A multi-dimensional approach to talent. An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia
| Pages | 182-199 |
| Published date | 02 March 2015 |
| Date | 02 March 2015 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2013-0190 |
| Author | Marian Thunnissen,Pleun Van Arensbergen |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
A multi-dimensional approach
to talent
An empirical analysis of the definition of
talent in Dutch academia
Marian Thunnissen
Research Centre for Social Innovation, HU University of Applied Sciences,
Utrecht, The Netherlands, and
Pleun Van Arensbergen
Institute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen,
The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the development of a broader,
multi-dimensional approach to talent that helps scholars and practitioners to fully understand the
nuances and complexity of talent in the organizational context.
Design/methodology/approach –The data were collected in two complementary research projects
on the definition and identification of talented academics in the early stages of their careers. The first
study focussed on defining and developing talent within university departments, in which the
perspectives of management, policy advisors and talented employees themselves were taken into
account. The second study investigated talent selection in the specific context of grant allocation by the
Dutch Research Council (NWO).
Findings –The results suggest that the conceptualization of talent cannot be disconnected from its
context. In particular, the perceptions of the different stakeholder groups in an organizational context
have a major impact. Although talent is generally perceived as a combination of multiple components,
this general outcome conceals the unilateral approaches to talent of the separate stakeholder groups.
These unilateral interpretations of talent also affect the design of the talent management system.
The paper describes the difficulties organizations are confronted within developing and implementing
their talent programs.
Originality/value –This broader approach regards talent as a bundle of integrated components,
and takes the impact of the organizational context and its interrelated stakeholders into account.
Keywords Higher education, Qualitative, Talent selection, Talent, Talent identification,
Talent management
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Nowadays talent management (TM) is a popular topic in both academic and
practitioner-oriented literature. For a profound understanding of the concept of TM
a clear definition of talent is of vital importance, since the definition of talent has
implications for the TM practices implemented (Dries, 2013; Tansley, 2011;
Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013; Meyers and Van Woerkom, 2014). Nevertheless, the
majority of scholars in the field of TM take the talent construct for granted and do not
formulate an explicit definition of talent (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013). The scholars
who do operationalize talent are not unanimous. A wide variety of definitions can be
found in the TM literature. Generally, in the debate on operationalizing talent five
dimensions (or “tensions”as Dries, 2013 calls them) become manifest. First, defi nitions
can be divided along the subject vs the object dimension. Scholars advocating the
Personnel Review
Vol. 44 No. 2, 2015
pp. 182-199
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-10-2013-0190
Received 23 October 2013
Revised 10 February 2014
26 February 2014
Accepted 30 July 2014
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
182
PR
44,2
subject approach regard talent as a synonym for people, while in the object approach
talent refers to characteristics or attributes of people, such as abilities, knowledge or
competencies (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013). The distinction between object and
subject is difficult to grasp, as people cannot be isolated from their characteristics
(Dries, 2013). Second, there is division between the inclusive view of talent and
TM (related to all employees) and the exclusive orientation (related to a selective group
of employees). The inclusive approach connects to a positive psychological view and
argues that each person has a set of strengths (Nijs et al., 2014). The exclusive view
relates to the human capital approach and believes that the relative contribution of a
certain group –talents –justifies the disproportional investment of time and money
in this select group (Nijs et al., 2014). Third, there is also a lively debate on whether
talent is innate and stable or if it can be acquired and developed through training and
exercise (e.g. Meyers and Van Woerkom, 2014).Fourth, opinions differ whether thefocus
should be on abilities and motivation (input) or on excellent performance and success
(outcome) (Ross, 2013). Finally, scholars discuss the extent to which talent is conditional
on its environment: is talent transferable or context-dependent? (Dries, 2013).
In many scholarly papers the debate is often focussed on one single dimension,
without considering alternative dimensions. This narrow and unilateral approach
provides a simplified and fragmented view of reality. In order to deal with the
complexity of organizations some scholars combine two dimensions in defining talent,
for example, the inclusive vs exclusive approach with the object vs subject approach
(Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013) or with the stable-developable dimension (Meyers
and Van Woerkom, 2014). Recently, Nijs et al. (2014) have gone one step further and
integrated the fragmented insights from the fields of Human Resource Management
(HRM), gifted education, positive psychology and vocat ional psychology into
a broader, multidisciplinary approach to define, operationalize and measure talent in
the context of organizations. This approach is a valuable contribution to the field of
TM; however, their paper is highly conceptual. On the whole, there is little empirical
research on defining and selecting talent that can support us in disentangling the
complexities of operationalizing talent in the business context. Therefore, Nijs
et al. (2013) call for more empirical research. Moreover, although the authors developed
a universal talent model, in their discussion they particularly encourage investigation s
of the impact of the (organizational) context on talent definitions, and the influence of
the personal characteristics and preferences of the assessor and assessee on defining
and measuring talent (Nijs et al., 2014; Meyers and Van Woerkom, 2014). In this paper
we respond to the call of Nijs et al. (2014). We aim to contribute to the development of
a broader, multi-dimensional approach to talent that helps scholars and practitioners
fully to understand the nuances and complexity of talent in the organizational context.
This broader approachregards talent as a complex of multiple, interrelated components,
and takes the impact of the organizational context and of the different actors involved
into account. The data from two complementary research projects on TM in Dutch
academia were used to test our theoretical ideas. Before presenting our methods and
findings, we will elaborate on our theoretical framework in the next section.
A multi-dimensional approach to talent
The quest for a proper definition of talent is not exclusive to the fields of TM, HRM and
organizational behavior. Talent and giftedness have been an area of research in
educational psychology for many decades. The field has been criticized, for example,
183
Multi-
dimensional
approach to
talent
To continue reading
Request your trial