No abstract

Structured AbstractPurpose: The paper aims to frame empirical literature on TM, and to provide a clear and comprehensive picture of the topics under investigation, the conceptualization of TM, and under-explored areas.Design/methodology/approach: We adopted a systematic review that covers empirical research on TM which has been published between 2006 and 2014 in academic peerreviewed journals. A total of 96 articles were included in the review. A bibliometric as well as a content analysis has been carried out. Findings:The results reveal that the Anglo-Saxon context (in particular EU) has a great impact on empirical TM research. Also research foundations and designs are not very rigorous. A slight awareness of context and culture was found. Empirical TM research is predominantly built on an exclusive approach to TM. Yet, how TM works in practice and how well (from the perspective of multiple actors) as well as the role and perceptions of line managers are under-explored areas. Practical implications:The paper gives vision and direction to practitioners in particular on the definition of talent and TM.Originality/value: This study frames the extent and nature of empirical research on TM, and it is the first to specifically and objectively examine the advances made in the field and to identify under-explored areas. By doing so, it helps to avoid departing from presumptions and misguided beliefs, to advance our knowledge of TM issues in organizations and regions, and to better channel future research. IntroductionDespite the global financial crisis talent management (TM) remains a critical agenda item for senior managers (Skuza et al., 2013). Employers recognize that an engaged, skilled and motivated workforce is the key to growth and to achieve competitive advantage. The crisis, however, impels organizations to be more creative and effective in their TM approach. Yet, academic research in the field of TM does not give much support in finding the right TM solutions. In fact, research on TM has been accused of lagging behind in offering organizations vision and direction on the matter (Collings et al., 2011; Al Ariss et al., 2014;Cappelli and Keller, 2014). Despite the increasing scholarly attention for TM during the past ten years (Thunnissen et al., 2013), and especially over the course of the past two years (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2015), there still is no consensus over its definition, theoretical backgrounds and scope.Besides that, the field has been criticized for focusing on TM issues in a select category of organizations, i.e. US-based organizations, and multinational (MNC's) and private organizations (Collings et al., 2011;Powell et al., 2013). Several authors call for more research on TM in other contexts and advise to contextualize TM in both theoretical frameworks as well as in research design (e.g., Collings et al. 2011; Meyers and Van Woerkom, 2013;Thunnissen et al., 2013). Also the emphasis on the organizational perspective is mentioned as a limitation (Collings, 2014;Thunnissen et al., 2013).F...

This review adopts a phenomenon-driven approach in reviewing the talent management (TM) literature, applying methods derived from bibliometrics and content analysis to evaluate the state of the field and derive implications for research and practice unbiased towards a-priori assumptions of which frameworks or methods are most adequate. Based on analyses of publication volume, journals and their impact factors, most cited articles and authors, preferred methods, and represented countries, we assess whether TM should be approached as an embryonic, growth, or mature phenomenon, and examine dominant (i.e., resource-based view, international human resource management, employee assessment, and institutionalism) versus ‘alternative’ (i.e., knowledge management, career management, strength-based approach, and social exchange theory) theoretical frameworks. Our goal is to assist TM researchers in positioning their work more explicitly vis-à-vis current debates in the existing literature and encourage them to think about which approach best fits their research aims, questions, and designsPeer ReviewedPostprint (author’s final draft