent as Innate and Acquired

The notion that talent can be driven by innate factors, as well as nurture-driven factors, has built on arguments within the literature on talented and gifted qualities (Gagné 2004). Under this concept of talent, innate factors are unable to lead to a superior performance without the interaction of nurture-driven factors within an individual’s surrounding environment (e.g. training and development). In his framework (DMGT: Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent), Gagné (2004) specifies that talent is constructed through the enhancement of innate gifts through learning and training. For example, this would imply that an individual who possesses innate qualities capable of enhancing musical ability cannot be successful if he/she does not commit to the learning and practice of musical instruments. This suggests that talent can be interpreted as being formed by two main elements: innate and acquired. However, there is still much difference among scholars in the extent of the importance ascribed to either one component or the other (Walker et al. 2010). On talent as a result of innate-nurture, Meyers et al. say: “… the product of nature-nurture interactions, talent identification benefits from the assessment of factors that reflect the ability to learn – and, specifically, the ability to learn the things that are important for a job task – whereas talent development can be further enhanced by (an) influencing personal and environmental catalyst…” (2013: p.318).

Furthermore, Collings and Mellahi (2013) expand these different meanings of talent (innate vs. acquired) and argue that the key focus for organisations should be on maximising value creation by calibrating the level of talent required by the organisation and ensuring that these talents are deployed in strategic positions.

They say that the meaning of talent should be translated into performance within an organisational context, highlighting the role of this context and its implications on the performance of talented individuals. However, they also suggest that the advantages of allocating talent can be wasted if fostered within an inappropriate context for talent development or within a context with unique cultural-social factors capable of hindering as well as promoting talent. Because of this, a number of TM scholars (Collings and Mellahi 2013; Gallardo-Gallardo et al. 2013;

Meyers and van Woerkom 2014; Nijs et al. 2014) highlight the importance of approaching a specific context (e.g. environment, type of industry or occupation) when understanding how talent is defined in terms of organisational performance.

This, in turn, has implications for how these TM practices should be designed and implemented and requires further empirical research. In other words, the perception of talent as innate within an employee implies that an exclusive approach to TM practice will be adopted, one that focuses on identification and recruitment of talented employees. In contrast, however, if talent is perceived as acquired by an organisation, an inclusive approach will be implemented and the practices of an organisation will, in turn, focus on development, training and selection (Meyers et al. 2013).

Tansley (2011) found that, within groups speaking European languages such as English, German and French, talent is perceived as innate, whereas in groups that speak languages such as Japanese, talent is often considered as the product of the experience of hard work and a striving for perfection. This would suggest that the culture of a given group does influence how the meaning of talent is perceived. Moreover, Dries et al. (2014) argue that talent may, as a result, be influenced by factors such as a decision-maker’s culture and personal beliefs.

Dries et al. (2014) conducted a qualitative, cross-cultural study in order to understand how talent was perceived by organisational decision-makers (e.g. HR directors, CEOs and line managers) from subsidiaries of the same corporation in different cultures. The qualitative analyses revealed that there is, in fact, a difference among cultural clusters (Anglo, Eastern European, Germanic, Latin

addition, respondents from the Anglo cluster (e.g. the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand) appeared to associate the meaning of talent with exceptional nature and adopted a more instrumental approach when identifying performance and potential. Respondents from an Eastern European culture, meanwhile, appeared to place more emphasis on effort and hard work. Furthermore, Germanic cultures associated talent with innate and gifted abilities that led to an excellent level of performance. Respondents from Latin European groups, however, associated talent with attributes such as innovation, creativity and learning, while respondents from Latin America stressed that the call and vocation of an individual was what led to career success.

Overall, the results from the quantitative analysis show minimal difference between clusters in terms of how talent is defined. But, on average, more than 50% of respondents from each cluster perceived talent as something that could be developed. Furthermore, respondents from Anglo and Germanic groups displayed a significantly higher tendency to believe that potential talent exists in every individual, when compared with respondents from the Latin American and Latin European clusters. At the same time, exclusivity within an organisation’s approach to TM was found to be less common within the Germanic cluster.

However, there were several significant differences in the findings from the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Here it was found that the Anglo and Germanic clusters were those in which the majority of HR directors were found to associate talent with excellence and exceptional performance. Additionally, these two clusters from this quantitative analysis demonstrated a perception that

“talent is innate in everybody”. This could indicate that using exceptional performance as a criterion for talent identification means that it will be not only a very small group of the workforce that is considered talented.

In describing these perceptions, Dries et al. (2014) explain the differences in two ways. First they demonstrate that Anglo and Germanic countries engage more in top-performance grading, for example by hiring only the best performers for the job within an organisation. This could suggest that talent is perceived as exceptional but not necessarily as mutually exclusive. One the other hand, the second explanation is that the Anglo and Germanic clusters may have more multidimensional conceptions of talent. However, it should also be considered that these claims are built on prior assumptions of these authors, which indicates

that further research will be critical to substantiate these claims (Dries et al. 2014).

Although this study has provided some evidence of how culture influences the meaning of talent, it is still unable to provide a clear explanation of how and why talent is defined in a particular way within these different cultural clusters. This is a result of ambiguities in the findings and differences between the qualitative and quantitative results. The study also fails to consider how culture and different institutional factors may impact on talent management at the institutional, national, organisational and individual levels. Accordingly, further research is necessary to examine and explore the effects of culture and institutional or social values, as well as beliefs regarding the strategy of TM and how it is implemented.

Furthermore, within the Dutch context, Thunnissen and Arensbergen (2015) found that talent is perceived as a set of multiple components of outstanding abilities, as both interpersonal characteristics and excellent performance.

However, this empirical analysis also found that the organisational context and the different actors involved in TM significantly affect how talent is conceptualised. Given the importance of these different actors, Thunnissen and Arensbergen (2015) argue that the interpretation of talent depends on the position, responsibilities and work experience of the actors involved in TM. Also, these findings claim that talent needs to be regarded as a whole set of outstanding abilities, interpersonal characteristics, excellent performance and environmental influences to correspond to the complexity of organisations. Here, Thunnissen and Arensbergen (2015) suggest that, in order to capture talent precisely, a pluralist, multi-stakeholder approach is needed. Moreover, this claim can be linked with previous arguments – in order to understand and formulate explicit definitions of talent, researchers should draw upon traditional business frameworks which would also provide an understanding of organisational leaders and human-resource (HR) leaders in their mental modeling of how talent should be implemented.

One example of where understanding this mental approach to talent is important would be where organisational leaders often view TM as necessary only for elite and high-potential personnel, which as an attitude invariably leads to the exclusion of other groups of employees. In addition to this, it is also suggested that HR leaders should develop programmes aimed at developing all employees in an organisation rather than favouring a specific group (Boudreau 2013).

This lack of consistent definition of talent within the workplace also appears to be the reason why there are different ways of interpreting TM when practised within an organisation. For example, this could mean interpreting TM as: a new term for common HR practices; a succession of planning practices; a description of the focus on strategic, core jobs that are critical to creating competitive advantage;

or, more generically, a way of managing talented employees (Lewis and Heckman 2006; Collings and Mellahi 2009; Tarique and Schuler 2010; Vaiman et al. 2012).

Table3.2: Common Themes of TM

No. Definition Source and themes

1 “A collection of typical human resource department practices, functions, activities or specialist areas such as recruiting, selection and succession planning”

attract, develop and retain individuals with high levels of human capital (e.g., competency, personality and motivation) consistent with the strategic directions of the multinational enterprise in a dynamic, highly competitive and global environment”

6 “the systematic identification of key positions which differentially contribute to the organization’s sustained competitive advantage (SCA), 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 positions with competent incumbents and ensure their continued commitment to the organization”

(Collings and Mellahi, 2009, p.304)

Segmentation (positions and people)

As shown in Table 3.2, TM has been dominated by several common themes and by a variety of different perspectives. In the first category, TM is referred to as a set of HR activities. Within this view, TM is nothing more than a re-labelling of HR practices. Similarly, another theme considers TM a method of HR planning, with Keslar (2002) and Pascal (2004) arguing that TM should focus on the adequate supply of the right people in the right positions (Keslar and Pascal 2004, cited

inLewis and Heckman 2006). However, Lewis and Heckman (2006) claim that all of these themes developed by various authors around the management of talent are simply the rebranding of existing HR practices and that they do not advance the theory of HR. At a wider contextual level, TM is mainly articulated as developing strategic plans and goals by identifying any gaps in talent through the assessment of gaps in required skills, by encompassing succession planning and by recruiting, selecting, educating, motivating and retaining talented employees through a variety of initiatives (Whelan and Carcary 2011: p.676). Furthermore, it is widely acknowledged that the knowledge, skills and competences of employees need to be maximised and recognised as a distinctive source of competitive advantage (Lewis and Heckman 2006; Collings and Mellahi 2009).

Lewis and Heckman (2006) define TM as a process structured into three distinct phases, as follows.

The first phase combines TM and corporate strategy in order to gain sustained competitive advantage (SCA). The second phase then focuses on the talent-pool strategy, which means that employees are then divided into different groups (segmentation). Lastly, the third phase emphasises the system of TM and its practices, outlining how practices should be implemented within the context of each of these different talent pools. Moreover, this definition can be linked to the third theme which defines TM as dealing with high potential and critical positions.

Also, CIPD (2007) notes that TM should emphasise the types of high-potential people likely to lead an organisation towards achieving its sustained competitive advantage (SCA). Jones et al. (2012) identify that senior managers and human-resource managers define TM as “the identification, attraction, development and retention of a segment (high quality/high potential) of their workforce…” (p.408).

Within the definition constructed by Collings and Mellahi (2009), TM is based on the recognition of role differentiation within organisations, emphasising the importance of strategic jobs over non-strategic positions. The second part of their definition then focuses on the development of a talent pool of high-potential and high-performing employees. Under this approach, Collings and Mellahi (2009) believe that certain critical positions should be filled by talented individuals who

Within the definition constructed by Collings and Mellahi (2009), TM is based on the recognition of role differentiation within organisations, emphasising the importance of strategic jobs over non-strategic positions. The second part of their definition then focuses on the development of a talent pool of high-potential and high-performing employees. Under this approach, Collings and Mellahi (2009) believe that certain critical positions should be filled by talented individuals who