Talent management: a systematic review and future prospects

Abstract

This paper employs a systematic and comprehensive review to trace the evolution of talent management scholarship and propose a research agenda to move the field forward. Two primary streams of literature dominate: the management of high performers and high potentials, and the identification of strategic positions and talent management systems. The topic of global talent management has received significant attention; however, much of this literature tends to incorporate the two streams heretofore identified but on a global scale. The review also demonstrates that there has been limited attention placed on individual talents as the unit of analysis. Early criticisms of the disjointed nature of the field remain and we call for greater clarity around the conceptual boundaries of talent management. Our analysis highlights that most papers draw, to some extent, on primary research. There is however considerable need and scope for more comprehensive and nuanced methodological approaches. Talent management87

Mapping collaboration networks in talent management research

“…Since then, there has been a 'wave' of consultancy reports placing strong emphasis on the role of TM in businesses success (McDonnell et al, 2017). However, there was (and still is) little empirical evidence of the link between TM and organizational performance (see .…”

“…Two years later, Reilly (2008) highlighted that TM had not been taken as seriously as it should in academic literature, and that is that few academic publications on the topic can be found before 2008 (Gallardo-Gallardo et al, 2015;McDonnell et al, 2017). According to Gallardo-Gallardo et al (2013), the conceptual and theoretical confusion regarding the construct of TM can be attributed in part to the fact that most of the literature of the field has been practitioner-or consultancy-based.…”

“…Indeed, TM is considered to be one of the fastest growing areas of academic work in the management field over recent decades (Collings et al, 2015b). Recent literature reviews (Gallardo-Gallardo and Thunnissen, 2016;Gallardo-Gallardo et al, 2015;Thunnissen et al, 2013;McDonnell et al, 2017) offer complementary views on the breadth of TM research, some of them combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. Despite their undeniable value for evaluating the state of the art of TM research and for guiding discussion about its future development, they do not offer an explanation of the social organization of the field that is inextricably intertwined with the field intellectual development (see Vogel, 2012).…”

“…Locating the origins of TM in large companies of North America, probably explains why most of the first publications on TM were US-centric and focused on multinationals (e.g., Collings et al, 2011b;Powell et al, 2013), and why there is a strong body of US affiliated scholars publishing in the field (McDonnell et al, 2017). However, more and more, there appears to be a strong network of European scholars operating (Gallardo-Gallardo et al, 2015;McDonnell et al, 2017).…”

“…However, more and more, there appears to be a strong network of European scholars operating (Gallardo-Gallardo et al, 2015;McDonnell et al, 2017). As the topic has grabbed non-US academics' attraction, MAPPING COLLABORATION NETWORKS IN TALENT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 3 primary research was also undertaken in other countries.…”