Talent or Not? Employee Reactions to Talent Identification

Abstract

In this article, we examine the effect of talent identification on employee attitudes. Building on social exchange theory, we analyze the association between employees' perceptions about whether or not they have been formally identified as “talent” and the following attitudinal outcomes: commitment to increasing performance demands, building skills, and supporting strategic priorities; identification with the unit and the multinational enterprise; and turnover intentions. Our analyses of 769 managers and professionals in nine Nordic multinational corporations reveal a number of differences between employees who perceive that they have been identified as “talent” and those who either perceive that they have not been identified or do not know whether they have been identified. We found only limited differences between the two latter categories.

Exploring the Relationship Between Exclusive Talent Management, Perceived Organizational Justice and Employee Engagement: Bridging the Literature

“…The propositions are also consistent with the work of Wooten and Cobb (1999) who assert that organizational practices and career development interventions are 'prone to perceptions of distributive, procedural and interactional fairness' (Wooten and Cobb 1999, p. 177) by employees. Existing studies also link the organizational commitment of employees to their perception of the value and fairness of their organization's actions (Björkman et al 2013;Gelens et al 2014;Slack et al 2015). However, our research reveals a gap in the literature, on both the organizational justice and ethics of exclusive TM, and the impact of exclusive TM on employees not considered 'talented'.…”

“…Blau (1964) is among the first of the theorists to distinguish between exchanges where the nature of the obligations are specific and purely economic, and those that were less specific and more social or emotional. SET helps us to unpack and understand how employee perceptions of organizational TM practices may generate either positive or negative attitudes and responses to the TM practices (Björkman et al 2013;Khoreva et al 2017). Saks (2006) contends that SET provides a 'meaningful theoretical basis for understanding and studying employee engagement' (Saks 2006, p. 616), as SET helps explain why, when employees perceive that their relationship with their employer is fair and just, they will reciprocate in kind, such as with positive behaviors (Blau 1964;Gouldner 1960).…”

“…While actual HR practices exist objectively, they are interpreted and perceived by each individual employee, creating a subjective experience. This perception affects the employee's reactions, which in turn may affect the employment relationship and its outcomes, such as employee engagement, in either a positive or negative manner (Björkman et al 2013;Ghosh et al 2014;Khoreva et al 2017;Wright and Nishii 2006). Employee perceptions of organizational justice, which is described next, mediate and moderate the relationship between the organization's TM practices and the employee's reactions to these TM practices (Gelens et al 2013(Gelens et al , 2014.…”

“…Conversely, our contention is that the unequal distribution of resources, that exclusive TM entails, will have a negative effect on the employees who are not identified as 'talented', but are concerned with being part of the talent pool program. For this sub-group, this will create a negative perception of the value and fairness of the organization's actions as part of their relationship (Björkman et al 2013;Gelens et al 2014;Marescaux et al 2013) and from this they will perceive that their inputs have not been justly rewarded and that the organization is not reciprocating their efforts in a fair or just manner. They will perceive this as a lack of distributive justice (Erdogan 2002;He et al 2014), which will impact on the individual's relationship with the organization.…”

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

“…The pools approach involves the identification of groups and clusters of individuals who have differential impact on an organizations performance and brings with it a consideration of organizational justice and stakeholder theory as it suggests an exclusive approach to TM (Gelens et al, 2014, GallardoGallardo et al, 2013, Thunnissen et al, 2013. While informing talented individuals of their special status as 'talent' has a motivational effect (Björkman et al, 2013), a pools approach to TM can create inequitable systems, widening pay differentials, overemphasizing individual performance while promoting the talent of a few key individuals within the business (Mellahi & Collings, 2010, Guthridge et al, 2008, Ashton et al, 2010. Delong and Vijayaraghavan (2003) and Cooke et al (2014) warn of the negative impacts exclusive TM systems can cause and the danger inherent in ignoring their emotional effects.…”