Sneaking through the minefield of talent management: the notion of rhetorical obfuscation

Abstract

In spite of the growing popularity of talent management in practice there has been a distinct lack of theoretical attention paid by scholars to such a strategically important innovation.To address this shortfall, we conducted an in-depth case study of a multinational enterprise (MNE) to examine and conceptualise the rhetorical underpinnings of its efforts in implementing a talent management programme. Based on our findings, we propose the notion of rhetorical obfuscation to conceptualise the intentional use of persuasive language to selectively project and communicate organisational agenda as a means of directing and reinforcing relevant stakeholders' commitments and conforming behaviours. In particular, we found that rhetorical obfuscation was used extensively in the case organisation to cover up inconsistency in practices and lack of legitimacy during the institutionalisation of talent management. Our contributions are threefold. Firstly, this study has provided a necessary theoretical grounding to conceptualise talent management. Secondly, by introducing the theory of rhetorical practice to HR innovation research, our account has demonstrated the usefulness of rhetorical practice and created a launch pad for other HR researchers to build upon. Thirdly, by exploring the rhetorical underpinnings related to the adoption of talent management, we have added to the rich intellectual tradition of rhetorical practice by presenting the notion of rhetorical obfuscation.

Towards an understanding of talent management as a phenomenon-driven field using bibliometric and content analysis

“…Qualitative research was most prevalent (i.e., 46 articles; 33.1%)-as can be expected in an emerging field (von Krogh et al, 2012)-and relied mostly on semi-structured interviews and analysis of secondary data from single cases or within the context of a comparative case study. Less frequently used qualitative methods were focus groups (e.g., Huang & Tansley, 2012) and participant observation (e.g., Boussebaa & Morgan, 2008). Quantitative research was less frequently reported (i.e., 28 articles; 20.1%).…”

“…The authors argue for a more critical and reflexive approach to TM research, that would take into account issues of power, control, and context. Similarly, a case study by Huang and Tansley (2012) conducted in a Northern American MNC discusses the notion of 'rhetorical obfuscation' in TM-i.e., "the intentional use of persuasive language to selectively project and communicate organisational agenda as a means of directing and reinforcing relevant stakeholders' commitments and conforming behaviors" (p. 3673). In particular, they found that their case organization used attractive-sounding but rather hollow TM rhetoric especially when trying to cover up inconsistencies in their TM practices and when the legitimacy of their TM program was questioned.…”

Standing on the shoulders of giants? A critical review of empirical talent management research

“…Qualitative studies relied mostly on semi-structured interviews and focus groups, sometimes supported by analysis of organizational documents or of secondary data (e.g., Van den Brink, Fruytier & Thunnissen, 2013). In fact, nearly half of the qualitative papers are based on case studies, and most of them even on a single case study (e.g., Huang & Tansley, 2012). The mixed method studies usually combine a questionnaire with interviews, focus groups and/or Delphi technique (e.g., Powell, 2014).…”

Talent management motives and practices in an emerging market: A comparison between MNEs and local firms

“…The final approach -and the focus of this paper is the practice approach. The practice approach suggests a need for a sophisticated suite of HRM policies and practices that are also capable of developing the skills and competencies of global talent, yet as with the perennial issues connecting HRM and performance, there are issues in defining the bundles of HRM that constitute effective TM (Ortlieb & Sieben, 2011, Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014 and establishing a link between these, broader organizational strategies and institutional and worker contexts (Mellahi & Collings, 2010, Cappelli, 2008, Tarique & Schuler, 2010, Huang & Tansley, 2012 The field of TM and its focus on a differentiated architecture strongly connect TM to the achievement of sustainable competitive advantage . Sparrow et al (2014) consider the subject of TM to be a bridge field -drawing upon ideas from marketing, operations and HRM -each emphasising human capital thinking, where it is assumed that those talented employees will add value to their organization and will generate superior results (Sparrow & Makram, 2015, Collings & Mellahi, 2009) and organizations will seek to develop key people that fit their context and will create a nurturing environment commensurate with their talent objectives (Chabault et al, 2012) TM systems can therefore be underpinned by the resource-based view of the firm in that they are instrumental in identifying and developing resources that are valuable (the resource enables the organization to respond to threats and opportunities), rare (the resource is controlled by a small number of competing firms), inimitable (other firms will face a cost disadvantage in obtaining/developing the resource) and non-substitutable (the advantage cannot be achieved through other means) (Barney, 1991, Barney, 2002.…”

“…TM is focused on the identification of key positions which add to the competitive advantage of the firm, the HRM architecture (processes, systems and practices) used to support this and the impact of these on firm performance and, given the competition for highvalue labour, the impact on the psychological contract of the employee (Mellahi & Collings, 2010;Cappelli, 2008;Tarique & Schuler, 2010;Huang & Tansley, 2012). There are four philosophies that dominate TM discourse -people, pools, positions and practice (Collings & Mellahi, 2009, Scullion & Collings, 2010 and the key challenge for each is to establish a consensus of what TM actually means and how it can be differentiated from HRM/IHRM traditions (Scullion & Collings, 2010, Lewis & Heckmann, 2006.…”