TM = A field in need of legitimacy

1. Talent Management:A phenomenon-driven approachProf. Dr. Nicky DriesFaculty of Economics and BusinessUniversiteitUtrecht, October 29th 2013

2. TM=A field in need of legitimacy Talent management has always seemed to me to be a tricky subject. It is at risk of becoming mere hyperbole, as in ‘the War for Talent’, or of becoming the fad of the conference circuit because the term lacks a clear definition. Proposed definitions are, at worst, a mélange of different concepts strung together without a clear statement of what is meant by talent and how we might manage it. y (Reilly, 2008, p. 381)

3. TM=A field in need of legitimacy Talent management has always seemed to me to be a tricky subject. It is at risk of becoming mere hyperbole, as in ‘the War for Talent’, or of becoming the fad of the conference circuit because the term lacks a clear definition. Proposed definitions are, at worst, a mélange of different concepts strung together without a clear statement of what is meant by talent and how we might manage it. y As in: Difficult to publish; Rejection based on topic alone (in non-HRM journals) (Reilly, 2008, p. 381)

4. TM=A field in need of legitimacy Talent management has always seemed to me to be a tricky subject. It is at risk of becoming merehyperbole, as in ‘the War for Talent’, or of becoming the fad of the conference circuit because the term lacks a clear definition. Proposed definitions are, at worst, a mélange of different concepts strung together without a clear statement of what is meant by talent and how we might manage it. y As in: Consultancy speak; Conjectural “knowledge”; Lack of solid evidence (Reilly, 2008, p. 381)

5. TM=A field in need of legitimacy Talent management has always seemed to me to be a tricky subject. It is at risk of becoming mere hyperbole, as in ‘the War for Talent’, or of becoming the fadof the conference circuit because the term lacks a clear definition. Proposed definitions are, at worst, a mélange of different concepts strung together without a clear statement of what is meant by talent and how we might manage it. y As in: The “problem” is imaginary, or of passing nature; It is unimportant (Reilly, 2008, p. 381)

6. TM=A field in need of legitimacy Talent management has always seemed to me to be a tricky subject. It is at risk of becoming mere hyperbole, as in ‘the War for Talent’, or of becoming the fad of the conference circuit because the term lacks a clear definition. Proposed definitions are, at worst, a mélange of different concepts strung together without a clear statement of what is meant by talent and how we might manage it. y As in: Lack of theory; Theory as a precondition for “real” academic value (Reilly, 2008, p. 381)

7. Cause=Preference for theory-driven research Theoretical framework Gap-spotting Hypothesis generation Research design y Data collection Study limitations Theory confirmation/ expansion/falsification Gap-spotting

8. TM=A phenomenon • Phenomenon-driven research (PDR) is characterized by two main interdependent elements (Hambrick, 2007): • First, no currently available theoryhas enough scope to account for the phenomenon or for relevant cause and effect relationships associated with it. • Second, no research design or methodologyis superior to others in exploring the different aspects of the phenomenon. • The target of PDR is to capture, describe, document, and conceptualize a phenomenon so that more detailed theoretical work and development of research designscan proceed. (von Krogh, Lamastra, & Haefliger, 2009) y

9. Stagesin the evolutionof a phenomenon First, in an embryonicstate, a novel phenomenon can hardly be singled out against a background of other known phenomena and states of the world; Second, in a growingstate, discrepancy between the phenomenon and scientific knowledge prompts the interest of a growing number of scholars (an informal scientific community); Third, in a maturestate, classes of regularities emerge, as being distinct from each other (< designs, methods, explanations); Fourth, in a decliningstate, the phenomenon gradually merges with the background of other known, scientific phenomena (due to competing regularities, or self-evidency). WE ARE HERE y

10. TM = a growingfield y (Dries, 2013)

11. Discourse

12. “War for talent” discourse = Term launched by McKinsey consultants in the 1990s. Two main assumptions: (1) In today’s global knowledge economy, talent is a renewable resource that is not easily copied or stolen by competitors; (2) Attracting and retaining talented people is becoming increasingly difficult as a result of (a) specific demographic and (b) psychological contract trends. y (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001)

13. (a) demographictrends Two categories of demographic risk: (1) Capacity risk = Impending retirement of large number of ‘baby boomers’ + fewer young people entering the workforce leads to loss of accumulated knowledge, expertise, and manpower. (2) Productivity risk = negative effects of aging workforce (e.g., labor cost, skill obsolescence, motivation issues). y (Calo, 2008)

14. (b) psychological contract trends = The beliefs employees hold about the terms of their relationship with their employer (in addition to what is in their ‘real’, written employment contract) Weakening ties between employees and organizations: (1) Organizations are less able to promise stable, long-term, upward careers; (2) Young people today are job-hoppers; (3) Talent scarcities have caused a shift in the power relationship (‘consumerism’ on the side of employees – organization as resource to the individual) y (Rousseau, 2001)

15. Discourse² Interestingly, the practitioner literature focuses on whytalent management is important, rather than on whatit is (especially “talent” itself)! y

16. Conjecturalassumptions I know talent when I see it. Tell a person they’re talented, and they become it. (It’s all a self-fulfilling prophecy) Tell a person they’re talented, and they stop trying. (So don’t tell them!) You just can’t tell people that you don’t consider them talented.

17. Stubborn reliance on intuition The myth of experience = X-factor thinking/right stuff thinking = organizational decision makers commonly overestimate the validity of intuitive judgment, whilst simultaneously underestimating the validity of standardized testing, structured interviews, and assessment centers. y (Highhouse, 2008)

18. Self-fulfilling prophecies Pygmalion effect = The positive affirmation of being assigned the ‘talent’ label, through heightened self-confidence and role commitment, might in itself lead to increases in performance. Success syndrome = Early career sponsorship of employees identified as talented leads to exceptional success, in part due to the extra organizational support (i.e., “success leads to more success”).

19. Crown prince syndrome Almost there…

20. Strategic ambiguity Concerns about peer jealousies Ad-hoc procedures Discrepancies between discourse and practice Political TM decisions “Knowledge is power” Strategic ambiguity Only 1 in 3 companies disclose TM information to employees BUT info ‘leaks’ 90 percent of the time!

21. Literature

22. In the HRMliterature: TM (1) TM as a collection of typical HRM practices (e.g., recruitment, development, performance management); (2) TM as workforce/succession planning (i.e., “the right person in the right place at the right time”); (3) TM as ‘topgrading’ (i.e., employing only the 10% best of the available population, in every single job); (4) TM as a portfolio approach to workforce management (i.e., A players in A positions, B players in B positions, C players in C positions = more cost-effective ); (5) TM as a strength-based approach to people management (i.e., helping every employee fulfill their natural potential). y

23. Dominance of human capital/RBV y (Adapted from Lepak & Snell, 1999)

24. Literature streams (outside HRM):Talent (Dries, 2013)

25. Tension 1. What (or who) is a talent? Main implication: What should talent management manage? Distinct talent philosophies: Subject Object OCM SHRM Succession planning Competency management Knowledge management

26. Tension 2. How prevalent is talent in the population? Main implication: Resource allocation & communication strategy Distinct talent philosophies: Exclusive Inclusive Career mass customization Workforce differentiation Forced ranking (Strategic ambiguity)

27. Tension 3. Can talent be taught (and learned)? Main implication: War for talent/ labor market scarcities Distinct talent philosophies: Innate Acquired Selection Detection Identification Development Stimulation Experiences

28. Tension 4. Is talent more about ability or motivation? Main implication: Assessment/ selection focus & ROI indicators Distinct talent philosophies: Input Output Effort Process Career orientation Ambition Aspiration (= ‘bottom-up’) Behavior Results Performance (= ‘top-down’)

29. Tension 5. Is talent conditional on its environment? Main implication: Internal vs. external recruitment Distinct talent philosophies: Transferable Context-dependent Headhunting Identification prior to entry Fit Identification after socialization

30. Data

31. Data collected 2005-2013 • Comparative analysis of +20 cases (large multinationals) based on HR policy documents; • Semi-structured interviews with +100 people who played an active role in the TM policies of their organizations (i.e., HR directors, HR managers, CEO’s, union representatives, people identified as ‘talented’); • Survey data of +700 organizations about their TM strategies & practices; • Survey data of +2000 people identified as ‘talented’ (+ control groups) asking for their TM experiences; • A list of +5000 spontaneous associations with ‘talent’ held by HR managers from all over the world. y

32. Theory development

33. Operationalizing talent (Nijs, Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, & Sels, in press)

34. Social exchange/PC breach y (Dries & De Gieter, in press)

35. TM & career tracks y (Dries & Pepermans, 2008)

36. TM & justice/fairness y (Gelens, Dries, Hofmans, & Pepermans, 2013)

37. Talent management typology Basic assumptions about talent (< tensions) • Strategic decisions • HR focus: Selection vs. development • Recruitment strategy: Internal vs. external • Resource allocation: Egalitarian vs. merit-based • Nomination: Self vs. other • Measurement: Objective vs. subjective • Communication: Openness vs. strategic ambiguity Strategic goals (individual, organizational, team; financial, performance, deontological) ROI Investments (time, energy, manpower, budget) y Baseline metrics Process metrics Outcome metrics (Dries & Sels, 2014)

38. Questions?Contact me:nicky.dries@econ.kuleuven.be+32.16/32.68.68.