The practice of talent management: a framework and typology
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2016-0037 |
| Date | 06 November 2017 |
| Pages | 1523-1551 |
| Published date | 06 November 2017 |
| Author | Pernilla Bolander,Andreas Werr,Kajsa Asplund |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
The practice of talent
management: a framework
and typology
Pernilla Bolander, Andreas Werr and Kajsa Asplund
Department of Management and Organization,
Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the development of a deeper understanding of the
conceptual and empirical boundaries of talent management (TM) so that scholars and practitioners may
enhance their knowledge of what TM actually is and how it is carried out.
Design/methodology/approach –A comparative study was conducted of the TM practices of 30
organizations based in Sweden. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with 56 organizational
representatives. The transcribed interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
Findings –The findings comprise a typology consisting of four distinct TM types that exist in practice: a
humanistic type, a competitive type, an elitist type and an entrepreneurial type. Descriptions are provided
that probe into how specific practices are differently shaped in the different types.
Research limitations/implications –The study design enabled the generation of an empirically rich
understanding of different TM types; however, it limited the authors’ability to draw systematic conclusions
on the realized outcomes of different types of TM.
Practical implications –The descriptions of different TM types give practitioners insight into how TM
may be practiced in different ways and point to important decisions to be made when designing TM.
Originality/value –The paper addresses two main shortcomings identified in the academic literature on
TM: conceptual ambiguity and the paucity of in-depth empirical research on how TM is carried out in actual
organizational settings. The empirically derived typology constitutes an important step for further theory
development in TM.
Keywords Qualitative, Typology, Talent, Talent management, Talent management practices,
Talent management types
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In the midst of intensified global competition, weakening bonds between employers and
employees, and the ongoing shift toward knowledge-based economies, talent management
(TM) has become a key business activity and a critically important decision area (Sparrow
and Makram, 2015; Collings and Mellahi, 2009). In essence, the dilemma is that talent has
become an attractive source of competitive advantage and at the same time, many
organizations are encountering talent shortages and finding it increasingly difficult to
attract, manage, and retain talented people (Schuler et al., 2011).
The strong interest in talent issues amongst practitioners has been followed by growing
scholarly interest and an increasing number of academic publications on TM (Thunnissen
et al., 2013a). However, scholars consistently point to two main shortcomings in the literature.
The first is the conceptual ambiguity of “TM.”While substantial advances have lately been
Personnel Review
Vol. 46 No. 8, 2017
pp. 1523-1551
Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-02-2016-0037
Received 23 February 2016
Revised 27 October 2016
14 February 2017
Accepted 12 March 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
© Pernilla Bolander, Andreas Werr and Kajsa Asplund. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may
reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article ( for both commercial &
non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full
terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
This paper is based on research funded by The Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social
Sciences under Grant No. P12-0986:1.
1523
The practice of
talent
management
made toward establishing mature theoretical frameworks for the concept of “talent”(Dries, 2013;
Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013; Meyers et al., 2013; Thunnissen and Van Arensbergen, 2015;
Nijs et al., 2014; Tansley, 2011), the framework for TM is considerably less developed (Al Ariss
et al., 2014; Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Thunnissen et al., 2013b). Specifically, Dries (2013) states
that many scholars fail to define “which specific practices fall under the TM label”(p. 274).
In many ways, it is still unclear what TM actually is.
The second shortcoming is the paucity of empirical research (Collings and Mellahi, 2009;
Dries, 2013; Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013; Meyers et al., 2013). Reviews point to an “urgent
need”for empirical studies to move the field beyond “assumptions and hypotheses”
(Thunnissen et al., 2013b, p. 334). In particular, there is a lack of rigorous research that pays
close attention to actual organizational practices and develops an in-depth understanding of
how organizations define talent and carry out TM activities (Meyers and van Woerkom,
2014; Meyers et al., 2013). An important avenue for such research is the comparative
investigation of “typologies that are dominant in organizational reality”(Thunnissen et al.,
2013b, p. 334). Such typologies inform us of the various ways in which TM is manifested in
contemporary organizations and constitute an important foundation for further research on
the antecedents and outcomes of different TM approaches.
This paper answers to the call for robust empirical research on TM and poses the
following research question:
RQ1. How is TM carried out in actual organizational settings?
In order to answer our question, we develop a comprehensive framework for comparative
analysis of TM in organizations. The aim is to develop a framework that accounts for
systematic variation in the empirical phenomenon of TM. Next, we present an in-depth
study of the TM practices of 30 organizations. The main findings are a typology consisting
of four distinct TM types as well as a description of the same.
The paper aims to advanceTM research in two ways. Addressing thefirst shortcoming in
the literature,it aims to contribute to a deeper understandingof the conceptual boundaries of
TM by integrating theoretical insights in extant literature into a holistic framework that
delineates the main dimensions of a talent definition and the main practices of TM. Drawing
on this base to address the second shortcoming, it aims to contribute empirically by
investigating the different ways in which TM is carried out in organizational settings.
Together, the framework and the typology constitute an important step for further theory
development in TM (Doty and Glick, 1994; McKelvey, 1975; Meyer et al., 1993). Specifically,
they provide a solid basis for investigating the conditions under which organizations adopt
different typesof TM and can therefore contribute to the development of a greater contextual
understanding of TM (Thunnissen et al., 2013b; Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2015).
Literature review
A recent, comprehensive review concludes that three main areas are addressed in the
academic literature on TM: the definition of talent, outcomes and effects of TM, and TM
practices and activities (Thunnissen et al., 2013a). Outcomes are crucial but are beyond
the scope of this paper. Here, we focus on the definition of talent, TM practices, and the
implications talent definitions may have for TM practices.
Although the literature has long made a rough distinction between inclusive and
exclusive approaches to TM (e.g. Lewis and Heckman, 2006; Collings and Mellahi, 2009;
Stahl et al., 2012), scholars have lately begun to explore in more depth the relationship
between talent definitions and TM practices. Little work has, however, been done to draw up
a systematic TM typology. The configurations of talent definitions and TM practices that
are drawn up in the research works of Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2013), Meyers et al. (2013) and
Meyers and van Woerkom (2014) are an important first step toward conceptually defining
1524
PR
46,8
To continue reading
Request your trial