strategy report

Definition of strategic talent management:

“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.”

(Collings & Mellahi, 2009, p. 304)

Practices to acquire, develop and deploy talent:

Talent identification

Talent pool Talent pipeline

Talent Management viewed as a life cycle

(Thunnissen, Boselie& Fruytier, 2012)

Genesis: “The war for talent” (McKinsey & Co, 1997)

· Demographic changes 


· Increased mobility and globalisation 


· Transformations in the business environment: 


• Shift away from product‐based economies • Complexity
• Changes in organizational structure

• Relationships

talent Management in terms of a life cycle

(Thunnissen, Boselie& Fruytier, 2012)

• Infancy

· Undefined boundary 


· Unclear scope 


• Adolescence: Themes ‐

• Definitions • Benefits
• Practices

“To be in a position to reap the benefits that talent management maturity offers,
Organisations globally,
and in emerging growth markets, should instead view
the talent experience
as a networked, customizable system individuals –
and their relationship with the organisation – at the centre

the dominant human capital topic of the 21st century (Cascio & Aguinis, 2008)

Justification for the practice of Talent Management

(Garavan, 2012)

· People, intellectual capital and talent are viewed as critical components of strategic success irrespective of competitive and economic pressures (p. 2428) 


· Enables firms to achieve competitive advantage 


· A critical capability which distinguishes successful global firms 


· Tied to the RBV of the firm – worthy of investment/competing demands
• Alignment of talent changed strategic priorities
• An increased focus on flexibility, quality, cost and innovativeness of talent 
to achieve strategy
• Use of talent to support merger and acquisition activity
• Challenges: associated with international organisational structural design 


“The reasons for this continued investment primarily focused on concerns about:

· The difficulties in attracting high potential talent 


· The challenge of retaining top performers 


· The need to have a strong leadership pipeline; 
And, most important of all 


• the concern that business growth needed to be sustained.”

(Garavan, 2012, p.2443)

Biggest risk to successful TM in MNEs: Implementation (Garavan, 2012)

· Innovation v costs 


· Partnering (co‐ordination) v cohesiveness (control) 


· Openness v compliance 


· Diverse perspectives v strategic decision‐making 


· Building brand v costs 


As a component of strategic management, not (S)HR

(Swailes, Downs & Orr, 2014)

· An exclusive practice focused on the development of a few high‐ performing/high performing employees considered strategically valuable to the organization 


· Personal and career development of a strategically valuable minority ‐ Not the entire workforce 


· Doesn’t necessary mean others in the organization are overlooked, but it can 


· May propagate a culture of competition among employees 


There are growing calls for rigorous research into the practice and “value” of TM;

for evidence to support the rhetoric

research directions which assume that TM is beneficial:

(Collings, Scullion & Vaiman, 2015)

· Global talent management (GTM) 


· Organisational & individual 


· Employee experience 


· Self‐initiated expatriates 
There is also a growing interest in research which considers talent management from alternative viewpoints 


Swailes et al. 2014: Counter-points:

· ‘Talent’ means different things across different cultures 


· ‘Talent’ not suitable to all organization types 


· The exclusive version of TM is workable, but limited 
Are these sufficient justifications for TM as an exclusive practice?
If yes ...
What might this mean for local talented employees in large western multinationals? 


While, in large organisations, it’s not possible to have an ‘all star cast’ ...

Background to fully inclusive talent management (FITM) :

(Swailes et al., 2014)

· ‘Talent’ as deliberately comprehensive 


· Involves curiosity and open‐mindedness 


· Infused with an egalitarian philosophy of mind; 


· Shift the emphasis away from performance ... to learning 


· Inclusive in that it is concerned with deploying the talents of all employees (p.532) 


· Draws from positive psychology, the capability approach & sustainability 


· Economic benefit would be indirect effect, through the main aim of benefits to 
employees 
(TBL) 


Fully inclusive talent management (FITM) :

(Swailes et al., 2014)

A typology of Talent Management, defined by the scope of talent searching and employee inclusion:

· Partial exclusive talent management 


· Partial inclusive talent management 


· Fully inclusive talent management 


· Elite talent management 


Talent Management – A critical diversity perspective

· Talent Management in MNEs is typically exclusive 


· The challenge presented to TM by shifting workplace demographics is recognised 


• Implications for long‐standing questions concerning organizational diversity

• Yet the issue of workplace equality associated with the practice of TM is under‐researched (exc. Gender)

In practice: Aspects of strategic HRM merged with workplace relations in a new joint function closely aligned with org strategy including the value of diversity:
TM & Inclusion - a paradox

The Business Case for diversity: Diversity = increased talent pool =
‘better’ human capital = competitive advantage

It might be unrealistic for these organisations to go much beyond legally mandated discrimination and policy compliance – loss of profit at least in short term? (ROI)

or

By its strategic position, workplace equality through inclusion might be given a fresh mandate? (Triple Bottom Line ‐ Stakeholders)

We propose:
current conversations around TM are paradigmatically limited
to a mainstream Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) approach and could be developed
by considering other perspectives such as critical diversity perspectives (Lewis & Heckman, 2006, p.152)

“What is required is for business schools to foster scepticism
and act more like court jesters than cheerleaders for the corporate world” stressing the need for students to develop the ability to assess critically the assumptions underpinning managerial actions
and the impact of those actions on others”

(Bridgman, 2016, p. 737)

A 4-part conceptual agenda for CDP on TM:

• Context‐specific
• Power
• Intersectional
• The ‘lived’ experience

Context-specific

• Gallardo‐Gallardo & Thunnissen (2016): need to consider context; local organisations have to adapt a western concept to their culture;

‘One size doesn’t fit all’

• CDP:
• Taking the organisational context (and history) into account:

• National
• Industry
• Organisation type/size • Ownership

• The notion that some have to adjust or are ‘tolerated’ implies power and the impact of power politics

‘Political’ ‘Same opportunity for all’ ‘Result: Ad hoc, policy v practice’

Assumption of universalism
The role and influence of power is missing from our understanding of TM

When power comes into play, what is it doing to the individual and what are the organisational politics which come out of it?

Critical diversity perspectives offer:

· Discourses of the other – Foucault 


· Influence of social class – Bourdieu 


· Postcolonialism (conqueror and conquered, core and periphery) Connell 
(2007) Southern Theory: south as data supporting knowledge developed in the north 


Intersectional

· Human experience isn’t neat (Van Buren, 2015) 


· Social identity theory 


· CDP very critical of social identity theory! 


· Social identity complexity (SIC) (Roccas & Brewer, 2009): how multiple identities are 
subjectively combined to determine inclusiveness (Miller et al, 2009) 


· SIC positively related to affirmative action, multiculturalism (Van Dommelen et al, 2015) 
What might the propensity for ingroup bias mean for decision‐making? Does it encourage a climate of inclusion? 


The lived experience

• Approach: emic field research

• Applied to: experience of Talent & Inclusion to understand how the powerful and decision‐makers in organisations construct and include organizational diversity:

espoused versus enacted organizational values rhetoric versus reality