Purpose -The employer brand could be a key factor of competitiveness for a company in a contemporary labour market. The purpose of this paper is to identify the features of human resource development (HRD) practices and talent management in companies with employer brand (CEBs). Design/methodology/approach -The authors examined three economic indicators (turnover rate, average share of HR costs in total costs of company, proportion between the annual HR training budget and annual labour compensation funds). An employee survey was conducted to study the HRD system in the CEBs and in companies without the employer brand (CWEBs). Also, the survey was conducted among applicants (potential workers) about their job preferences and identified that employer brand could be a strong factor for attracting talent to the company. Findings -The results show considerable differences in terms of economic indicators, HRD practices and talent management in the CEBs in comparison with CWEBs. The potential advantages of employer brand for a company were identified. The results of the study strongly supported that the CEBs gained a number of economic advantages due to lower rates of staff turnover and higher rates of HR investments in training and development activities of employees. Also, the authors found out that in the CEBs internal recruitment practices, internal training programs and highly efficient incentive activities were widespread and employees were actively involved in the decision-making and management processes. Originality/value -This paper is the first large-scale study in Russia that examines the relationship between the HRD system and employer brand and enables companies to modify their HRD policies and practices in order to become attractive employers in an era of the so-called "war for talents".

Purpose -The goal of this article is to conduct macro-level analysis of human capital (HC) development strategies, pursued by four countries commonly referred to as BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). Design/methodology/approach -This analysis is based on comparisons of macro indices of human capital and innovativeness of the economy and a review of related academic literature and government publications. Findings -The study results suggest that in terms of present human capital capacity Russia and Brazil are ahead of China and India. However, during the last decade the governments of the latter two countries have initiated impressive national programs of HC development, which include significant investment and targeted government regulation in such areas as primary and secondary education, vocational education and training, and higher education, especially in science and technology fields. Russia and Brazil have targeted programs in some of the above areas, but lack comprehensive long-term strategies, covering all the above areas and coordinating effort of various agencies and constituencies.Research limitations/implications -It is recommended to expand the scope of analysis to include other fast growing developing economies (e.g. Mexico, Indonesia, and Turkey). Originality/value -The article provides, for the first time, a comparison of human capital development indices and strategies of the four largest developing economies. The original feature of the article is a combination of the analysis of macro-level indices with an in-depth analysis of policy documents and academic literature.

No abstract

PurposeWhile prior research suggests that human resource management (HRM) practices are crucial drivers of a firms' intellectual capital, few studies have tried to deconstruct this relationship and investigate how HRM practices specifically affect intellectual capital resources. Furthermore, prior research treated this relationship as universal and rarely tried to introduce important contingent factors that may alter the mechanisms involved in how HRM practices influence firms' intellectual capital. In this study, the authors examine the relationships between the ability-, motivation- and opportunity-enhancing dimensions of HRM systems and human, social and structural capital and investigate how companies' codification and personalization knowledge management (KM) strategies may alter these relationships.Design/methodology/approachThe data were collected using a telephone survey of 215 knowledge-intensive companies operating in Russia. The paper utilizes partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS–SEM) to evaluate the measurement model and test hypothesized relationships.FindingsThe findings indicate positive relationships between ability-enhancing practices and firms' human capital between motivation-enhancing practices and firms' human and social capital and between opportunity-enhancing practices and firms' social and structural capital. The authors’ results reveal the limited moderating role of KM strategies in the relationships between HRM and intellectual capital. While a personalization strategy had no impact on any of the proposed relationships, a codification strategy positively moderated the relationship between opportunity-enhancing HRM practices and firms' structural capital.Originality/valueThe study expands the debates in strategic HRM literature by looking “inside” the HRM–intellectual capital relationship. Additionally, the authors’ findings reveal the complexity of the contingent effect that KM strategies of codification and personalization have on the relationship between HRM practices and intellectual capital. Although some of the relationships were not moderated by the KM strategy of the firm, the HRM–intellectual capital relationship cannot be considered fully universal.

No abstract