This week’s journal article focus on the how positive team culture can correct the impact of lagging leadership creativity. Additionally, we discussed how digital transformation leaders in regard to artificial intelligence (AI). After reviewing the reading, please answer the following questions:
Be sure to use the UC Library for scholarly research. Google Scholar is also a great source for research. Please be sure that journal articles are peer-reviewed and are published within the last five years.The paper should meet the following requirements:
The writing should be clear and concise. Headings should be used to transition thoughts. Don’t forget that the grade also includes the quality of writing.
Human Resource Development Review
2016, Vol. 15(3) 340 –358
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1534484316664812
hrd.sagepub.com
Theory and Conceptual Article
The Cultural Evolution of
Talent Management: A
Memetic Analysis
Stephen Swailes1
Abstract
Using the concept of memes as cultural transmitters and replicators, this article
explores the origins of a talent meme and the subsequent evolution of talent
management (TM). The sociogenesis of TM is traced through historic developments
in management thinking. The rise of individualism in the late 20th century created
the conditions for the birth of TM, and the proliferation of the meme since birth
is analyzed. The meme reproduces through its psychological appeal and the logic
of itself, and the article uses an established approach to reveal cultural rather than
rational explanations for TM. Five reasons for the attractiveness, survival, and
replication of the talent meme in business organizations are identified. They are
salience with business conditions, lack of a competing meme, ambiguity, complexity
reduction, and enhanced control over a powerful group. Understanding more about
the psychological attractors attached to the talent meme forms part of an expanded
research agenda.
Keywords
talent management, memetics, innovation diffusion, organizational change
Introduction
As a distinctive approach to human resource management, the phrase “talent manage-
ment” (TM) first appeared in the 1990s (Casse, 1994; Istvan, 1991) and now attracts a
strong practitioner and research following (Lawler, 2008; Silzer & Dowell, 2010;
Sparrow, Scullion, & Tarique, 2014). Although it can take many forms, it typically
1University of Huddersfield, UK
Corresponding Author:
Stephen Swailes, The Business School, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1
3DH, UK.
Email: s.swailes@hud.ac.uk
664812HRDXXX10.1177/1534484316664812Human Resource Development ReviewSwailes
research-article2016
mailto:s.swailes@hud.ac.uk
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1534484316664812&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-08-15
Swailes 341
concerns the identification, development, and deployment of employees deemed to
have above average potential to contribute to an organization. The primary variation
involves a broadly elitist approach toward identifying high-performing and high-
potential employees and providing them with a differentiated management experience
to that enjoyed by the majority workforce. This may be complemented by a robust
approach to managing employees whose performance falls below expectations which
is necessary, in a “hard” TM mind-set, to liberate the talents of employees that poorly
performing managers are suppressing (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Alexrod, 2001).
The idea of memes was introduced by Richard Dawkins (1976) as an analogy to
genes and the ways that genes replicate and survive through time, and this article
applies meme theory to explain contemporary interest in TM. Memes can be thought
of as social cultural phenomena such as ideas or fashions that, like genes, adapt, repli-
cate, and survive throughout time and which help to explain cultural transmission
(Blackmore, 1999). Some memes are short-lived, others survive over long periods.
They pass from brain to brain often with some level of variation occurring each time
transmission occurs. The receiving brain becomes host to the meme and helps to prop-
agate it. Religions, arguably, are memes that have adapted over a long time and which
derive their survivability because they provide answers to some difficult questions
about human existence.
There is considerable potential for the application of meme theory in organization
development. Specific applications include advertising (Williams, 2000), mergers and
acquisitions (Vos & Kelleher, 2001), marketing (Pech, 2003), the cultural evolution of the
firm (Weeks & Gelunic, 2003), innovation (Voelpel, Leibold, & Streb, 2005), and busi-
ness process reengineering (O’Mahoney, 2007). Defined originally as “a unit of cultural
transmission” (Dawkins, 1976, p. 192), memes are elements of culture that transmit ideas
and are passed on especially by imitation (Blackmore, 1999, p. 43). The replication of
these cultural units helps to explain cultural evolution (Aunger, 2007); in this case, why
some organizational cultures adapt to work with a talent mind-set. Management innova-
tions that are successful, in the sense that they are widely adopted, are memes that “infect”
organizations and are transmitted by and through, among other things, networks of execu-
tives, consultants, gurus, and conferences (O’Mahoney, 2007). There seems little doubt
now about the usefulness of the idea of memes to understanding cultural transmission
because they contribute to the distinctive culture of organizations that is itself created by
the enactment of combinations of memes (Weeks & Gelunic, 2003).
The theoretical treatment applied in this article builds on previous studies which
have focused on coming to terms with the meaning of talent (Collings & Mellahi,
2009; Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, & Gonzalez-Cruz, 2013; Nijs, Gallardo-Gallardo,
Dries, & Sels, 2014; Tansley, 2011); understanding TM practices and their effects
(Gallardo-Gallardo & Thunnissen, 2016; Thunnissen, Boselie, & Fruytier, 2013); and
mapping the dominant theoretical frameworks (Gallardo-Gallardo, Nijs, Dries, &
Gallo, 2015). An underlying assumption of the talent literature is that talent (typically
defined as high-potential current or future employees) is scarce but when found, devel-
oped, and deployed in pivotal positions makes a disproportionately high contribution
to organizations.
342 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)
A feature of the literature, however, is an ongoing debate about the meaning of tal-
ent and TM. For the most part, talent is assumed to be a relative quality of individuals
such as ability or mastery (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013) and is judged in relation to
context. Talent is usually equated to a scarce combination of performance and poten-
tial (Gallardo-Gallardo & Thunnissen, 2016) although inclusive approaches to TM see
talent as something that all employees possess to some extent (Swailes, Downs, & Orr,
2014). However, debates about the etymology of “talent” (Adamsen, 2016; Tansley,
2011) or contemporary definitions of talent (Nijs et al., 2014) do not matter much for
the present article because of its interest in explaining the spread of a meme for which
ambiguity among its hosts is a key characteristic. What matters here is the cultural
attraction to “talent” as a concept in business discourse rather than its various mean-
ings to scholarly or practitioner communities because TM is essentially the manifesta-
tion of the ways in which the talent meme plays out in the host organization. Related
literatures on strategic TM (Sparrow et al., 2014) and global TM (Schuler, Jackson, &
Tarique, 2011; Scullion & Collings, 2011) can be seen as mutations of the original
meme.
Thunnissen et al. (2013) noted the top-down nature of TM and called for new per-
spectives to widen its theoretical framework. Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2015) identi-
fied the resource-based view, international human resource management including
global talent management, ways of assessing talent, and institutionalism as the domi-
nant frameworks used to-date, and their treatment of TM as a phenomenon is pertinent
here in emphasizing that practice is running ahead of theory (see also, Cascio &
Boudreau, 2016). Although scholars have attempted to map the TM field, the literature
contains little consideration of TM as anything but a rational choice. In a notable
exception, Iles, Preece, and Chuai (2010) considered whether TM displays features of
management fashions but do not explain its appeal and call for research into the factors
behind its adoption. Cappelli (2009, 2010) shows how firms have used management
development, and by implication historic approaches to TM, in response to changing
market conditions but does not consider TM directly. The point of departure for the
present article, therefore, is to trace the evolution of the specific notion of talent not the
broader concept of management development and also to provide a fresh perspective
on innovation transmission.
Of course, TM attracts a range of theoretical perspectives to explain why it occurs
(e.g., organizational institutionalism), why it should work (e.g., resource-based view
and workforce differentiation), and its effects on participants (e.g., organizational jus-
tice), but the present article shows that they do not fully account for its popularity and
to do so requires a consideration of TM over and above rational adoption. Memetics
provides a unit of analysis that helps to understand the cultural transmission of ideas
and thus the cultural evolution of organizations (Weeks & Gelunic, 2003). A memetic
appreciation offers a complementary angle to the existing theoretical frameworks sur-
rounding TM; in particular, providing a deeper understanding of why it is adopted.
Although the aim of the article is to show how and why TM spreads for non-ratio-
nal reasons, this does not mean that it is irrational. The article seeks to understand why
it has flourished and to explain why, in common with other human resource
Swailes 343
management practices (Lawler, 2007), it is popular ahead of a strong evidence base.
The contribution of the article is to show how TM evolved and proliferated not simply
because managers thought it had demonstrable connections to business performance,
although many might have done so, but because of the attributes and internal charac-
teristics of the meme itself. These are salience to competitive conditions, a lack of
competing ideas, ambiguity in the meaning of talent and the ways it can be operation-
alized, complexity reduction for executives, and providing a means of control and
power over potentially threatening groups.
Methodological Approach
TM carries some characteristics of management fads and fashions (Iles et al., 2010),
and it is important to understand why some ideas spread quickly and widely and why
others do not. This means looking beyond the apparent costs and benefits of innova-
tions that often do not completely explain why diffusion occurs (Newell, Robertson, &
Swan, 2001; Scarborough, Robertson, & Swan, 2015). Explaining this seemingly con-
tradictory aspect of innovation diffusion requires stepping beyond rational interpreta-
tions of innovations and looking at alternative yet complementary theoretical
explanations (Sturdy, 2004).
Of particular interest in meme theory is that explanations of innovation diffusion
have traditionally focused on external, rational actors selecting innovations that would
be the most successful for their situations (Abrahamson, 1996). However, rational
approaches do not fully explain the choices made by organizations and attention turned
to other factors that might influence management decision making. One of these fac-
tors is the ability of an innovation to replicate, adapt, and spread. The emphasis thus
shifted beyond external actors being responsible for diffusion and toward the innova-
tion itself to better understand its ability to attract attention (O’Mahoney, 2007).
Epistemologically, the article assumes that the present has no distinct boundary
with the past. The past has influenced the present, and any historical interpretation is
shaped by the present (Jenkins, 1995). The basic approach to understand the sociogen-
esis of TM is to start at the present and to go backward. The historical material used
here is not exhaustive but, proportionate to the researcher’s reflexivity, represents the
important building blocks in a complex pattern of management thinking.
Meme mapping is a new concept and to understand how TM evolved in manage-
ment thought, Paull’s (2009) meme mapping approach is used to explore gestation
events, the meme “birth point,” and subsequent meme development events. Events in
the gestation period are precursors to the birth event, and some events in this period
may be more influential than others. The historical development of the talent meme is
traced through a series of database searches looking for the occurrence of “talent” in the
source title. JSTOR was searched because of its historic coverage together with Scopus
and Business Source Complete to assess the rate of diffusion of the meme in more
recent business sources. The search focus was confined to “talent” because the term
captures the specific notion of interest and because “talent” predates the use of “talent
management” by centuries. The article next summarizes the gestation (sociogenesis) of
344 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)
TM. The particular birth point of TM is considered, and explanations for the prolifera-
tion of the meme following the birth point are developed.
The Sociogenesis of TM
Memetic analyses require an understanding of events occurring prior to the creation of
the meme itself (gestation events) to properly appreciate the social conditions from
which a particular meme emerged. The idea that some people are more talented than
others at art, sport, music, and science is a recurring feature of human society (Wolfle,
1971). As industrialization progressed in the 19th century, social transformations
occurred that gave greater focus to individual achievements over birth status and group
membership. As demographic and economic backgrounds began to offer a diminish-
ing role in explanations for individual success, attention turned to understanding dif-
ferences in mental characteristics (Jansz, 2004). John Stuart Mill in The Subjection of
Women (1869), for instance, saw talent as a social resource and was concerned about
the loss of talent caused by the ways that women were treated.
Durkheim gave talent central stage in his ideas on social justice. Individuals, he
said, possess their talents by chance and should have equal rights to deploy their tal-
ents to the extent that they possess them. Durkheim argued that because of their tal-
ents, individuals would have different opportunities to realize themselves such that
there will be inequalities in the ways that resources are allocated to individuals but that
any such inequalities are unavoidable and may be just (Green, 1989) implying that
people must be allowed to occupy positions that suit their talents if industrial systems
are to function properly. Some inequality based on merit was unavoidable but was
preferable to inequality based on social circumstances such as those that might accrue
from fortunate parentage.
The Davis–Moore theory of functional stratification (Davis & Moore, 1945) fol-
lows Durkheim’s thinking in assuming that some roles in society and business organi-
zations require more talent to discharge than others. Societies and organizations place
the more skilled and talented people into these roles, and the stratification that results
from these processes is presumed to benefit society. Functional stratification draws
attention to two things in particular: why some positions are deemed by society as
more prestigious (more rewardable) than others and how it is that certain people come
to occupy those positions. TM is more concerned with the second question, which is
revisited later in the article.
By the start of the 20th century, definitions of talent and genius had attracted close
scientific scrutiny (Fischer, 1904). Studies of individual differences showed how men-
tal capacities vary naturally and how they connect to differential ability (Hollingworth,
1923). Social factors and their impact on talent development began to be recognized
in the hope, perhaps, that replicating certain social conditions would allow greater
talents to flourish in society (Faris, 1936).
More complete theories of talent followed that attempted to combine psychological
dimensions, heredity, and general intelligence. Bray (1954), for instance, examined talent
in business administration and clearly linked talent to success at the expense of a
Swailes 345
more balanced treatment of factors that might boost success or suppress talent. Treatises
followed on the need for education and training systems to provide the men (talent was
generally equated with being male) who would lead further cultural and economic progress
(Brown & Harbison, 1957). The U.S. Committee on the Identification of Talent was created
in 1951 and recognized the importance of power and individual adjustment to impersonal
power systems in relation to talent recognition (McClelland, Baldwin, Bronfenbrenner, &
Strodtbeck, 1958). The mobility of talent, popularized as the Brain Drain, and its links to
social change, attracted attention in the 1960s (Adams, 1968; Ramsoy, 1965) as did the
influence of talent on career achievement (Ginzberg & Herman, 1964).
By the 1960s, articles on the deployment of talent in business were appearing. The
term “talent pool” was used in relation to concerns that talented people were choosing
careers outside business (Twedt, 1967), and Patton (1967) warned of looming shortages
of executive talent in the United States (see also McDonald, 2013b). The U.S. Civil
Service Commission oversaw the “strategic deployment” of top executives into key roles
(Bolster, 1967), and the strategic significance of aligning scientific talent with company
profit objectives was recognized (Blood, 1963). The special treatment of talented employ-
ees was recognized in the long term, manpower forecasting and planning strategies at the
time, at least in the United States (Hinrichs, 1966; Vetter, 1967) where concerted efforts
to isolate the qualities of managerial talent were underway (Ghiselli, 1971). Longitudinal
studies of individual differences and their association with career success and on the dis-
tribution of rewards appeared (Abrahamson, 1973; Husen, 1972). Concerns were also
surfacing about shortages of managerial talent fuelled by the 1960s counterculture and
changes to university education that were seen to be questioning authority in ways that
discouraged young people from choosing managerial careers (Miner, 1974).
Another ingredient in the social conditions that created the talent meme occurred in
the late 20th century when the concept of HRM embodied a re-evaluation of the con-
tributions that employees make to organizations. Concurrent with the rise of HRM was
a much stronger interest in fostering and creating high organizational commitment; the
basic idea being that committed employees require less supervision and control to
perform well (Walton, 1985). Efforts to raise employee commitment were underpinned
by a range of HRM practices including contingent-based pay, team building, coaching,
and leadership development to engender self-worth and self-efficacy. From the 1980s
onward, collectivism and collective agreements declined as a way of managing.
Individualism, individual contracts, and greater focus on individual performance
gained fresh impetus (van Drunen, van Strien, & Hass, 2004). A psychological shift
took place giving the self a more prominent place in organizational thinking.
An important function of labor markets is to allocate people of differing abilities to
different sectors of the economy (Grossman, 2004) and, 200 years after Adam Smith
realized the role of education and skills in wealth creation (Wolfle, 1971), economists
began looking for explanations for the growth of income inequality and used talent
heterogeneity as an explanatory variable (Bok, 1993). Rosen (1981) showed how art-
ists with slightly greater talent earn much more than people with slightly less talent
partly on the basis that “lesser talent is a poor substitute for greater talent” (Adler,
1985, p. 208). Adler (1985) extended this argument by showing that large differences
346 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)
in earnings (in the arts) can exist when there are no differences in talent, that is, stars
can exist among people of equal talent, a phenomenon returned to below.
Giftedness and talent continued to attract attention (Heller, Monks, & Passow, 1993;
Heller, Monks, Subotnik, & Sternberg, 2000) and with the contribution of talent in
society well established in the collective consciousness by the late 20th Century, the
conditions for the sociogenesis of a meme that would manifest as TM had been created.
Interest in understanding the characteristics of high performers continued (O’Connell,
1996; Spreitzer, McCall, & Mahoney, 1997), and the conditions for meme creation, in
an evolutionary sense, were created by a coalescence of economic liberalization in
times of uncertainty, diminishing lifetime employment arrangements, increased exter-
nal hiring in new organizational structures (Cappelli, 2008, 2009), free movement of
labor and capital, efforts to inject private-sector practices into public management,
privatization, and deregulation (see also, Adamsen, 2016). The confluence of economic
forces and the pointing-up of competitive conditions on such a scale in a relatively short
time brought organizational survivability into sharp relief such that concerted and
explicit ways of managing talent, in contrast to management development, were a logi-
cal way forward, particularly for large, private-sector organizations.
The Birth Point
In common with other innovations, TM arose from what came before; in this case, at
least 100 years of thinking about the interrelationships between talent and society. To
some extent, it is an aggregate of some older ideas around structured selection meth-
ods, performance management, and career development (Cappelli, 2009). However,
the critical adaptation was that TM emerged from these related but separate memes to
embed itself as part of a complex set of memes that sustain and replicate it (a meme-
plex). In essence, TM is the outcome of three things: a strong tendency in Western
societies to stratify, natural and socially constructed differences in human ability, and
distinctive economic conditions. The basis of stratification in this particular case
derives from the abilities that signal a person’s economic characteristics and potential.
The extent to which TM occurs in organizations is moderated by organizational tradi-
tions and overlaying competitive and political systems.
TM is in effect an artifact that people experience (as participants or as part of a team
designing and managing talent programs) and which is interpreted to give a particular
functionality. Human minds construct representations of the artifact to fit a particular
context (Aunger, 2007) which explains why talent programs differ in their philosophy
and operationalization. Although talent programs require sets of interlocking human
resource management practices, they are shaped and driven by a particular philosophy
and mind-set. The practices are not the meme, the manifestation of the meme is the
mind-set that shapes the practices.
The birth of TM in a business context, and as a distinctive aspect of management
development, occurred sometime in the late 20th century. Commentators often attribute
McKinsey’s 1997 “war for talent” report as a birth point for the sharp growth of interest
in what has become known as TM (Chambers, Foulon, Handfield-Jones, Hankin &
Swailes 347
Michaels, 1998). The book of the report, The War for Talent (Michaels et al., 2001) is also
widely cited as a seminal moment. The idea that organizations were fighting a “war” for
executive talent caught on and propelled the talent meme across boardrooms. The rhetoric
used by McKinsey was both assertive and moralizing; the “exultation” of strong leader-
ship and high-potential employees, the immorality of the poor performer, and survival of
the fittest analogies were all used to make the case (O’Mahoney & Sturdy, 2015). Michaels
and colleagues claimed to have interviewed nearly 13,000 managers, produced 27 case
studies, and held discussions with hundreds of other companies to derive five imperatives
including developing a talent mind-set, rebuilding recruitment and development strate-
gies, and differentiating among employees with “candid” performance reviews. They
insisted that companies at the top of their talent “index” outperformed others by some
distance and considered this to be “compelling” evidence that TM impacted positively on
business performance. A causal relationship was in no doubt.
With so much data behind their claims, how could they be wrong? Recognizing the
talent imperative was described as a strategic inflexion point; a turning point that compa-
nies had to pursue or risk falling behind. It would take a very brave executive in corporate
America to ignore it. The actual birth point, however, seems more likely to have been a
few years before the influential McKinsey report since it is clear that some companies and
large government offices were running variations of TM programs in the preceding years.
McKinsey did not birth the meme, rather it was the fruit of a build-up of corporate think-
ing, in the United States at least, that talent was the competitive weapon that organizations
had been overlooking. However, McKinsey’s role in the sociogenesis of TM should not
be underestimated given its long-standing influence over corporate America and how it
thinks and behaves (McDonald, 2013a). It was a great example of the consultant’s trump
card; a problem identified and a solution provided.
Meme Development
To track the popularity of TM and its progress into the consciousness of management
scholars, the Scopus database was searched for “talent” in article titles. Limiting
searches to social sciences only, in the 1970s and 1980s no more than five articles per
year were indexed. Twenty two were indexed in 1995, 21 in 2000, after which the
annual output increased steadily to 76 in 2005, 208 in 2010, and 202 in 2015. The peak
year was 2013 with 252 articles. Scopus shows the increasing spread of the talent
meme from 1996 to 1997 when the “war for talent” narratives were formulated up to
2010 after which the number of citations in the academic literature has leveled off.
Repeating the same search for the annual number of hits in Business Source Complete,
which indexes a wider range of scholarly and practitioner sources, showed a similar
pattern. Twelve articles were indexed in 1990 after which the annual total grew steadily
peaking at 717 in 2008 and was 679 in 2015. Both databases show that interest in TM
as evidenced by citations has reached a steady-state.
TM derives its survivability in the pool of management memes from its own logic
and psychological appeal in relation to uncertain business environments. It provides
solace to executives since, if they deploy it, it looks as if they are doing their best to
348 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)
get the best out of their employees in difficult times. There is as yet little robust evi-
dence that TM does actually improve survival rates (Collings, 2015; Silzer, 2010), but
on the surface, it makes sense as a way of improving the chances of organizational
survival even if considerable faith is also required. Each organization that pursues TM
interprets it in its own ways and adapts it to suit its culture, traditions, and survival
strategies. The talent meme can be thought of as the essential basis of the idea that the
different organizations deploying TM albeit in different ways hold in common.
The progress of the talent meme is evidenced by a sharp rise in the amount of aca-
demic and practitioner publications that has peaked in recent years, and the appeal of
TM has continued unabated even in the face of some harsh criticism. Shortly after the
birth point, Pfeffer (2001) argued that a talent mind-set could backfire by disaffecting
the bulk of a workforce through the glorifying of an elite, undermining teamwork, and
using TM to paper over some fundamental cracks in organizational systems and prac-
tices. Gladwell (2002), drawing heavily on the Enron folly, criticized the talent myth
that had become “the new orthodoxy of American management” pointing to failures in
promoting on potential rather than proven performance and the narcissistic behavior
of many who do achieve promotions.
But the logic of managing talent outmaneuvered its doubters and the meme spread.
In addition to the meme’s seductive logic, the meme’s progress was boosted and sus-
tained by the actions of some high-profile consulting firms and the ways that they
communicate with corporate clients. In 2013, consultants AM Azure published an
analysis of what became of the companies glorified in the original War for Talent. Of
the 106 companies that were identifiable, one third had disappeared and one third had
“done OK” or better. The others were somewhere in between. Of the 27 case studies
in War for Talent, about a quarter had continued to deliver good profitability but
nearly half had either disappeared or posted disappointing results. Companies, of
course, founder for many reasons and will not live or die by their talent strategies
alone so some attrition in the original sample is to be expected. Tantalizingly, how-
ever, after trying hard to demolish the original war for talent narrative, AM Azure
invites readers to contact them to find out more about “their distinctive approach to
TM”; an invitation that suggests they too clung to the faith and the promise of salva-
tion. Likewise, KPMG (2014) reporting a “recent global survey of Human Resources
professionals” conceded that “there is little evidence that typical ‘war for talent’ prac-
tices that focus on high performers actually contribute to improved business perfor-
mance” (p. 1). However, even this conclusion was not used to turn away from TM but
to justify new directions and more holistic strategies. This is a sign of the meme
adapting to survive, to widen its appeal by recognizing and embracing inclusive as
well as elitist strategies and thus appeal to more types of organizations and cultures.
Meme Appeal
So, why has this particular management meme prospered? Applying meme theory to
look “inside” the meme reveals five features that give it a high degree of “stickiness”
(Barrett, 2015). First, memes spread if they are salient and relevant to existing
Swailes 349
activities (Balkin, 1998). The meme benefited by attaching itself to other memes such
as leadership and performance management. The talent meme resonated with execu-
tives already hardwired for growth, innovation, self-reliance, and change. The meme
is easily assimilated; it is simple and sticks in the memory. It produces a behavioral
outcome that people experience and transmit as they move between organizations. The
structures of social networks affect the extent to which innovations diffuse (Abrahamson
& Rosenkopf, 1997) because they transmit information to potential adopters. Human
resource directors transmit the meme as they move around, and ambitious employees
who have experienced or who are looking for TM will assist the meme’s progress as
they circulate.
Second, meme propagation was, and continues to be, assisted because it has no
competitor save for a “stay as we are” strategy. This attitude has limited mileage in the
for-profit sector when conditions toughen although it is a steady defense in not-for-
profit sectors where memes for collectivism and non-differentiation provide some
immunity. Memes carrying messages of danger tend to spread quickly (Barrett, 2015),
and the talent meme taps into the dangers of inaction, of doing nothing while competi-
tors move forward. People are “wired” to pay attention to memes involving danger
(Brodie, 2009), and the meme appeals to the conscious fear that there are dangers “out
there” that put organizational survival at risk. Had McKinsey “emblazoned” its 20,000
surveys to senior managers (Michaels et al., 2001, p. x) with the “War for Skills” or
“The Battle for Recruitment” instead of War for Talent then the outcome might have
been very different, at least until an equally effective meme evolved.
Third, in the context of business organizations, the concepts of both talent and TM
are aided by their ambiguity; a feature that catalyses their diffusion (Adamsen, 2016;
Iles et al., 2010). Unlike sport, for example, in most business contexts innate talent is
very difficult to identify (Cappelli & Keller, 2014) and quantify. Talent may be, and
often is, described in competence frameworks and similar visions, but that does not
amount to quantification in the ways that talent in sport can be quantified through
goals scored or track times (Franck & Nuesch, 2011). The attributes of pop stars could
be described through their voice, appearance, and behavior, for example, but most
people displaying the same characteristics would not make it as a pop star. In social
settings, it is very difficult to separate real differences in a person’s ability and poten-
tial from luck, popularity, and effort.
TM has principles that can be interpreted to suit a wide range of organizational situ-
ations. It has good “interpretative viability” (Benders & van Veen, 2001) such that it
can, and does, mean different things to different organizations and can be defined and
implemented in a variety of ways. Memetics helps to understand why the ambiguity
around the specificity of talent and TM have not been of more concern to practitio-
ners—it is this very ambiguity that actually helps the meme to spread. “Talent” is a
seductive and easily assimilated word that captures a wide range of attitudes, charac-
teristics and skills that many people would think they possess and which organizations
might look for. Most people would think they have some sort of talent and the meme
attracts attention by reassuring executives that they must, after all, be talented to have
got where they are. Consumers of talent can select those bits of the meme’s core idea
350 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)
that appeal to them and use them opportunistically for their own purposes. Executives
can extract the meanings that they seek from the idea, line managers can use TM sys-
tems to leverage control over employees, and employees can play the systems to their
advantage, if they have the talent.
Fourth, meme development ties in with van Krieken’s (2012) analysis of contem-
porary celebrity society, and in particular, his observation that in a celebrity society,
information is in oversupply whereas attention is in short supply. The talent meme
easily attaches to a host that accepts the underlying philosophy of workforce differen-
tiation by shortcutting through the complexity of managing large organizations. Its
message offering the prospect of simple solutions to complex problems appeals to
executives in times of attention deficits. However, attention deficits seem likely to cre-
ate the conditions in which talent recognition is independent of talent and may not be
efficient. Extending Adler’s (1985, 2006) ideas about the relationships between star-
dom and talent to business organizations, employees could find themselves in talent
pools not because of differences in talent but because of the need for executives to
“consume” the same experiences of talent as others are consuming.
Suppose that many employees have talent quality but that executive attention can-
not be distributed across all of them. Executives acquire knowledge of those who
would be talented by discussing them with others, and when a talented person is popu-
lar, then it is easy to find someone to discuss. Hence, executives start to consume the
talent that others are consuming. When individuals are discussed by others, they raise
their consumption capital (Adler, 1985) such that an employee who does not normally
come into contact with the consumers of talent (people influential in talent decisions)
and who is not discussed by those consumers will have zero consumption capital.
Where a person has high consumption capital, then it is easier for consumers to find
other “fans,” and thus, individuals benefit from externalities of popularity which
explains, in part, why interest settles on a few “stars.” Executives, as consumers, con-
centrate their attention on a specific field of interest (those deemed to have greater
talent) at the expense of acquainting themselves with knowledge of the capabilities of
a greater number of others. It is more efficient for executives as consumers of talent to
patronize a smaller number of individual employees and to save the search costs of
discovering information about all others.
Because popularity is relative, everyone cannot be popular at the same time, and so
the non-talented suffer the consequences of executive judgments of their relative fail-
ure. Thus, “the hierarchy of success manufactures a hierarchy of psuedo-talent in its
own image, tending to reinforce the spurious perception of talent differential” (Adler,
2006, p. 898). In this way, stars emerge from groups who are equally talented. Being
spotted, and named, as a talented employee arises from chance events that raise popu-
larity and which attract attention. Because executives will prefer popular performers,
other executives will switch their attention to them. An initial advantage for an
employee, however obtained, can thus snowball into stardom. However, employees do
not simply rely on luck as they can engineer their popularity via ingratiation, impres-
sion management, and upward influence (Bolino, 1999; Chen & Fang, 2008; Thacker
& Wayne, 1995). Employees will invest in such methods to engineer their popularity
Swailes 351
to the extent that they think those investments could be recouped by the fruits of talent
status in a particular organization.
If employees are overlooked because they are truly less talented than those who are
deemed to be more talented, then the processes of talent recognition and reward are
efficient (following Rosen, 1981). However, if the reason for talent recognition is actu-
ally due to popularity, then the loss of psychic income to the excluded must be bal-
anced against the benefits that executives receive from a narrower concentration on a
“talented” minority. In this situation, the just-as-talented employees may stop trying to
be recognized further diminishing their psychic income with negative consequences
for organizations.
Fifth, the meme is spread by relatively successful and powerful people and elevates
the status of people linked to elite programs. Even though TM is hard to link to busi-
ness success, the idea spreads because those who are involved in running talent pro-
grams increase their power over the people in talent pools (van den Brink, Fruytier, &
Thunnissen, 2013) and their power to reveal and unmask who is “talented.” The same
effect occurs in mergers and acquisitions that are often unsuccessful but which raise
the power of executives in the predatory firm (Vos & Kelleher, 2001).
Power and status also accrue to those who are selected for elite talent programs.
Winning a talent contest produces gains over and above the actual prize that put addi-
tional resources at the winner’s disposal (Nippa, 2011). Being identified as talented
confers higher status that itself confers advantages as status influences the structure of
interactions with others and, even if there is no objectified status difference, individu-
als may draw some subjective evaluation of their recognition and take psychic income
from it. Higher status accentuates the perceived value of a person’s resources and
improves the chances of sharing the resources of others (Thye, 2000), raises the
chances of favorable outcomes independently of actual performance (Washington &
Zajac, 2005), and lessens the likelihood of receiving negative or aggressive behavior
from others (Lamertz & Aquino, 2004). It is clear, therefore, why status is an attractive
motivator in itself (Huberman, Loch, & Onculer, 2004) and how it can be used as a
means to an end. The outcomes of status in social networks are clear reasons for want-
ing to be associated with talent programs and help attract attention to the meme.
There is a striking parallel between elite talent programs and the analysis of court
society (Elias, 1983) that has influenced thinking about how organizations work (van
Iterson, Mastenbroek, Newton, & Smith, 2002). Elias drew attention to social pro-
cesses and how they are used to maintain order, and elite TM can be viewed as an
organizational strategy that uses hierarchical classifications to create and maintain dif-
ferences and distinctions between employees, talent pool members, line managers, and
senior managers. In the same way that royal courts were used to provide a forum in
which courtiers disciplined themselves, or face serious consequences, then competi-
tive relationships between the “talented” in talent pools impose a controlling order on
participants that mitigates threats that they may pose to senior managers. Talent pools
act as outlets for the creativity and individual strategies of ambitious employees, but
members must regulate their behavior to comply with prevailing organizational rules
and etiquette. Louis XIV of France ruled for 72 years and introduced ballet to his
352 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)
courts. The nobility and courtiers were kept busy practicing their dance, competing
against each other for the attentions of the king (Bintley, 2015). At the same time, dis-
sent and plotting were suppressed by the diversions of the dance.
Conclusion
This article contributes to a wider social understanding of TM, casts TM as a reflection
of contemporary society, and provides new insights into the reasons behind the diffu-
sion of TM. In the long tradition of management development, it is clear that large
organizations have engaged with practices that, with hindsight, we might now label as
TM. However, the widespread use of “talent” in management thinking is recent and
had a long gestation time. Set against the rise of individualism that accelerated in the
late 20th century, TM is a logical evolutionary device that derives its legitimacy from
the logic of itself and is implemented because it is seen in many large profit-seeking
organizations as a necessary survival mechanism. However, TM cannot be explained
simply through rational adoption, yet it is much more than “smoke and mirror” fash-
ion. Memetics help to understand the phenomenon and act as a metaphorical framing
device with strong explanatory power. There is plenty of scope for the meme to fit into
prevailing organization cultures and to be subject to whatever systems of inefficiency,
bias, and favoritism exist. Furthermore, the meme prospers even though perceived dif-
ferences in talent and the consequential TM processes may not be based on actual
talent differentials.
Indeed, there is little evidence that TM always works to organizational advantage,
and this is explainable because, analogous to viruses and bacteria, benefitting a host is
not a necessary condition for the spread of a meme. The point is that memes are repli-
cators and they do what they are good at; replicating (Dennett, 1995). Furthermore, in
common with other management innovations, the more the talent meme spreads, the
more it becomes subject to local interpretation (Jones & Thwaites, 2000), and thus, the
number of variations of the ways that the meme plays out in practice increases. The
more variations of the original idea there are, the more a definitive theory of TM
retreats into the distance.
For practitioners, this article locates TM in a particular managerial rhetoric that will
continue evolving. These “rhetorical waves” (Barley & Kunda, 1992) shift their ideo-
logical stance across time to play to the ways that society sees the core problems of
managing large organizations. The dominant rhetoric of the 1980s and 1990s was of
culture, commitment, and quality, and the present rhetoric, arguably, speaks more
about leadership, performance, and governance. TM focuses on how an internal
resource is used, and talent becomes a firm-specific asset that is impossible to replicate
exactly. But talent is not immutable, and the processes and routines used in organiza-
tions create resources of a particular kind and value. Where it is introduced, TM seems
likely to alter the nature of relations among groups of people by providing opportuni-
ties for new interactions among them, and it alters the meaning that particular groups
of employees have to top management. The extent to which TM benefits organizations
is still unclear, and this article identifies five non-rational (but not irrational) reasons
Swailes 353
why it is adopted. As for the future of the meme, if it follows the pattern of other
memes such as total quality management and business process reengineering, then the
principles will become widely accepted and adopted, and people start to think around
the concept but not necessarily use the same label (TM) that carried the original meme.
Memetic analysis suggests an important addition to the research agenda around
TM. To understand why TM has affected (infected) so many organizations, more
attention needs to be given to what is on the inside of the meme. Understanding more
about why and how the talent meme has proved to be a strong psychological attractor
is as important as pursuing conventional research agendas. Further research is needed
to understand what organizations get out of talent pools that create and maintain a
space between top management and ambitious others and which enable their members
to play against each other. There is much scope to research TM from a power perspec-
tive, and the effects of talent pools on organizational structures and processes offer a
fruitful research avenue. This avenue would be complemented by an understanding of
the social networks that lie behind the diffusion of TM in a range of organizations to
assess how influential they were in adoption or non-adoption and investigation into the
influence on non-talent factors in the recognition of talent and executive careers, par-
ticularly in the early stages, to reveal the factors that brought particular individuals to
attention.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21, 254-285.
Abrahamson, E., & Rosenkopf, L. (1997). Social network effects on the extent of innovation
diffusion: A computer simulation. Organization Science, 8, 289-309.
Abrahamson, M. (1973). Talent complementarity and organizational stratification.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 186-193.
Adams, W. (1968). The brain drain. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Adamsen, B. (2016). Demystifying talent management: A critical approach to the realities of
talent. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Adler, M. (1985). Stardom and talent. The American Economic Review, 75, 208-212.
Adler, M. (2006). Stardom and talent. In V. A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (Eds.), Handbook
of the economics of art and culture (Vol. 1, pp. 895-906). Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
North Holland.
Azure, AM. (2013). What happened to the war for talent exemplars? Retrieved from http://www.
amazureconsulting.com/files/1/91963843/WhatHappenedToTheWarForTalentExemplars
http://www.amazureconsulting.com/files/1/91963843/WhatHappenedToTheWarForTalentExemplars
http://www.amazureconsulting.com/files/1/91963843/WhatHappenedToTheWarForTalentExemplars
354 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)
Aunger, R. (2007). Memes. In R. I. M. Dunbar & L. Barrett (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
evolutionary psychology (pp. 599-604). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Balkin, J. M. (1998). Cultural software: A theory of ideology. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. (1992). Design and devotion: Surges of rational and normative ide-
ologies of control in managerial discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 363-399.
Barrett, H. C. (2015). The shape of thought: How mental adaptations evolve. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Benders, J., & van Veen, K. (2001). What’s in a fashion? Interpretative viability and manage-
ment fashions. Organization, 8, 33-53.
Bintley, D. (2015, September 14). The King who invented ballet: Louis XIV and the noble art of
dance. BBC Four broadcast, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p031ljxp.
Blackmore, S. (1999). The meme machine. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Blood, J. W. (Ed.). (1963). The management of scientific talent. New York, NY: American
Management Association.
Bok, D. (1993). The cost of talent: How executives and professionals are paid and how it affects
America. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management. Academy of Management
Review, 24, 82-98.
Bolster, M. H. (1967). The strategic deployment of exceptional talent: An account of the career
executive Roster’s short history. Public Administration Review, 27, 446-451.
Bray, D. W. (1954). Issues in the study of talent. New York, NY: Kings Crown Press.
Brodie, R. (2009). Virus of the mind: The new science of the meme. London, England: Hay
House.
Brown, J., & Harbison, F. (1957). High-talent management for science and industry. Princeton,
NJ: Industrial Relations Center, Princeton University.
Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent on demand: Managing talent in an age of uncertainty. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Press.
Cappelli, P. (2009). What’s old is new again: Managerial “talent” in an historical context.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 28, 179-218.
Cappelli, P. (2010). The rise and decline of executive development. Industrial and Corporate
Change, 19, 509-548.
Cappelli, P., & Keller, J. R. (2014). Talent management: Conceptual approaches and practical
challenges. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1,
305-331.
Cascio, W., & Boudreau, J. W. (2016). The search for global competence: From international
HR to talent management. Journal of World Business, 51, 103-114.
Casse, P. (1994). People are not resources. Journal of European Industrial Training, 18(5), 23-26.
Chambers, E.G., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S., & Michaels, E.G. (1998). The
McKinsey Quarterly. The war for talent, 3, 1-8.
Chen, Y., & Fang, W. (2008). The moderating effect of impression management on the organi-
zational politics-performance relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 263-277.
Collings, D. G. (2015). The contribution of talent management to organizational success. In K.
Kraiger, J. Passmore, N. R. dos Santos & S. Malvezzi (Eds.), The psychology of training,
development, and performance improvement (pp. 247-260). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and research
agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 304-313.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p031ljxp
Swailes 355
Davis, K., & Moore, W. E. (1945). Some principles of stratification. American Sociological
Review, 10, 242-249.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster.
Elias, N. (1983). The court society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Faris, R. (1936). Sociological factors in the development of talent and genius. Journal of
Educational Sociology, 9, 538-544.
Fischer, V. (1904). Ein Beitrag zur definition von Genie und Talent. [A contribution to the defi-
nition of genius and talent] Annalen der Naturphilosophie, 3, 233-237.
Franck, E., & Nuesch, S. (2011). Talent and/or popularity: What does it take to be a superstar?
Economic Inquiry, 50, 202-216.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & Gonzalez-Cruz, T. (2013). What is the meaning of “talent”
in the world of work? Human Resource Management Review, 23, 290-300.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Nijs, S., Dries, N., & Gallo, P. (2015). Towards an understanding of
talent management as a phenomenon-driven field using bibliometric and content analysis.
Human Resource Management Review, 25, 264-279.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., & Thunnissen, M. (2016). Standing on the shoulders of giants? A critical
review of empirical talent management research. Employee Relations, 38, 31-56.
Ghiselli, E. E. (Ed.). (1971). Explorations in managerial talent. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear
Publishing.
Ginzberg, E., & Herman, J. L. (1964). Talent and performance. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Gladwell, M. (2002, July 22). The talent myth: Are smart people overrated? The New Yorker.
Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myth
Green, S. (1989). Emile Durkheim on human talents and two traditions of social justice. The
British Journal of Sociology, 40, 97-117.
Grossman, G. M. (2004). The distribution of talent and the pattern and consequences of interna-
tional trade. Journal of Political Economy, 112, 209-239.
Heller, A., Monks, F. J., & Passow, A. H. (Eds.). (1993). International handbook of research
and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Heller, K. A., Monks, F. J., Subotnik, R., & Sternberg, R. (2000). International handbook of
giftedness and talent (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Hinrichs, J. R. (1966). High-talent personnel: Managing a critical resource. New York, NY:
American Management Association.
Hollingworth, L. T. (1923). Special talents and defects: Their significance for education. New
York, NY: Macmillan.
Huberman, B. A., Loch, C. H., & Onculer, A. (2004). Status as a valued resource. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 67, 103-114.
Husen, T. (1972). Talent, opportunity and career. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Iles, P., Preece, D., & Chuai, X. (2010). Talent management as a management fashion in HRD:
Towards a research agenda. Human Resource Development International, 13, 125-145.
Istvan, D. (1991). Coming full circle in practice management. Journal of Accountancy, 171(5),
42-48.
Jansz, J. (2004). Psychology and society: An overview. In J. Jansz & P. van Drunen (Eds.), A
social history of psychology (pp. 12-44). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myth
356 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)
Jenkins, (1995). On “what is history?” From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White. London,
England: Routledge.
Jones, M., & Thwaites, R. (2000). Dedicated followers of fashion: BPR and the public sector.
In D. Knights & H. Willmott (Eds.), The reengineering revolution: Critical studies of cor-
porate change (pp. 50-62). London, England: SAGE.
KPMG. (2014). War for talent—Time to change direction (Publication No. 131349). https://
home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2014/07/war-for-talent .
Lamertz, K., & Aquino, K. (2004). Social power, social status and perceptual similarity of
workplace victimization: A social network analysis of stratification. Human Relations, 57,
795-822. doi:10.1177/0018726704045766
Lawler, E. (2007). Why HR practices are not evidence-based. Academy of Management Journal,
50, 1033-1036.
Lawler, E. (2008). Talent: Making people your competitive advantage. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
McClelland, D. L., Baldwin, A. L., Bronfenbrenner, U., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1958). Talent and
society: New perspectives in the identification of talent. Princeton, NJ: van Nostrand.
McDonald, D. (2013a). The firm: The story of McKinsey and its secret influence on American
business. London, England: Simon & Schuster.
McDonald, D. (2013b, August 13). The godfather of CEO Megapay: McKinsey consultant Arch
Patton didn’t invent wealth inequality. Observer News. Retrieved from http://observer.
com/2013/08/the-godfather-of-ceo-megapay-mckinsey-consultant-arch-patton-didnt-
invent-wealth-inequality
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Alexrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Press.
Mill, J.S. (1869). The subjection of women. London: Longman, Green, Reader & Dyer.
Miner, J. B. (1974). The human constraint: The coming shortage of managerial talent.
Washington, DC: The Bureau of National Affairs.
Newell, S., Robertson, M., & Swan, J. (2001). Management fads and fashions. Organization,
8, 5-16.
Nijs, S., Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & Sels, L. (2014). A multidisciplinary review into
the definition, operationalization and measurement of talent. Journal of World Business,
49, 180-191.
Nippa, M. (2011). On the need to extend tournament theory. In J. L. Pearce (Ed.), Status in man-
agement and organizations (pp. 118-152). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
O’Connell, D. (1996). High potential identification. Boston, MA: Executive Development
Roundtable, Boston University School of Management.
O’Mahoney, J. (2007). The diffusion of management innovations: The possibilities and limita-
tions of memetics. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 1324-1348.
O’Mahoney, J., & Sturdy, A. (2015). Power and the diffusion of management ideas: The case
of McKinsey & Co. Management Learning, 47, 247-265. doi:10.1177/1350507615591756
Patton, A. (1967). The coming scramble for executive talent. The McKinsey Quarterly, 4(1),
2-16.
Paull, J. (2009). Meme maps: A tool for configuring memes in time and space. European
Journal of Scientific Research, 31(1), 11-18.
Pech, R. J. (2003). Memes and cognitive hardwiring: Why are some memes more successful
than others? European Journal of Innovation Management, 6, 173-181.
https://home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2014/07/war-for-talent
https://home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2014/07/war-for-talent
The Godfather of CEO Megapay: McKinsey Consultant Arch Patton Didn’t Invent Wealth Inequality
The Godfather of CEO Megapay: McKinsey Consultant Arch Patton Didn’t Invent Wealth Inequality
The Godfather of CEO Megapay: McKinsey Consultant Arch Patton Didn’t Invent Wealth Inequality
Swailes 357
Pfeffer, J. (2001). Fighting the war for talent is hazardous to your organization’s health.
Organizational Dynamics, 29, 248-259.
Ramsoy, N. R. (1965). On the flow of talent in society. Acta Sociologica, 9, 152-174.
Rosen, S. (1981). The economics of superstars. American Economic Review, 71, 845-858.
Scarborough, H., Robertson, M., & Swan, J. (2015). Diffusion in the face of failure: The evolu-
tion of a management innovation. British Journal of Management, 26, 365-387.
Schuler, R. S., Jackson, S. E., & Tarique, I. (2011). Global talent management and global talent
challenges: Strategic opportunities for IHRM. Journal of World Business, 46, 506-516.
Scullion, H., & Collings, D. (Eds.). (2011). Global talent management. London, England:
Routledge.
Silzer, R. (2010). Critical research issues in talent management. In R. Silzer & B. Dowell (Eds.),
Strategy-driven talent management (pp. 767-780). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Silzer, R., & Dowell, B. (Eds.). (2010). Strategy-driven talent management. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Sparrow, P., Scullion, H., & Tarique, I. (Eds.). (2014). Strategic talent management:
Contemporary issues in international context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Spreitzer, M. S., McCall, M. W., & Mahoney, J. D. (1997). Early identification of international
executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 6-29.
Sturdy, A. (2004). The adoption of management ideas and practices. Management Learning,
35, 155-179.
Swailes, S., Downs, Y., & Orr, K. (2014). Conceptualising inclusive talent management:
Potential, possibilities and practicalities. Human Resource Development International, 17,
529-544. doi:10.1080/13678868.2014.954188
Tansley, C. (2011). What do we mean by the term “talent” in talent management? Industrial and
Commercial Training, 43, 266-274.
Thacker, R. A., & Wayne, S. J. (1995). An examination of the relationship between upward
influence tactics and assessments of promotability. Journal of Management, 21, 739-756.
Thunnissen, M., Boselie, P., & Fruytier, B. (2013). A review of talent management: “Infancy
or adolescence?” International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 1744-1761.
Thye, S. (2000). A status value theory of power in exchange relations. American Sociological
Review, 65, 407-432.
Twedt, D. W. (1967). Is the talent pool for marketing managers drying up? Journal of Marketing,
31(3), 65-66.
van den Brink, M., Fruytier, B., & Thunnissen, M. (2013). Talent management in academia:
Performance systems and HRM policies. Human Resource Management Journal, 23,
180-195.
van Drunen, P., van Strien, P. J., & Haas, E. (2004). Work and organization. In J. Jansz & P.
van Drunen (Eds.), A social history of psychology (pp. 129-164). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
van Iterson, A., Mastenbroek, M., Newton, T., & Smith, D. (Eds.). (2002). The civilized organi-
zation: Norbert Elias and the future of organization studies. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
John Benjamins.
van Krieken, R. (2012). Celebrity society. London, England: Routledge.
Vetter, E. (1967). Manpower planning for high talent personnel. Ann Arbor: Bureau of
Industrial Relations, University of Michigan.
Voelpel, S., Leibold, M., & Streb, C. (2005). The innovation meme: Managing innovation rep-
licators for organizational fitness. Journal of Change Management, 5, 57-69.
358 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)
Vos, E., & Kelleher, B. (2001). Mergers and takeovers: A memetic approach. Journal of
Memetics—Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, 5. Retrieved from http://
jom-emit.cfpm.org/2001/vol5/vos_e&kelleher_b.html
Walton, R. E. (1985, March-April). From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard
Business Review, pp. 77-84.
Washington, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2005). Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence.
Academy of Management Journal, 48, 282-296.
Weeks, J., & Gelunic, C. (2003). A theory of the cultural evolution of the firm: The intra-
organizational ecology of memes. Organization Studies, 24, 1309-1352.
Williams, R. (2000). The business of memes: Memetic possibilities for marketing and manage-
ment. Management Decision, 38, 272-279.
Wolfle, D. L. (1971). The uses of talent. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Author Biography
Stephen Swailes is professor of Human Resource Management in The Business School,
University of Huddersfield. His current research interests focus on reaching a more critical
appreciation and understanding of talent management and the reactions of employees to talent
programmes.
http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/2001/vol5/vos_e&kelleher_b.html
http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/2001/vol5/vos_e&kelleher_b.html
–
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter 2000
A Reappraisal ofHRM
Models in Britain
by
Pawan s. Budhwar
Human Resource Management is still struggling to find a strategic role.
For a better understanding ofthe subj ect, both management practitioners
and scholars need to study human resource management (HRM) in
context [1]. The dynamics of both the local/regional and international/
global business context in which the firm operates should be given a
serious consideration. Similarly, there is a need to use multiple levels of
analysis when studying HRM: the external social, political, cultural, and
economic environment; and the industry. Examining HRM out-of-context
could be misleading and fail to advance understanding. A key question is
how to examine HRM in context? One way is by examining the main
models of HRM in different settings. However, there is no existing
framework that can enable such an evaluation to take place. An attempt
has been made in this paper to provide such a framework and empirically
examine it in the British context.
This paper is divided into three parts. Initially, it summarises the
main developments in the field of HRM. Then, it highlights the key
emphasis of five models of HRM (namely, the ‘Matching model’; the
‘Harvard model’; the ‘Contextual model’; the ‘5-P model’; and the
‘European model’ ofHRM). Lastly, we will address the operationalisation
of the key issues and emphases of the aforementioned models by
examining their applicability in six industries ofthe British manufacturing
sector. The evaluation highlights the context specific nature of British
HRM.
This introduction looks at the need to identify the core emphasis of
the main HRM models that could be used to examine their applicability in
different national contexts. Developments in the field of HRM are now
well documented in the literature [2, 3]. The debate relating to the nature
ofHRM continues today, although the focus of the debate has changed
over a period of time. At present, the contribution ofHRM in improving
Pawan S. Budhwar is Lecturer in Organizational Behaviour and
HRM at CardiffBusiness School, UK.
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter 2000
the firm’s performance and the overall success of any organization
(alongside other factors) is being highlighted in the literature [4, 5].
Alongside these debates, a number of important theoretical
developments have taken place in the field of HRM. For example, a
number ofmodels ofHRM have been developed over the last 15 years or
so. Some of the main models are: the ‘Matching model’; the ‘Harvard
model’; the ‘Contextual model’; the ‘5-P model’; and the ‘European
model’ ofHRM [6, 7]. All these models have been developed in the US
and the UK. These models ofHRM are proj ected to be useful for analysis
both between and within nations. However, the developers of these
models do not provide clear guidelines regarding their operationalisation
in different contexts. Moreover, it is interesting to note that, although a
large number of scholars refer to these models, very few have tested their
practical applicability (exceptions being Benkhoff [8]; Monks [9]; Truss
et al. [10]). For the development of relevant management practices there
is then a clear need not only to highlight the main emphasis of the HRM
models but also to show their operationalisation. Such an analysis will help
to examine the applicability of these models in other parts of the world.
With the increasing levels ofglobalisation ofbusiness such investigations
have become an imperative.
Moreover, although the present literature shows an emphasis on
themes such as ‘strategic HRM’ (SHRM), the majority of researchers
persist in examining only the traditional ‘hard’ and’ soft’ models ofHRM
[11]. For the growth and development of SHRM, there is a strong need
to examine the applicability of those models ofHRM which can help to
assess the extent to which it has really become strategic in different parts
of the world, and the main factors and variables which determine HRM
in different settings. This will not only test the applicability of HRM
approaches in different regions, but will also help to highlight the context
specific nature of HRM practices.
The aims of this paper are twofold. First, to identify the core
emphasis offive main models ofHRM which can be used to examine their
applicability in different national contexts. Second, to test empirically the
applicability of these models of HRM in the British context. Before
answering why this investigation is being conducted in the UK, the main
models of HRM are briefly analysed.
Models of HRM
Five models ofHRM, which are widely documented in the literature are
chosen for analysis. They are: the ‘Matching model’; the ‘Harvard
model’; the ‘Contextual model’; the ‘5-P model’; and the ‘European
model’ ofHRM [12,13, 14]. The reason for the selection and analysis of
thesemodelsis two-fold.First, it will help to highlight their main contribution
–
..
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter 2000
to the development of SHRM as a distinct discipline. Second, it will help
to identify the main research questions suitable for examining these
models in different national settings. The analysis begins with one of the
traditional models ofHRM.
The strategic fit of HRM
The main contributors to the ‘Matching model’ ofHRM come from the
Michigan and New York schools. Fombrun et al. ‘s [15] model highlights
the ‘resource’ aspect ofHRM and emphasises the efficient utilisation of
human resources (like otherresources) to meet organizational objectives.
The matching model is mainly based on Chandler’s [16] argument that an
organization’s structure is an outcome of its strategy. Fombrun et al.
expanded this premise and developed the matching model of strategic
RRM, which emphasises a ‘tight fit’ between organizational strategy,
organizational structure and HRM system, where both structure and
HRM are dependent on the organization strategy. The main aim of the
matching model is therefore to develop an appropriate ‘Human Resource
System’ that will characterise those HRM strategies that contribute to the
most efficient implementation ofbusiness strategies. The Schuler group
made further developments to the matching model and its core theme of
‘strategic fit’ in the late 19?Os [17]. The core issues emerging from the
matching models are:
1. Do organizations show a ‘tight fit’ between their HRM and
organization strategy where the former is dependent on the
latter? Do personnellHR managers believe they should
develop HRM systems only for the effective implementation
of their organization strategies?
.2. Do organizations consider their HRs as a cost and use them
sparingly? Or, do they devote resources to the training of
their HRs to make the best use of them?
3. Do HRM strategies vary across different levels of
employees?
The soft variant of HRM
Beer et al. [18] articulated the ‘Harvard Model’ of HRM. It is also
denoted as the ‘Soft’ variant ofHRM [19], mainly because it stresses the
‘human’ aspect of HRM and is more concerned with the employer-
employee relationship. The model highlights the interests of different
stakeholders in the organization (such as shareholders, management,
employee groups, government, community and unions) and how their
interests are related to the objectives of management. It also recognises
the influence ofsituational factors (such as the market situation) on HRM
policy choices. According to this model, the actual content of HRM is
described in relation to four policy areas i.e. human resource flows,
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter 2000
reward systems, employees’ influence and work systems. Each of the
four policy areas is characterised by a series of tasks to which managers
must attend. The outcomes that these four HR policies need to achieve
are commitment, competence, congruence, and cost effectiveness. The
model allows for analysis of these outcomes at both organizational and
societal levels. As this model acknowledges the role ofsocietal outcomes,
it can provide a useful basis for comparative analysis of HRM [20]. The
key issues emerging from this model which can be used for examining its
applicability in different contexts are:
1. What is the influence ofdifferent stakeholders and situational
and contingent variables on HRM policies?
2. To what extent is communication with employees used as a
means to maximise commitment?
3. What level of emphasis is given to employee development
through involvement, empowerment and devolution?
The contextual model of HRM
Researchers at the Centre for Corporate Strategy and Change at the
Warwick Business School developed this model. They examined strategy
making in complex organizations and related this to the ability to transform
HRM practices [21,22]. Hendry and associates argue that HRM should
not be labelled as a single form of activity. Organizations may follow a
number of different pathways in order to achieve the same results. This
is mainly due to the existence of a number of linkages between the outer
environmental context (socio-economic, technological, political-legal and
competitive)and inner organizationalcontext (culture, structure, leadership,
task-technology and business output). These linkages directly contribute
to forming the content of an organization’s HRM. The core issues
emerging from this model are:
1. What is the influence of economic (competitive conditions,
ownership and control, organization size and structure,
organizational growth path or stage in the life cycle and the
structure of the industry), technological (type of production
systems) and socio-political (national education and training
set-up) factors on HRM strategies?
2. What are the linkages between organizational contingencies
(such as size, nature, positioning ofHR, and HR strategies)
and HRM strategies?
Strategic integration of HRM
The existing literature reveals a trend in which HRM is becoming an
integral part of business strategy – hence, the emergence of the term
SHRM. It is largely concerned with ‘integration’ and ‘adaptation’. The
purpose of SHRM is to ensure that [23]:
–
..
Journal of General Management
VoL 26 No.2 Winter2000
1. HRM is fully integrated with the strategy and strategic needs
of the firm;
2. HR policies are coherent both across policy areas and across
hierarchies; and
3. HR practices are adjusted, accepted, and used by line
managers and employees as part of their every day work.
Based on such premises, Schuler [24] developed a 5-P model of
SHRM that melds five HR activities (philosophies, policies, programs,
practices and processes) with strategic needs. This model, to a great
extent, explains the significance ofthese five SHRM activities in achieving
the organization’s strategic needs, and shows the inter-relatedness of
activities that are often treated separately in the literature. This is helpful
in understanding the complex interaction between organizational strategy
and SHRM activities.
The model raises two important issues (also suggested by many
other authors in the field) for SHRM comparisons. These are:
1. What is the level of integration of HRM into the business
strategy?
2. What is the level ofresponsibility for HRM devolved to line
managers?
European model of HRM
Based on the growing importance of HRM and its contribution towards
economic success and the drive towards Europeanisation, Brewster [25]
proposes a ‘European model ofHRM’. His model is based on the premise
that European organizations operate with restricted autonomy. They are
constrained at both the international (European Union) and national levels
by national culture and legislation, at the organization level by patterns of
ownership, and at the HRM level by trade union involvement and
consultative arrangements [26, p. 3]. Brewster suggests the need to
accommodate such constraints when forming a model ofHRM. He also
talks about ‘outer’ (legalistic framework, vocational training programs,
social security provisions and the ownership patterns) and ‘internal’ (such
as union influence and employee involvement in decision making) constraints
on HRM. Based on such constraints, Brewster’s model highlights the
influence of factors such as national culture, ownership structures, the
role of the state and trade unions on HRM, in different national settings.
The European model shows an interaction between HR strategies,
business strategy and HR practice and their interaction with an external
environment constituting national culture, power systems, legislation,
education, employee representation and the constraints previously
mentioned. It places HR strategies in close interaction with the relevant
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter 2000
organizational strategy and external environment. One important aim of
this model is to show factors external to the organization as a part of the
HRM model, rather than as a set of external influences upon it.
From the above analyses, it can be seen that there is an element of
both the contextual and 5-P models of HRM present in Brewster’s
European model. Apart from the emphasis on ‘strategic HRM’, one main
issue important for cross-national HRM comparisons emerges from
Brewster’s model. This is:
• What is the influence of international institutions, national
factors (such as culture, legal set up, economic environment
and ownership patterns), and national institutions (such as the
educational and vocational set-up, labour markets and trade
unions) on HRM strategies and HRM practices?
Recently, Budhwar and associates [27, 28,29,30] have proposed
a framework for examining cross-national HRM. They have identified
three levels of factors and variables that are known to influence HRM
policies and practices and which are worth considering for cross-national
HRM examinations. These are national factors (such as national culture,
national institutions, business sectors and dynamic of the business
environment), contingent variables (such as the age, size, nature, ownership,
and life cycle stage of the organization, the presence of trade unions and
HR strategies, and the interests of different stakeholders) and
organizational strategies and policies (related to primary HR functions,
internal labour markets, levels ofintegration and devolvement, and nature
ofwork). This framework is used to examine the applicability ofthe issues
arising from the five HRM models in British organizations. But why
conduct this form of investigation, and in the British context?
As mentioned already, there is a scarcity of this type of research.
So far, only Truss et al. [31] have examined the applicability of some of
the models of HRM in a few UK case companies. Apart from their
research, there is scarcely any study that conducts the type ofinvestigation
described here. There are, then, two main reasons for conducting this
investigation in British companies. First, a UK sample possesses the
characteristics suitable to test the operationalisation ofthe main emphases
and critical issues ofthe five models ofHRM. Second, the HRM function
in the UK is under intense pressure due to competitive conditions, and the
restructuring and rightsizing programmes going on in British organizations,
as well as the pressure on British firms from EU and other international
players to stay competitive and meet the EU regulation regarding the
management ofhuman resources. In such dynamic business conditions it
is worth examining the HRM function in context. Moreover, since the five
models have been developed among Anglo-Saxon nations, it is sensible to
test them initially in these countries before recommending their testing in
others parts of the world.
–
..
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter 2000
The Research Methodology
Sample and data collection
A mixed methodology, using a questionnaire survey and in-depth interviews,
was adopted. During the first phase of the research, a questionnaire
survey was conducted between August 1994 and December 1994 in
British firms having 200 or more employees in six industries in the
manufacturing sector (food processing, plastics, steel, textiles,
pharmaceuticals and footwear). The respondents were the top personnel
specialist (one each) from each firm. The response rate ofthe questionnaire
survey was approximately 19 per cent (93 out of 500 questionnaires). The
items for the questionnaire were constructed from existing sources, such
as those developed by Cranfield researchers in their study ofcomparative
European HRM [32] and other studies (see for example [33, 34]). The
questionnaire consisted of 13 sections. These were: HR department
structure, role of the HR function in corporate strategy, recruitment and
selection, pay and benefits, training and development, performance
appraisal, employee relations, HRM strategy, influence ofnational culture,
national institutions, competitive pressures and business sector on HRM,
organizational details. Public limited companies represented approximately
one-third of the sample, with the remainder from the private sector. The
industry-wide distribution of respondents is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Sample Industry Distribution
Indtitry Percentage .
Food Processing 17.2
Plastics 17.2
Steel 16.1
Textiles 17.2
Pharmaceuticals 21.5
Footwear 10.8
Analysis of the demographic features of the sample suggests that
the sample was representative ofthe total population. Sixty-two per cent
of sample organizations were medium-sized and employed 200-499
employees, 14 per cent employed 500-999 employees, 15 per cent 1000-
4999 employees, and 8 per cent employed 5000 or more employees.
In the second phase of the research, 24 in-depth interviews were
conducted with personnel specialists representative of those firms which
participated in the first phase of the research. The interviews examined
six themes, viz. the nature of the personnel function, integration ofHRM
into the corporate strategy, devolvement ofHRM to line managers, and
the influences of national culture, national institutions and business
environment dynamic on HRM.
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter 2000
Measures
Multiple regression analysis and descriptive statistics are used to analyse
questionnaire data. Table 1 in the Appendix shows the main dependent
and independent variables used for multiple regression analysis. Table 2
in the Appendix presents the mean scores of respondents regarding the
influence of different aspects of national factors (culture, institutions,
business environment dynamic and business sector) and HR strategies on
HRM policies and practices. The qualitative data is content analysed. In
the discussion, survey results are complemented by key messages coming
from the qualitative interviews.
Findings of the Study
The matching models suggest a strong dependence ofHRM on organization
strategy, i.e, HRM is mainly developed for the effective implementation
of organization strategies. The results show that in 34.6 per cent of the
organizations under study personnel is involved from the outset in the
formation of corporate strategy, and 42 per cent of organizations actively
involve HRM during the implementation stage of their organizational
strategies. Such a trend of ‘active’ personnel management is further
evident from 55 per cent of sample organizations having personnel
representation at board level. Moreover, 81.1 per cent ofthe respondents
believe that their HRM has become proactive over the last five years (i.e.
more involved in decision making).
Such results reflect the growing strategic and proactive nature of
the British personnel function. There is support for such findings in the
existing literature [35, 36].
The second reason to examine the matching models in a cross-
national context is to assess whether human resources are considered as
a cost (‘use them sparingly’) or as an asset (spend on training to ‘make
their best use ‘). The results suggest that British organizations claim to be
spending variable though reasonable proportions oftheir annual salaries
on human resource development (HRD) related activities (see Table 2).
Table 2: Proportion of Annual Salaries and Wages Currently
Spent on Training and Development
Value(%) Percentage of Sample
Nil –
0.1- 2.00 41.3
2.01-4.00 7.6
4.01- 6.00 3.3
6.01 or more 1.1
Don’t know 46.7
–
..
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter2000
A similar pattern characterizes the number ofdays training provided
to different levels ofemployees (see Table 3). The substantial majority of
British firms have increased (rather than maintained or reduced) their
training spend across all categories of staff over the last five years (see
Table 4). There is evidence that this investment has been directed
particularly in the areas of performance appraisal, communication,
delegation, motivation and team building.
Table 3: Average Number of Days Training and Development
Given to Staff Categories Per Year
Different Cat~ories of Staff
Number ofDays Mana}!erial(%) Prof,/Technical(%) Clerical(%) Manual(%)
Nil 1.2 1.1 2.3 1.2
0.1-3.00 24.4 22.8 35.6 24.7
3.01-5.00 20.9 21.7 13.8 11.7
5.01-10.00 7.0 14.7 4.6 11.8
10.1 and above 5.8 4.6 3.5 9.4
Don’t know 40.7 40.9 40.2 41.2
These developments in the British HRD scene appear to be
consistent with the increased realisation by both business and government
that the development of human resources has been neglected for too long
[37].
Table 4: Nature of Change in Amount of Money Spent on
Training Per Employee
Different Categories of Staff
Nature ofChange Mana}!erial(“/o) Prof,/Technical(“/o) Clerical(%) Manual(%)
Increased 59.8 63.0 53.3 60.9
Same 21.7 18.5 28.3 20.7
Decreased 7.6 8.7 7.6 7.6
Don’t know 10.9 9.8 10.9 10.9
Another key emphasis of the matching model suggests a variation
in HRM strategies across different levels of employees. This is clearly
evident from the results as the nature and type of approach to the
management of different levels of employees vary significantly (see for
example, Tables 3 and 4). This aspect is further highlighted later in this
paper. Based on the above evidence, it seems that the British personnel
function still plays an implementationist role rather than being actively
involved in strategy formulation. On the other hand, there is a strong
emphasis on training and development.
Important Situational Determinants
One of the basic assumptions of the Harvard model of HRM is the
influence of a number of situational factors (such as work force
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter 2000
characteristics, unions, labour legislation and business strategy) and
different stakeholders (such as unions, government and community) on
HRM policies. The impact of a few of the situational factors and
stakeholders (proposed by Beer et al. [38D was examined during the
multiple regressions, analysis of means scores and the analysis of
interview results.
Taking the number of employees as a characteristic of the work
force [39, 40], the regression results show that small British organizations
(those having less than 499 employees) are likely to recruit their managerial
staff by advertising externally. Medium size organizations (those having
500 to 999 employees) are likely to recruittheirclerical staffas apprentices.
Large organizations (those having 1000 to 4999 employees) are more
likely to use assessment centres to train their human resources. Lastly,
very large firms (having over 5000 employees) are less likely to recruit
their managerial staff by advertising internally and their manual staff
through the use of word of mouth method. These firms are likely,
however, to recruit their professional staff with the help of consultants.
Moreover, large UK firms are more likely to adopt formal career plans,
succession plans and planned job rotation to develop their human resources
(for details see Table 1 in Appendix).
Support for these findings can be found in the literature (see for
example, [41D. The size ofan organization has a positive relation with the
formalism of their HRM policies [42]. Therefore, as the size of the firm
becomes large, logically, the degree offormalism ofits personnel function
increases and the organization obtains the help ofrecruitment agencies to
recruit its professional employees.
The results show a strong impact of labour laws, educational and
vocational training set up (highlighting government policy) and unions on
British HRM policies (see Table 2 in Appendix). Unions in the UK are
now playing a more supportive role [43]. The implementation of labour
legislation is also having significant influence on UK HRM policies.
Various pressures groups also contribute in this regard (for example,
against age discrimination). Over the last decade or so, the education and
vocational set-up in the UK has initiated a number of programmes and
qualifications such as the national vocational qualifications (NVQs),
investors in people (IIP) and’ opportunity 2000′ . These are now significantly
influencing HRM in British organizations [44].
The results also show a number of significant regressions regarding
the impact of HR strategies on British HRM. Results in Table 1 in the
Appendix show that organizations pursuing a cost reduction strategy are
more likely to recruit their clerical and manual staffas apprentices. These
organizations are likely to adopt an effective resource allocation HR
strategy. Organizations pursuing a talent improvement HR strategy are
–
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter 2000
less likely to recruit their manual staff by word of mouth method.
However, sample firms pursuing a talent acquisition HR strategy are
likely to use consultants to recruit their managerial staff and recruitment
agencies for manual staff. These organizations are also likely to adopt
assessment centres to train their staff.
Most of the above results seem to be logical. For example, by
recruiting employees as apprentices organizations not only pay them less
but also train and prepare them for working in the long run in their
organizations. Hence, it helps to reduce the costs. Similarly, by recruiting
employees externally, organizations increase the opportunity to improve
their talent base.
The second key emphasis of the Harvard model of HRM suggests
extensive use of communication with employees as a mechanism to
maximise commitment [45, p. 63]. Ninety-one per cent of British
organizations share information related to both strategy and financial
performance with their managerial staff. However, this percentage is
significantly lower for other categories of employees (see Table 5).
Table 5: Employees Formally Briefed about Strategy or
Financial Performance
Different Categmes of Staff
Tvoe ofInformation Managerial(%) Prof/Technical(%) Clerical(%) Manual(%)
Strategy – 8.0 8.6 6.4
Financial Performance 6.5 14.8 39.5 38.5
Both 91.3 65.7 42.0 23.6
Neither 2.2 11.6 9.9 31.5
There can be a number of explanations for the difference in the
sharing of strategic and financial information with different levels of
employees in British organizations. Whilst noting that top personnel
specialists are now more and more involved in strategy making, it seems
that top management continue to be reluctant to devolve responsibility to
line managers for the dissemination offinancial and strategic information.
These issues are further examined when discussing the 5-P model.
The above discussion suggests applicability of the Harvard model
ofHRM in British organizations. The results showed an impact oflabour
laws, education vocational set-up, unions, work force characteristics and
HR strategies on HRM policy choices. There are encouraging results on
the communication of information with different levels of employees
regarding sharing strategic and financial performance and on employee
development through their involvement and training.
Contextual Factors
The main issue against which the relevance of the contextual model can
be evaluated is the impact on HRM policies and practices of economic
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter 2000
(characterized by competitive pressures, ownership and life cycle stage),
technological (type ofproduction system)and socio-political (characterised
by national education and training set-up) factors and organizational
contingencies (such as size, age and nature of organization).
The results show a strong influence of competitive pressures on
British HRM policies and practices (see Table 2 in Appendix). To achieve
a competitive edge in such situations, they are focusing particularly on
total customer satisfaction and the restructuring oftheir organizations. As
competitive pressures are also forcing British organizations to enter into
new business arrangements (such as alliances), so these are having direct
influence on HRM policies and practices.
The results also show the impact of increasingly sophisticated
informationand communications technology on HRM policies and practices
(see Table 2 in the Appendix). Further evidence indicates that the
majority of respondents suggest these technologies mainly influence
training, appraisal and transfer functions. Why? Because with the change
in technology, employees need to be trained to handle it. To see if they
have achieved the required competence they are appraised and if
required, transferred to suitable positions.
Finally, we summarise the relevance of the contextual model of
HRM in terms ofthe impact of organizational contingencies. Contingent
variables such as size of the organization, presence of HR strategy and
presence of unions were examined above, as were the impacts of
ownership and organizational life cycle stage. These variables do not
seem significantly to impact HRM in British organizations.
Nevertheless, there is significant evidence overall regarding the
applicability of the contextual model ofHRM in British organizations.
Strategic Integration and Devolvement of HRM in Britain
Our discussion now focuses on the relevance of the ‘5 P’ model ofHRM
in British organizations. To achieve this, results regarding the integration
of HRM into corporate strategy and the devolution of responsibility for
HRM to line managers are examined. The detailed results are presented
elsewhere [46], but are summarized below.
In brief, the level of integration is measured on the basis of the
following four scales:
a) representation of Personnel on the board;
b) presence of a written Personnel strategy;
c) consultation ofPersonnel (from the outset) in the development
of corporate strategy; and
d) translation ofPersonnel/HR strategy into a clear set of work
programmes.
–
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No. 2 Winter 2000
The level of devolvement is measured on the basis of the following
three scales:
a) primary responsibility with line managers for HRM decision
making (regarding pay and benefits, recruitment and selection,
training and development, industrial relations, health and
safety, and workforce expansion and reduction);
b) change in the responsibility of line managers for HRM
(regarding pay and benefits, recruitment and selection, training
and development, industrial relations, health and safety, and
workforce expansion and reduction); and
c) percentage ofline managers trained in performance appraisal,
communication, delegation, motivation, team building and
foreign language.
High integration is the result of personnel representation at board
level, the personnel function being consulted about corporate strategy
from the outset, the presence of a written personnel strategy, and the
translation of such a strategy into a clear set of work programmes. As
mentioned earlier, the personnel function is represented at board level in
the majority (55 per cent of organizations). For our sample companies,
87.4 per cent have corporate strategies. Of these, 34.6 per cent consult
the personnel function at the outset, 42 per cent involve personnel in early
consultation, and only 13.6 per cent involve personnel during the
implementation stage. Over a quarter (26.4 per cent) of sample
organizations did not have a personnel strategy, 29.9 per cent had an
unwritten strategy and 43.7 per cent had a written personnel strategy. A
clear majority (57.4 per cent) of organizations felt that their personnel
strategy was translated into clear work programmes.
High devolvement is the result of: primary responsibility for pay,
recruitment, training, industrial relations, health and safety and expansion/
reduction decisions lying with the line (see Table 6); line responsibility for
these six areas on an increasing trend (see Table 7); and, evidence of
devolved competency with at least 33 per cent of the workforce being
trained in appraisals, communications,delegation, motivation, team building
and foreign languages.
Budhwar’s [47] analysis shows that when the four measures of
integration are summated and divided into a single scale of high and low
type, 50.5 per cent of the sample organizations would be categorised as
having high integration and 49.5 per cent fall into the low integration
category. The average score of the summated integration scale for a1193
organizations is .50. These results show a moderate level of integration
being practised in the sample industries. On the other hand, the summated
scales demonstrate a low level of devolvement. Sixty-one per cent of the
sample practise low levels of devolvement of HRM to line managers.
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter 2000
Table 6: Primary Responsibility for Major Decisions on
Personnel Issues
Personnel Issues Line Line Mgt in IIR Dilpt. inHRDept. Consultation COllSuJtationRelated to: Mgt. wi!il1lB.l)llUt. withLineMat.
Pay andBenefits 48.3 14.3 11.0 26.4
Recruitment and Selection 17.2 12.9 34.4 35.5
Training andDevelopment 15.1 18.3 22.5 44.1
Performance Aonraisal 17.5 6.9 30.4 45.2
Industrial Relations 36.3 13.2 25.3 25.2
Health and Safety 18.5 32.6 19.6 29.3
Workforce
19.4 19.4 44.1 17.1Expansion/Reduction
WorkSystem/Job Design 7.6 33.7 40.2 18.5
Figures in the above cells represent valid percentage, calculated after excluding the missing
values.
Table 7: Change in Responsibility of Line
Management for Different Personnel Issues
PellSonnelIssues Increased (%) Same(%) Decreased (%)
Pay andBenefits 27.2 65.2 7.6
Recruitment and Selection 43.5 48.9 7.6
Training and Development 69.6 23.9 6.5
Performance Appraisal 60.0 37.8 2.2
Industrial Relations 28.9 63.3 7.8
Healthand Safety 61.5 35.2 3.3
Workforce
38.9 54.4 6.7Expansion/Reduction
WorkSystem/Job Design 43.3 53.3 3.3
The results confirm the relevance of the 5-P model of HRM in
British organizations. They also help to examine the main emphasis of
Brewster’s [48] European model of HRM, i.e, the linkages between
corporate strategy and HRM strategy.
Conclusion
Overall, the results show a mixed picture, i.e. from strong to moderate
applicability of the mentioned HRM models in Britain. The study aimed to
examine HRM in context, and the findings should be useful for relevant
policy makers. In particular, it seems that the sample firms are practising
a relatively low level of devolvement in comparison to the integration
function. Ifthe HRM function is to become more strategic, then the level
of practice of both these concepts has to increase. Such demands are
likely to increase in future as more and more firms restructure and
become lean in order to respond to competitive and other pressures [49].
The study has two main limitations. First, it is restricted to six
industries ofthe UK manufacturing sector. Second, the views of only top
..
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No. 2 Winter 2000
personnel specialists were examined. In order, therefore, to obtain a more
comprehensive picture, research needs to be extended to other business
sectors and to the views of other key actors (such as line managers).
Future research could also build upon this study by investigating other
models ofHRM and their applicability in different national contexts.
Appendix
Table 1: Factors Determining HRM Practices in
British Organizations
Independent. lJependentVariables If BiJta . t·valueVarin/J/es
Training and development
0.2102 0.2984* 2.3790
Introductory through planned iob rotation
lifecycle stage Communication through
0.1629 -0.2663* -2.0720
immediate superior
Turnaround Recruiting managerial staff by
0.3695 -0.3038* -2.6170
lifecycle stage advertising externally
Recruiting managerial staff by
0.3695 0.3658** 3.0590
Less than 499 advertising externally
employees Recruiting clerical staff from 0.1014 -0.3184* -2.4220
recruitment agencies
Between 500- Recruiting clerical staff as
0.3337 0.2891* 2.4600
599 employees apprentices
Between 1000- Training and development
4999 through assessment centres 0.2607 0.3547** 2.8530
employees
Recruiting managerial staff by
0.1563 -0.2835* -2.1800
advertising internally
Recruiting
professionals/technical staff by
0.1039 0.3223* 2.4550
use of search/selection
More than
consultants
5000
Recruiting manual staffby
0.3698 -0.4529** -3.9340
employees
word of mouth
Training and development
through formal career plans
0.1406 0.375** 2.9170
Training and development
0.1685 0.4105** 3.2460
through succession plans
Training and development
0.2102 0.3873** 3.0880
though planned job rotation
Public Limited Recruiting managerial staff by
0.3695 0.4436** 3.8050Company advertising externally
Recruiting managerial staff
0.0830 -0.2881* -2.1700
from current employees
State-owned Recruiting clerical staff from
0.2842 -0.2583* -2.0650
organization current emnlovees
Recruiting manual staff by
0.3698 -0.3342** -2.9100
word of mouth
Organizations
incorporated Commnnication through trade
0.7445 -0.216** -3.0370
between 1869- unions or work councils
1899
Organizations
incorporated Recruiting manual staff from
0.1557 0.2609* 2.0240
between 1900- current employees
1947
Continued …
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter 2000
Table 1 Continued:
Independent lJepen4ent Variables .Jf Beta tvalueVariable
Recruitingclericalstaffby 0.2465 -0.3931** -3.2110advertising externally
Recruitingmanualstaffby 0.1974 -0.2767* -2.1550advertising externally
Organizations Trainingand development 0.2607 0.4364** 3.3780incorporated throughassessment centres
between 1948- Communication through 0.1629 -0.3255* -2.53201980 immediatesuperior
No formal communication 0.3517 0.3265** 2.7370methods
Communication through 0.0858 0.2929* 2.2090suggestion box(es)
Recruitingclericalstaff from 0.2842 -0.3019* -2.4240current employees
Cost reduction Recruitingclericalstaff as 0.3337 0.4182** 2.9450HRstrategy apprentices
Recruiting manualstaff as 0.1330 0.3646** 2.8240apprentices
Talent Recruitingmanualstaff by 0.3698 -0.3655** -3.2440improvement word of mouthHRstrategy
Recruiting managerial staffby
0.0777 0.2787* 2.0930use of search/selection
Talent consultants
acquisition HR Recruitingmanualstaff from 0.0914 0.3024* 2.2880strategy recruitmentagencies
Trainingand development 0.2607 0.2857* 2.2090throughassessment centres
Effective Recruitingclericalstaff as
0.3337 0.2882* 2.0300resourceHR apprenticesstrategy
Recruitingmanagerial staff by 0.3695 0.3593** 2.9750advertising externally
Recruitingmanualstaff by 0.1226 0.3502** 2.6960Unionised advertising internally
firms Communication through 0.3517 -0.255* -2.1820attitude survey
Communication throughtrade 0.7445 0.5656** 6.4000unions or work councils
* Significance at .05 level; **Significance at .01 level
–
..
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter 2000
Table 2: Influence of Different Aspects of
National Factors on HRM
Aspectsoff”lational (;ultttre No. of Cases Mean
1 Way in which managers are socialised 84 18.07
2 Common values, norms of behaviour and customs 81 20.28
3 The influence of pressure groups 58 10.47
4
Assumptions that shape the way managers perceive and
84 25.98
think: about the organization
5
The match to the organization’s culture and ‘the way we
86 35.58
do things around here’
N(ltif.}1Inl T- o ‘011.6
1 National Labour Laws 82 40.91
2 Trade Unions 61 21.72
3 Professional Bodies 56 15.11
4 Educational and Vocational training set-up 84 27.62
5 International Institutions 54 20.07
A~l1ects QflIusinessEnvironment
1
Increased national/international competition –
72 27.56
Globalisation of corporate business structure
Growth of new business arrangements, e.g. business
2 alliances, joint ventures and foreign direct investment 66 19.01
through mergers and acquisitions
3
More sophisticated information/communication
70 19.62
technology or increased reliance on automation
4
Changing composition of the workforce with respect to
48 12.39
gender, age, ethnicity and changing employee values
5
Downsizing of the workforce and business re-
69 23.13
engineering
6
Heightened focus on total management or customer
78 26.92
satisfaction
Aspects qfBusinessSector
1
Common strategies, business logic and goals being
71 22.95
pursued by firms across the sector
2
Regulations and standards (e.g. payments, training,
79 20.35
health and safety) specific to your industrial sector
Specific requirement/needs of customers or suppliers
3 that characterise your sector (i.e. supply chain 82 28.96
management)
4 The need for sector-specific knowledge in order to 56 15.35
provide similar goods/services in the sector
5
Informal or formal benchmarking across competitors in
61 16.39the sector (e.g, best practices of market leaders)
Cross-sector co-operative arrangements, e.g, common
6 technological innovations followed by all firms in the 37 10.54
sector
7
Common developments in business operations and work
49 14.40
practices dictated by the nature of the business
8
A labour market or skill requirement that tends to be
39 13.10used by your business sector only
Respondentswere asked to allocate a totalof100points to the different aspects ofthe above
nationalfactors.
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter 2000
References
[1] Jackson, S. E. and Schuler, R. S., ‘Understanding Human Resource
Management in the Context ofOrganizations and their Environment’ ,
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 46, 1995, pp. 237-264.
[2] Legge, K., Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and
Realities, Chippenham: MacMillan Business, 1995.
[3] Sisson, K. and Storey, J., The Realities of Human Resource
Management, Buckingham: Open University Press, 2000.
[4] Guest, D. E., ‘Human Resource Management and Performance: A
Review and Research Agenda’, International Journal ofHuman
Resource Management, Vol. 8, No.3, 1997, pp. 263-276.
[5] Schuler. R. S. and Jackson, S. E., Strategic Human Resource
Management, London: Blackwell, 1999.
[6] Brewster, C., ‘Towards a European Model of Human Resource
Management’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.
26, No.1, 1995, pp. 1-22.
[7] Legge, K., 1995, op. cit.
[8] Benkhoff, B., ‘A Test ofthe HRM Model: Good For Employers and
Employees’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 7,
No.4, 1997,pp.44-60.
[9] Monks, K., ‘Global or Local? HRM in the Multinational Company:
The Irish Experience’, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 7, No.3, 1996, pp. 721-735.
[10] Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hailey, H., McGovern, P. and Stiles, P., ‘Soft
and Hard Models ofHuman Resource management: A Reappraisal’ ,
Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 34, No.1, 1997, pp. 53-73.
[11] Legge, K., 1995. op. cit.
[12] Brewster, C., 1995, op. cit.
[13] Legge, K., 1995. op. cit.
[14] Poole, M., ‘Editorial: Human Resource Management in An
International Perspective’, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 1, No.1, 1990, pp. 1-15.
[15] Fombrun, C. J., Tichy, N. M. and Devanna, M. A., Strategic
Human Resource Management, New York: Wiley, 1984.
[16] Chandler, A., Strategy and Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1962.
[17] Schuler, R. S. and Jackson, S. E., ‘Organizational Strategy and
Organizational Level as Determinants of Human Resource
Management Practices’, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 10,
No.3, 1987, pp. 125-141.
[18] Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P. R., Quinn Mills, D. and
Walton, R. E., Human Resource Management, New York: Free
Press, 1984.
[19] Legge, K., 1995. op. cit.
[20] Poole, M., 1990. op. cit.
..
[21]
[22].. [23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No. 2 Winter 2000
Hendry, C and Pettigrew, A.M., ‘Patterns of Strategic Change in
the Development of Human Resource Management’, British
Journal ofManagement, Vol. 3, 1992, pp. 137-156.
Hendry, C., Pettigrew, A. M. and Sparrow, P. R., ‘Changing
Patterns of Human Resource Management,’ Personnel
Management, Vol. 20, No. 11, 1988, pp. 37-47.
Schuler, R. S., ‘Linking the People with the Strategic Needs of the
Business’, Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 1992, pp. 18-32.
Ibid.
Brewster, C., 1995, op. cit.
Ibid.
Budhwar, P., ‘Taking Human Resource Management Research To
The Next Millennium: Need For An Integrated Framework’,
Annual Academy of Management Conference, Chicago, 1999.
Budhwar, P. and Debrah, Y., ‘Rethinking Comparative and Cross
National Human Resource Management Research,’ The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2001
(forthcoming).
[29] Budhwar, P. and Sparrow, P., ‘An Integrative Framework For
Determining Cross National Human Resource Management
Practices’, Human Resource Management Review, 2001
(forthcoming) .
[30] Budhwar, P. and Sparrow, P., ‘National Factors Determining
Indian and British HRM Practices: An Empirical Study’,
Management International Review, Vol. 38, Special Issue 2,
1998, pp. 105-121.
[31] Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hailey, H., McGovern, P. and Stiles, P.,
1997, op. cit.
[32] Brewster, C. and Hegewisch, A., (eds.) Policy and Practice in
European Human Resource Management, London and New
York: Routledge, 1994.
[33] Baird, L. and Meshoulam, r., ‘Managing Two Fits of Strategic
Human Resource Management’, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 13, No.1, 1988, pp. 116-128.
[34] Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S. and Rivero, J. C., ‘Organizational
Characteristics as Predictors of Personnel Practice’, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 42, No.4, 1989, pp. 727-786.
[35] Legge, K., 1995, op. cit.
[36] Hendry, C., Human Resource Management: A Strategic
Approach to Employment, Bath: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998.
[37] Townley, B. ‘Communicating with Employees’ , in Sisson, K. (ed.),
Personnel Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory
and Practice in Britain, Blackball Business: London, 1996, pp.595-
633.
[38] Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P. R., Quinn Mills, D. and
Walton, R. E., 1984, op. cit.
[39] Jackson, S. E. and Schuler, R. E., 1995, op. cit.
[40] Tayeb, M., Organizations and National Culture, London: Sage,
1988.
Journal of General Management
Vol. 26 No.2 Winter 2000
[41] Sisson, K. and Storey, J., 2000, op. cit.
[42] Brewster, C. and Hegewisch, A., 1994, op. cit.
[43] Heery, E., ‘Annual Review Article 1996’. British Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 35, 1997, pp. 87-109.
[44] Collin, A. and Holden, L., ‘The National Framework for Vocational
Education and Training’, in. Beardwell, 1. and Holden, L., (eds.),
Human Resource Management. London: Pitman Publishing, 1997,
pp.345-377.
[45] Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hailey, H., McGovern, P. and Stiles, P.,
1997,op. cit.
[46] Budhwar, P., ‘Strategic Integration and Devolvement of Human
Resource Management in the British Manufacturing Sector’ , British
Journal of Management, Vol. 11, No.4, 2000, (in Press).
[47] Ibid.
[48] Brewster, C., 1995, op. cit.
[49] Terry, M. and Purcell, J., ‘Return to Slender’ , People Management,
23 October, 1997,46-51.
–
Advances in Developing Human
Resources
14(4) 566 –585
© 2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1523422312455610
http://adhr.sagepub.com
455610ADHR14410.1177/1523422312455610Adva
nces in Developing Human ResourcesKim and McLean
1Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
2McLean Global Consulting, Inc., USA
Corresponding Author:
Sehoon Kim, Educational Administration and Human Resource Development, Texas A&M University, 4226
TAMU College Station, TX 77843, USA
Email: shkim2077@gmail.com
Global Talent
Management: Necessity,
Challenges, and the Roles
of HRD
Sehoon Kim1 and Gary N. McLean2
Abstract
The Problem.
Despite increasing attention in business, talent management in global contexts has not
been explored adequately in HRD. Most studies related to global talent management
explain only part of it and do not provide an integrative understanding of what is going
on globally in talent management in an HRD perspective.
The Solution.
This article proposed an integrative conceptual framework for global talent
management that involves the necessity, challenges, and roles of HRD. Considering
cross-cultural viewpoints and multinational enterprise issues in HRD, the study
analyzed why talent management is necessary and the challenges of developing
talent. Finally, proposals were made for developing global talent and roles for HRD
researchers and practitioners.
The Stakeholders.
The results of this study will provide insights or guides for researchers interested
in talent management/development and HR practitioners involved in a multinational
enterprise.
Keywords
talent management, globalization, talent development, high potential, HRD challenges,
HRD roles
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1523422312455610&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2012-08-10
Kim and McLean 567
Since The War for Talent (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001), business
practitioners have enthusiastically embraced talent management (TM; Iles, Preece, &
Chuai, 2010; Lewis & Heckman, 2006). Despite the recent shrinking employment
caused by the economic recession, interest in talent in business has extensively
increased with the unprecedented global competition (Athey, 2008; Scullion,
Collings, & Caligiuri, 2010) because such talent is regarded as generating great ben-
efits and value for the organization (Tarique & Schuler, 2010). The business para-
digm has shifted from marketing and finance to “talentship” (Boudreau & Ramstad,
2005, p. 21).
As the world economy continues to globalize, organizations continue to increase
their international profits and intensify their overseas investments (Guthridge &
Komm, 2008). As this occurs, the importance of global talent in organizations has
also been increasing. Managing and developing necessary global talent are regarded
as among a company’s priorities for sustainable growth (Collings, McDonnell, &
Scullion, 2009; Guthridge & Komm, 2008). According to an Ernst & Young survey
that included more than 150 global executives among Fortune 1000 companies, 65%
of respondents answered that how to deal with global TM would highly impact their
organization (Leisy & Pyron, 2009). For this reason, many organizations are making
great efforts to acquire, develop, and retain talent worldwide (Boudreau & Ramstad,
2005; Lewis & Heckman, 2006).
In spite of the recent enthusiastic attention to this theme in business, academic
activities on managing global talent have not yet fully recognized its importance
(Burbach & Royle, 2010). The concept and features of TM have not been clearly and
sufficiently explored (Collings et al., 2009; Lewis & Heckman, 2006), and many stud-
ies still debate its identity, definition, and scope (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Farndale,
Scullion, & Sparrow, 2010; Iles et al., 2010; Lewis & Heckman, 2006; McLean, 2010;
Tarique & Schuler, 2010). Although there is a view in which TM may be a business fad
or “old wine in new bottles” (Iles et al., 2010, p. 126), how to deal with talent is critical
for organizations to develop in a sustainable way, no matter what we call TM (McLean,
2010). Most studies on TM were found in human resource management (HRM),
although development, as focused in HRD, is one of the key elements in the TM pro-
cess, and its importance is being increasingly emphasized (Collings & Mellahi, 2009;
Tarique & Schuler, 2010). When it comes to a global context, only a few studies on
global TM were found. However, these studies, which focused on concepts or cases,
explained only part of the global TM approaches and did not provide an integrative
understanding of what is going on globally in TM in an HRD perspective.
The purpose of this article is to identify the necessity and challenges of TM in a
global context and suggest roles for HRD. First, studies on TM not only in HRD but
also in related disciplines were investigated. Then, consideration was given to cross-
cultural and multinational enterprise (MNE) issues in HRD, specifically exploring
why TM is necessary and the challenges of managing and developing talent in a global
setting. Finally, proposals were made for developing global talent and roles for both
HRD researchers and practitioners. In this study, we supported the perception of
568 Advances in Developing Human Resources 14(4)
McLean (2010) and Collings and Mellahi (2009) that TM is not a very new concept
but should be reemphasized by HR professionals to identify key positions and develop
a talent pool, a critical step for successful TM. In addition, findings in this study
focused on global TM, which is different from TM in a domestic context.
The results of this study will contribute to further academic and practical studies on
global talent by providing guidelines for strategic approaches to managing and devel-
oping talent in a global environment.
Talent Management
As TM is a relatively new topic in HR, first introduced as a unified concept in the
1990s, there is still ambiguity and a lack of agreement in terms of its definition,
nature, and features (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Garrow & Hirsh, 2008; Iles et al.,
2010; Lewis & Heckman, 2006). However, recently, several studies on TM have
helped define its attributes, scope, and aspects in both empirical and conceptual ways.
There are three perspectives on TM prevalent in organizations (Lewis &
Heckman, 2006). The first looks at TM as typical HR roles and activities. In this
perspective, HR provides the same approaches to talent, however that gets defined,
through recruiting, development, and retention as is done with employees not
defined as talent. The second view emphasizes how to secure and develop internal
talent by building talent pools. This is generally related to organizational staffing
and career planning. In the third perspective, talent in the organization is identified
not for certain jobs or through specific succession plans but through recognizing
outstanding individual performance. In this view, organizations evaluate employees
according to their performance and try to retain the talent of the A grades and eject
the C and D grades. In addition to these three perspectives, there are talent pipeline
approaches, such as succession planning and leadership development, that are
regarded as TM (Iles et al., 2010).
By borrowing the concept from a supply chain perspective, Cappelli (2008) pro-
posed four principles for operating TM more effectively. The four principles are hiring
or developing talent according to the business strategy as an investment; reflecting the
uncertain future; improving the cost-efficiency of employee development; and balanc-
ing individual and the organizational interests in development investment.
Integrating recent definitions and perceptions on TM, Collings and Mellahi (2009)
proposed a definition for TM emphasizing its strategic aspects:
Activities and processes that involve the systematic identification of key posi-
tions which differentially contribute to the organization’s sustainable competi-
tive advantage, the development of a talent pool of high potential and high
performing incumbents to fill these roles, and the development of a differenti-
ated human resource architecture to facilitate filling these positions with com-
petent incumbents and to ensure their continued commitment to the organization.
(p. 304)
Kim and McLean 569
In the same vein, Collings and Mellahi (2009) also developed a theoretical
model of strategic TM. In their model, the firm’s performance results from a dif-
ferentiated HR architecture. To develop and utilize internal talent, an organization
should recognize which positions are critically related to its performance. Once a
talent pool of high potentials and high performers is formed by developing or
recruiting talent, the pivotal positions should be filled from the pool. These organi-
zational efforts in HR architecture are intended to enable talent to retain work moti-
vation, organizational commitment, and extra-role behavior, which results in
sustainable performance in the organization. Organizations that deal with human
resources in more than one country, however, need different strategies and action
plans for talent from domestic organizations. That is, global TM should involve an
integrated strategy of TM activities at a global level in order for the business suc-
cess of global organizations that goes beyond general HR assignments (Collings et
al., 2009). Thus, global TM is defined as an organization’s efforts to acquire,
develop, and retain talent to meet organizational strategies on a global scale, given
not only the differences between organizations but also their global and cultural
contexts (Scullion et al., 2010; Tarique & Schuler, 2010). Based on the interna-
tional human resource management context, Tarique and Schuler identified chal-
lenges that influence global TM activities, dividing the challenges into “exogenous”
and “endogenous” drivers (p. 126). External challenges include globalization,
workforce demographic changes, and shortages of talent, and internal ones incor-
porate regional specification, retaining talent, and competencies.
HRD in a Global Context
The more globalization, the more studies and practices in international HRD are
needed (Wang & McLean, 2007). To support organizational work successfully in this
broad and complicated business environment, HRD professionals need a global per-
spective and understand differences in cultures among countries (McLean, 2006).
However, the majority of the studies on cross-cultural training have looked at culture
not as the context but as the content of the training and focused on how to prepare
expatriates (Osman-Gani & Zidan, 2001).
Global HRD can promote the global success of the organization because the perti-
nent development of human capital produces an invaluable organizational resource
(Marquardt, Berger, & Loan, 2004). When organizations become globalized, roles and
activities of HRD will also be influenced by different cultures, ways of doing business,
physical locations, environments, and languages. If HRD relies on the same approaches
in a global situation as used in a domestic setting, this may result in inappropriate
behaviors and decisions by employees. This can then lead to lower performance or
even business failure. Therefore, HRD professionals should know how to deal with
different cultures and utilize global HRD interventions needed for organizations
involved in international or global activities (Marquardt et al., 2004; McLean, 2006).
These global interventions include virtual or cross-cultural team building, cultural
570 Advances in Developing Human Resources 14(4)
self-awareness, cross-cultural training, sharing stories, joint ventures, global job
assignments, and blending of diverse cultures (McLean, 2006).
DeSimone, Werner, and Harris (2002) listed the four major elements included in
most cross-cultural training programs: (a) raising the awareness of cultural differ-
ences, (b) focusing on ways attitudes are shaped, (c) providing factual information
about each culture, and (d) building skills in the areas of language, nonverbal com-
munication, cultural stress management, and adjustment adaptation skills (p. 639).
Cross-cultural training needs to develop knowledge, skills, and attitudes for interac-
tions with people from different cultures (Osman-Gani & Zidan, 2001).
Method
To conduct a comprehensive review of literature, we identified keywords and related
terms for a database search: talent management, talent development, global talent
management, global talent development, global human resources, international
human resources, and cultural training. The search was conducted at the end of 2010.
The identified literature was screened by types of publication (scholarly article,
research report, and book) and published time (only after 1990), with an initial
abstract review. Relevant literature (n = 82) was identified through Google Scholar
and several academic databases, such as Academic Search Complete, Business Source
Complete, Eric, Human Resource Abstracts, and ABI/INFORM Global, and by refer-
ences found in the resulting articles.
In spite of the few studies on TM or global TM in HRD, we found a number of
relevant literature related to TM in HRM and industrial psychology. The identified
studies were analyzed to identify how academic studies and practical activities related
to global TM have been conducted and how to maximize developing global talent in
the organization.
Why Is Global TM Necessary?
Global TM includes organizational activities to acquire, develop, and retain talent for
organizational strategies on a global scale, taking account of cultural contexts
(Scullion et al., 2010). Despite the recent global economic recession that has resulted
in massive downsizing and restructuring in business, the majority of firms still recog-
nize TM as one of the top organizational priorities (Tarique & Schuler, 2010). The
reasons global TM is necessary can be identified as expansion of a market to the
world, deficiency of talent, and competition for talent.
Expansion to the World
As companies step into a global environment, they face competition for talent, one
of the most valuable assets in the organization (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998). A Hewitt
survey of more than 500 companies in the United States revealed that 45% of the
Kim and McLean 571
organizations were currently doing or within 3 years would do business in other
countries (Gandossy & Kao, 2004). The success of the organization in a global set-
ting depends on how the resources are used and how talent is supported to commit
to the work and organization (Marquardt et al., 2004). Marquardt et al. (2004) clas-
sified organization types according to global status: domestic, international, multina-
tional, and global. They found that each stage had different strategies, products,
competitors, markets, structures, and cultural sensitivity. Because of these different
corporate activities, globalized organizations need talent who can make a profit in a
wide scope of environments (Farndale et al., 2010). Moreover, infrastructure around
TM in other regions may be different from the headquarters country of the organiza-
tion (Leisy & Pyron, 2009; Odell & Spielman, 2009).
According to a McKinsey Global Survey, most global companies expect that
emerging global markets will provide not only more production but also talent and
innovation and plan to look for talent in local markets (44%) or from developed mar-
kets and deploy them to emerging markets (35%; Dye & Stephenson, 2010). To iden-
tify, acquire, develop, and retain global talent, global organizations need new types of
competencies, recruitment strategies, development approaches, career paths, and
reward systems that are different from the domestic environment (Marquardt et al.,
2004). Global TM is not merely about managing physical bodies of smart people but
also about dealing with human capital and the intangible resources of individual
knowledge and skills (Odell & Spielman, 2009).
Deficiency of Talent
The U.S. labor force will decline as Baby Boomers retire and the birth rate decline
(Athey, 2008). As in the United States, several reports and studies warned that work-
ing populations in most developed countries were rapidly decreasing, and this phe-
nomenon would spread over the world in a few years (Gandossy & Kao, 2004;
Hayutin, 2010; Leisy & Pyron, 2009; Orr & McVerry, 2007; Strack, Baier, &
Fahlander, 2008; Tucker, Kao, & Verma, 2005). According to Hayutin, for the past 20
years, the working-age population grew rapidly in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia,
but, for the coming 20 years, the increase would slow in most countries. Most devel-
oped countries are projected to face a workforce shrinkage, and the European working
population will decline by 50 million (Hayutin, 2010).
The shortages of labor will result in a serious deficiency of talent (Strack et al.,
2008) that can cause low productivity in organizations (Dye & Stephenson, 2010).
This deficiency will affect the state of talent pools in organizations. Relying only on
traditional HR activities may be an ineffective way to retain enough talent because of
the limited resources in the labor market. For a sustainable talent supply, organizations
need to emphasize not only acquiring and retaining high performers but also develop-
ing internal employees who have potential and encouraging them to increase their
abilities (Athey, 2008; Strack et al., 2008). In addition, the development activities
should not be ad hoc or haphazard but strategically planned to align organizational
goals and vision (McDonnell, Lamare, Gunnigle, & Lavelle, 2010).
572 Advances in Developing Human Resources 14(4)
Competition for Talent
The lack of labor may be one of the major reasons why more intense competition to
acquire and retain talent happens (Strack et al., 2008). However, a lack of critical
skills that employees have is also regarded as one of the key factors that increase the
need for talent globally (Odell & Spielman, 2009; Zheng, 2009) because skill defi-
ciency is related to a high rate of turnover (Zheng, 2009). As global competition for
talent heats up, organizations that do not prepare ways to acquire, develop, utilize, and
retain talent may fall behind in a race for global business. Therefore, organizations
need to consider carefully the actions they take for a sustainable talent supply
(Bhatnagar. 2008).
Challenges of Developing Global Talent
Given the geographic and cultural scope in which global organizations work, we
found three primary challenges that may occur while developing global talent: ethno-
centric strategy, worries about global mobility, and barriers between headquarters and
subsidiaries countries.
Ethnocentric Strategy
One of the critical challenges global organizations can encounter when they deal with
talent development is ethnocentrism, defined as a belief that other groups are inferior
to one’s own (Barger, 2008). Many organizations are not aware that what they have
carried out may not be applicable to other regions, cultures, or countries and believe
that standardization through an ethnocentric approach is more efficient than consider-
ing difference. Indeed, many HR practitioners struggle with a balance between global
formalization or standardization and local flexibility or customization (Begley &
Boyd, 2003). With global standardization (formalization), organizations may expect
efficiency and fairness in HR policies and activities (Begley & Boyd, 2003). However,
regional strategies for talent—hiring regional talent and developing them taking into
account local contexts—can result in better performance with lower costs than central
strategies because each region or country may have a different perception and condi-
tion of talent (Tarique & Schuler, 2010).
For instance, Boussebaa and Morgan (2008) discovered that one of the challenges
of a multinational company in France, with headquarters in the United Kingdom, was
the difference in understanding of talent in headquarters. According to their study,
talent has a meaning of someone who has potential among the U.K. companies,
whereas talent in France means someone who has already developed and proven their
abilities. Failure to take into account the different understanding of concepts of talent
brought about a failure of the talent development system projects led by the British
company in France.
Moreover, ethnocentric perceptions of global organizations can result in less prep-
aration for global assignments of their talent, which is associated with expatriate
Kim and McLean 573
failure (Choi, 2002; Shen & Lang, 2009; Yeaton & Hall, 2008). According to Osman-
Gani (2000), U.S. expatriates generally deemed that a 3-day predeparture training is
most appropriate, whereas the majority of German, Japanese, and Korean expatriates
considered at least a 1-week-long training as a minimum. In fact, 16% to 40% of U.S.
expatriates fail their assignment and return prematurely (Wagner & Hollenbeck,
1995), which is an apparent contrast to a 5% to 10% global assignment failure of non-
U.S. expatriates (Dowling, Welch, & Schuler, 1999).
Worries About Global Mobility
Through the McKinsey Global Survey, Dye and Stephenson (2010) found that 35%
of global companies considered deploying talent employed in the host country to
other countries. This means a substantial number of people will work for years in an
environment where the culture, language, law, business style, and weather may be
different from their home country. Although the experience of global assignments can
be invaluable for learning and development, many employees assigned to work in
another country may be demotivated not only because of the new environment they
will face but also because of worries about career disadvantages after repatriation to
their home country (Guthridge & Komm, 2008).
Marquardt et al. (2004) reported that 20% of the repatriates left their organization
within 1 year after they came back and 50% quit the job within 1 to 3 years.
Mismanagement of expatriates can cause tremendous damage to organizations. The
reasons why expatriates fear global mobility are that they think they lose promotion
opportunities, there may be limited positions for them when they come back, the
overseas assignment may be a result of a demotion, few colleagues welcome them
back (Allen & Alvarez, 1998), and they hear about negative repatriate experiences
from their colleagues (Farndale et al., 2010). In addition to the situations that may
happen in the organization, reverse culture shock of the expatriates themselves, as
well as their families, can result in maladjustment (Marquardt et al., 2004).
De Cieri, Sheehan, Costa, Fenwick, and Cooper (2009) found that national identity
with their country of birth and quality of life in the home country are also factors that
can influence global mobility of employees, either in a positive or negative way. A
strong sense of national identity is likely to strengthen the desire for repatriation. In
terms of quality of life in the home country, they contended that people tend to desire
to relocate and stay in another country if the life in the host country is better than in the
home country.
Barriers Between Headquarters and Subsidiaries
When the goals of the global organization’s headquarters are not in alignment with
the subsidiaries, the regional or local strategies and activities may not be in accord
with the overall organization’s purposes (Bjorkman, Barner-Rasmussen, & Li, 2004).
If the relationship between headquarters and subsidiaries is distant, local branches
574 Advances in Developing Human Resources 14(4)
will be interested in developing talent only for their performance, not for the overall
success of the organization. In this regard, subsidiary managers may recruit, assess,
and develop talent with a standard according to their own strategies and competen-
cies rather than that of the headquarters (Mellahi & Collings, 2010). Sometimes the
best employee in the organization can be a victim of abandonment when he or she is
positioned between the headquarters and subsidiary (Gandossy & Kao, 2004).
Furthermore, this defensive behavior can bring about a reduction in effectiveness of
global TM strategies (Farndale et al., 2010).
When barriers between headquarters and subsidiaries are strong, a lack of appropri-
ate information on talent in the subsidiaries can cause a failure of the global TM sys-
tem, which may result in limited opportunities for talent at subsidiaries to work in the
upper management team at headquarters (Mellahi & Collings, 2010).
Mellahi and Collings (2010) also found that a reason for a lack of communication
between headquarters and subsidiaries is culture. In regions that have a strong power
distance culture, such as China, Japan, and South Korea, people tend to regard saving
face for someone who is in a higher position as very valuable. Therefore, employees
cannot easily report their opinions to headquarters even though mismanagement of
talent may happen in the subsidiary.
HRD Roles for Success in Global TM
Wooldridge (2006) warned that relying heavily on a particular approach to talent can
no longer be beneficial for the organization and can even adversely affect the future
of the organization. Too much emphasis on attracting and retaining talent, and ignor-
ing or neglecting development or deployment, may cause significant harm to the
organization (Athey, 2008; Pfeffer, 2001). For this reason, many global organizations
have changed their talent supply strategies from hiring outsiders to developing insid-
ers (Boussebaa & Morgan, 2008; Osman-Gani & Chan, 2009), although this does not
mean that external transfusion of talent has been ignored. The roles of HRD are
critical for global organizations, not only to support talent in order to generate better
performance but also to develop employees who have global potential that will lead
to a sustainable talent supply for the organization. For successful global TM, we sug-
gest roles for HRD in the areas of balancing centralized and decentralized strategies,
developing global competencies, creating structured global talent development, and
conducting global team building.
Balancing Centralized and Decentralized Strategies
Although global organizations may have headquarters that have central power and
roles, their global subsidiaries are normally led by managers from diverse areas
(Marquardt et al. 2004). That is, on the one hand, globally unified strategies, struc-
tures, and corporate cultures are emphasized; on the other hand, locally specified and
customized approaches cannot be ignored. Thus, when a global organization makes
Kim and McLean 575
a decision, the uniqueness of each local environment should be taken into account
throughout the vision and strategies of the global organization (Harvey, Fisher,
McPhail, & Moeller, 2009).
To enhance the organization’s homogeneous culture and strategies, many compa-
nies send managers from headquarters to sites around the world to communicate cen-
tral values and cultures (Marquardt et al., 2004). HR managers from headquarters can
help incorporate and utilize global TM systems at the subsidiaries, taking into account
the local context. Beechler and Woodward (2009) mentioned the Coca Cola Company
as an example of an effective strategy of bringing local talent to headquarters and
developing their leadership ability. After one or one and a half years, they go back to
the subsidiaries as a manager and spread the company’s core values and culture to the
local firms. The shared global TM system and its strategies will make it possible for
global organizations to have a balanced supply, structured deployment, and develop-
ment in terms of talent (Mellahi & Collings, 2010).
Using the same values, systems, and even HR resources tends to provide organiza-
tional efficiency, such as flexibility for deploying talent, active communication and
cooperation between organizations, and cost saving. However, talent developed for the
specific market and culture can result in better performance. A decentralized approach
that develops and delivers localized or acculturated interventions (Marquardt et al.,
2004) can be effective for local organizations and employees. For example, from a
study with Japanese MNCs, Arreglel, Beamish, and Hébert (2009) found that the
regional-level effects provided positive influences, such as expanded localized knowl-
edge, strong social relationships, and transfer of knowledge and practices due to geo-
graphic proximity. Talent hired and developed through localized strategies may be
more productive at the local businesses than at headquarters or in another region.
When local HR practitioners adopt a TM system and interventions created by head-
quarters, the success of the system and interventions will depend on how well the
system is localized, taking account of the local culture and business context (Boussebaa
& Morgan, 2008).
Developing Global Competencies
Global competencies are indicators that global organizations utilize to manage global
talent (Farndale et al., 2010). The competencies need to be used to align and integrate
activities and processes with regard to TM in each subsidiary and region in order to
maximize the synergy of organizational functions, as well as performance excellence
of talent (Heinen & O’Neill, 2004). The role of HRD here is to identify the competen-
cies and provide effective interventions to develop the abilities of global talent.
Marquardt et al. (2004) introduced six global competencies as special abilities for
global employees: cultural self-awareness, global perspectives, language, tolerance
for ambiguity and differences, cultural flexibility, and strong communication skills.
Among these competencies, the need for cognitive abilities is related to a global mind-
set. A global mindset, which is the ability to develop individual criteria that can be
576 Advances in Developing Human Resources 14(4)
applied to different regions, nations, and cultures and properly utilize those criteria in
a different context, is the most critical for the sustainable success of global organiza-
tions (Begley & Boyd, 2003). Tarique and Schuler (2010) found three types of required
global talent competencies through several related studies. First, general business
competencies, which can apply to most companies, are needed for global talent. The
second is cross-cultural competencies divided into the competencies we can easily
learn, such as knowledge about the culture, and ones that take a long time to obtain,
such as characteristics or attitudes common within the culture. The last type is compe-
tencies for creating and managing knowledge required for business performance.
Global competencies can be utilized not only for training and development but also for
global recruitment, assessment, career paths, staffing, and reward and recognition
(Marquardt et al., 2004).
Creating Structured Global Talent Development
Global organizations need a structured development system to grow their employees’
abilities for business competitiveness (Marquardt et al., 2004). The structured devel-
opment system should be connected to business strategies and goals, reflect needs for
global talent development strategies, identify action steps, and analyze inner and outer
factors and resources.
Global leadership development, succession plans, and expatriate training can be
included in a global development system (Odell & Spielman, 2009). Although these
interventions are different from each other, the key activities used may be similar.
Systematic cross-cultural training and encouraging global assignments may be exem-
plary activities.
Global talent who work with people from different cultures and backgrounds need
cross-cultural training because the training helps employees not only obtain knowl-
edge, skills, and attitudes needed for challenging assignments (Osman-Gani & Zidan,
2001) but also adapt to a culturally different region or country, which is essential for
a successful international task (DeSimone et al., 2002). Despite much research on
cross-cultural training, McLean (2006) pointed out that many training programs deal-
ing with cross-cultures are still “atheoretical” (p. 211) and emphasize mainly what to
do or not to do. Relying only on cognitive information and linguistic skills can be less
effective for people who are preparing for global tasks (Guthridge & Komm, 2008;
McLean, 2006). To make a cross-cultural training program effective, trainees should
have learning experiences in terms of acculturation and be encouraged to have a “cul-
tural milieu” (Marquardt et al., 2004, p. 44) in the program (Stanek, 2000).
Work experience in a challenging assignment is one of the most effective ways of
developing employees (Meyers, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989). This
effective approach is also applied to development in a global setting, providing thor-
ough support for completing global assignments (McLean, 2004). These assignments
can be coordination, computational, or creative tasks so that global talent can develop
interpersonal skills, problem-solving abilities, mediating abilities, business insights,
Kim and McLean 577
and specific subject knowledge and techniques (Harvey et al., 2009). Experiences in
different cultures and countries also enable global talent to develop cultural awareness
and tolerance (Guthridge & Komm, 2008). In spite of its merit, a global assignment is
the least extensively used intervention among global organizations because it takes
time to produce desirable results, and employers may be afraid of providing continual
opportunities that may fail and damage their business (McDonnell et al., 2010).
However, HRD needs to create opportunities for challenging global assignments and
establish a supportive environment for talent so that they can improve their capacities
and commit to their job and organization (Hiltrop, 1999).
These development interventions provided for talent should be strategically con-
nected to the global TM system. McDonnell et al. (2010) discovered that a number of
global organizations did not allocate learning resources to their talent, although they
had formalized global development programs. HRD practitioners should recognize
what interventions they have and how they can help talent to develop their organiza-
tional performance.
Conducting Global Team Building
A global team, a group of employees from different cultures or countries who work
together to do a particular job (McLean, 2006), is regarded as an integrated, strategic,
and generative approach to managing global talent (Beechler & Woodward, 2009).
As telecommunicating technologies are developed, global teams can be organized as
not only face to face but also virtual teams in which group members can work in
different places at the same time using a web-chat or web-cam (McLean, 2006).
Regardless of type, a global team is expected to provide organizations with capa-
bilities to respond to global challenges, solving complex global problems quickly
(Marquardt et al., 2004).
According to Marquardt et al. (2004), a global team influences global TM in sev-
eral positive ways. First, a global team can encourage an atmosphere of managing
talent from all over the world. If employees in an organization are culturally and
nationally diverse, the employees can help stop or reduce the effects of making a
biased decision when recruiting, deploying, promoting, and developing people.
Second, organizations have an opportunity to find and develop their high potentials
scattered over the world. Through a global team, talent located in a subsidiary can
have a chance to show their capability and to be provided with equal support for
development from the organization. Third, while dealing with challenging global
tasks, talent can enlarge perspectives, increase global capacities, and gain global
managerial skills.
However, a global team does not always guarantee successful results. Several
studies have pointed out the ineffectiveness of a globally heterogeneous team because
of communication problems, behavioral conflicts, and discriminations (Chatman,
Polzer, Barsade, & Neale, 1998; Ely & Thomas, 2001; Thomas, 1999). In this regard,
Thomas (1999) found that the difference in effectiveness between a culturally
578 Advances in Developing Human Resources 14(4)
homogeneous and heterogeneous team is dependent on the nature of the tasks. He
contended that homogeneous teams perform better with highly structured or overall
assessment tasks, whereas diverse teams show more confidence and proficiency with
tasks involving creative solutions and idea generation. In addition to the nature of the
tasks, he argued that individual cultural characteristics also influence the result of the
effectiveness of diverse teams. That is, the more individuals with collectivistic char-
acteristics a team has, the more effective the performance of the team is because a
collectivistic person tends to be more receptive and regards group harmony as impor-
tant. However, those from a collectivistic culture may be less creative because it is
more subject to groupthink.
To enhance the effectiveness of a global team, global organizations need to pro-
vide organizational activities, as well as develop their systems and cultures, so that
the organizations can be open to diversity without any unhealthy interpersonal con-
flict and difficulty (Beechler & Woodward, 2009). Diversity training, coaching, and
mentoring programs can help develop both knowledge and attitudes for working
with diverse colleagues (McGuire, 2011). Cultural facilitation and mediation by
HRD professionals may reduce the incidences of prejudice and misbehavior in the
first meeting (McLean, 2006). When individuals are willing to learn about and
accept differences, a diverse team can generate a synergic effect and provide better
performance (Ely & Thomas, 2001). Interpersonal problems can also be addressed
by clarifying team goals, roles and responsibilities, or procedures and processes
(Burke, 2011). Efforts for global team building should be a long-term approach in a
systemic way so that organizations sustain the interventions and develop their cul-
tures (McGuire, 2011).
Conceptual Framework for Global TM
On the basis of the findings explored, we created a conceptual framework for the
necessity, challenges, and roles of HRD in terms of global TM (Figure 1). First, global
TM plays a critical role for global organizations because of the globalized business
environment, shortage of talent, and competition for talent. Second, ethnocentric per-
spectives in terms of talent development, concerns of talent about global mobility, and
gaps between headquarters and subsidiaries can be challenges in developing global
talent. Third, for success in global TM, HRD needs to balance strategies between
centralized and decentralized, develop global competencies, create a structured devel-
opment system, and support global team building.
Discussion
Despite the limited literature directly relevant to global TM, we found sufficient
information to present the necessity, challenges, and HRD roles through reviewing
literature related to HRD, HRM, and industrial psychology and synthesizing their
contents. Our findings support our initial research assumption that TM is not a
Kim and McLean 579
concept newly created but is reinterpreted HRM/HRD activities focusing on high
potentials or high performers (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Iles et al., 2010; McLean,
2010). Challenges and HRD practitioners’ roles regarding global TM may not be
very different from those of general international HRD. However, we believe how to
manage or develop global talent is critical for success in global business and HR
scholars and practitioners should keep paying attention to matters of global talent.
What we discovered in this article makes several contributions to HRD. First, we
disclose a topic that has not received much attention among HRD professionals but
inevitably needs their involvement and interest. What HRD can consider and do for
talent development in a global context was also identified. In addition, we provided
strategic and systematic approaches to developing global talent for HRD professionals
extending beyond relying solely on cross-cultural training, the most frequently occur-
ring activity in both the field and academy.
This study has limitations. First, only studies written in English were reviewed
because of our language and search limitations. Although it appears that the majority
of research on global TM has been conducted in the United States, Europe, and coun-
tries using English, such as Australia and Singapore, there may be studies or cases in
non–English-speaking countries. Second, focusing only on content related to global
talent and global HRD limited viewpoints beyond HRD and HRM, although we agree
that TM should not be confined to HR. As global talent is emphasized in global busi-
ness, identifying, developing, deploying, and retaining talent are no longer only HR’s
job but the responsibility of all management from line manager to top executive
(McCauley & Wakefield, 2006; Odell & Spielman, 2009). Third, our research focus is
limited to for-profit organizations and do not include nonprofit global organizations.
Thus, there may be difficulty in applying our findings to different types of global
organizations.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the necessity, challenge, and HRD roles for global talent
management (TM)
580 Advances in Developing Human Resources 14(4)
Recommendations for HRD Researchers
There are four recommendations we suggest for HRD researchers.
First, HRD researchers need to pay more attention to global TM. Although the
number of articles on TM have rapidly increased since the concept of TM was intro-
duced (Iles et al., 2010), more theoretical and practical studies are necessary for estab-
lishing TM as a solid academic area within HRD. How to manage global talent has
been one of the hot issues among organizations involved in international business or
interested in global human resources. However, academic development of TM is still
so minimal that what scholars have accomplished for TM does not meet the field’s
needs. This leads many organizations to rely mainly on business consultants who may
use tools or models not theoretically grounded. For the academic development of
global TM, more cases need to be investigated and, based on those case studies, more
empirical studies should be conducted. And then, HRD researchers can perform
theory-building studies on global TM and examine those theories.
Second, HRD researchers need to be careful when they prescribe roles for HRD in
TM. In an actual business situation, dividing HRD from HRM is likely to be mean-
ingless because both have the same goal, contributing to organizational performance
and have many overlapping tasks under the same umbrella, HR. Thus, it is hard to say
that HRD oversees only training functions in TM or that identifying and deploying
talent are only HRM’s functions. Rather, to supply the talent the organization needs,
HRD must be involved in all processes of TM. For example, when individuals with
high potentials need to be developed as leaders, HRD can draw a career map, identify
necessary competencies, provide interventions, and evaluate not only TM activities
but also the talent themselves.
Third, TM in nonprofit organizations should also be explored. Most studies on
global TM are focused on corporations, not other types of organizations, such as non-
governmental organizations. Because these organizations have different purposes,
structures, and activities, they may need a different definition of talent and a unique
process for managing talent.
Fourth, HRD researchers can broaden their perspective on TM to the national level.
Most studies on TM in HR deal with the corporate level. Like the discipline of HRD
involving community and nation, however, TM at the national level should also be
explored by HRD scholars, recognizing a country as an organization. Therefore, a
national policy on acquiring, developing, retaining, and utilizing talent, talent flow in
a country, and national brain drain versus gain can be exemplary subjects for further
studies on national TM. We expect that these studies will show reasons why phenom-
ena that corporations cannot control occur, such as a deficiency of talent or incompe-
tent employees, and provide appropriate directions for fundamental remedies.
Recommendations for HRD Practitioners
Global TM can be a new term and area among HRD practitioners, especially those
involved in a global organization. A great deal of attention is necessary when HRD
Kim and McLean 581
practitioners deal with global TM because efforts for managing talent are likely to
fail without consideration of the necessities and possible challenges mentioned ear-
lier. We recommend the following for HRD practitioners who are preparing to man-
age global talent.
First, the meaning of talent should be defined, taking into account the organiza-
tion’s business contexts and strategies. Even though organizations do business glob-
ally in the same industry, they may have different types of business operations, such as
company-owned, joint venture, and outsourced, and the TM approach should be
adapted to the business type (Gandossy & Kao, 2004). Misunderstandings can occur
when leaders are seen as equal to talent or leadership development is considered the
same as talent development. However, a leader can be talent depending on whether the
position is critical for the organization’s profit and sustainable development.
Second, TM is a long-term approach. If HRD practitioners expect immediate effects
from global TM, the results may be disappointing. Hasty changes in the management
plan and system because of expectations for short-term results can cause not only a
waste of time and money but also a loss of trust in HR by the organization. Thus, HRD
practitioners may need to be cautious with TM, making sure every step of TM works
properly and persuade clients who desire instant outcomes of their investment on TM
if necessary.
Third, successful global TM needs fairness in the whole process. Once employees
question the criteria for selection of talent, the appropriateness of development oppor-
tunities, and the timing of deployment or promotion, complaints about the TM system
will arise and cause the organization to suspect its effectiveness. Constant communica-
tions and clear statements on the policies and processes will help minimize employees’
confusion or misunderstanding about the organizational approach to TM.
Fourth, HRD practitioners should be aware that the process of TM can result in
unexpected problems in cultures different from the host culture. For example, while
managing the talent pool, designating talent may cause an unpleasant relationship
among colleagues in collectivistic cultures. Because people regard group harmony as
most desirable in those cultures, both the selected individuals and their colleagues may
feel uncomfortable with a public announcement about the results of the selection.
Sometimes, employees in the culture refuse to be identified as a talent because of their
relationship with their colleagues.
Fifth, best practices or illustrative case studies can be produced and shared in orga-
nizational and interorganizational levels in order to be used as a benchmark, develop
more appropriate methods and processes related to TM, and enhance abilities of HRD
practitioners. When these techniques are used, however, what is common and different
from the applying organization should be taken into account.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
582 Advances in Developing Human Resources 14(4)
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Allen, D., & Alvarez, S. (1998). Empowering expatriates and organisations to improve repatria-
tion effectiveness. Human Resource Planning, 21(4), 29-39.
Arreglel, J., Beamish, P. W., & Hébert, L. (2009). The regional dimension of MNEs’ foreign
subsidiary localization. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 86-107.
Athey, R. (2008). It’s 2008: Do you know where your talent is? Connecting people to what mat-
ters. Journal of Business Strategy, 29(4), 4-14.
Barger, K. (2008). Ethnocentrism. Retrieved from http://www.iupui.edu/~anthkb/ethnocen.htm
Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Managing across borders: The transnational solution.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Beechler, S., & Woodward, I. C. (2009). The global war for talent. Journal of International
Management, 15, 273-285.
Begley, T. M., & Boyd, D. P. (2003). The need for a corporate global mind-set. MIT Sloan Man-
agement Review, 44(2), 25-32.
Bhatnagar, J. (2008). Managing capabilities for talent engagement and pipeline development.
Industrial & Commercial Training, 40(1), 19-28.
Bjorkman, I., Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Li, L. (2004). Managing knowledge transfer in MNCs.
the impact of headquarters control mechanisms. Journal of International Business Studies,
35, 443-454.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship and the new paradigm for human resource
management: From professional practice to strategic talent decision science. Human
Resource Planning, 28(2), 17-26.
Boussebaa, M., & Morgan, G. (2008). Managing talent across national border: The challenges
faced by an international retail group. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 4(1),
25-41.
Burbach, R., & Royle, T. (2010). Talent on demand? Personnel Review, 39(4), 414-431.
Burke, W. W. (2011). Organization change: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Cappelli, P. (2008, March). Talent management for the twenty-first century. Harvard Business
Review, pp. 74-81.
Chatman, J., Polzer, J., Barsade, S., & Neale, M. (1998). Being different yet feeling similar: The
influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and
outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 749-780.
Choi, S. (2002). Understanding American and Korean workers’ adaptations to expatriate work
environments. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 17(3), 33-54.
Collings, D. G., McDonnell, A., & Scullion, H. (2009). Global talent management: The law of
the few. Poznan University of Economics Review, 9(2), 5-18.
Kim and McLean 583
Collings, G. D., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and research
agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 304-313.
De Cieri, H. L., Sheehan, C. R., Costa, C., Fenwick, M., & Cooper, B. (2009). International tal-
ent flow and intention to repatriate: An identity explanation. Human Resource Development
International, 12(3), 243-261.
DeSimone, L. R., Werner, M. J., & Harris, M. D. (2002). Human resource development. Orlando,
FL: Harcourt.
Dowling, P. J., Welch, D. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1999). International human resource manage-
ment: Managing people in a multinational context (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western
College Publishing.
Dye, R., & Stephenson, E. (2010, May). Five forces reshaping the global economy:
McKinsey Global Survey results. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.mck-
inseyquarterly.com/Five_forces_reshaping_the_global_economy_McKinsey_Global
_Survey_results_2581
Ely, J. R., & Thomas, A. D (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity per-
spectives on work group process and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2),
229-274.
Farndale, E., Scullion, H., & Sparrow, P. (2010). The role of the corporate HR function in global
talent management. Journal of World Business, 45, 161-168.
Gandossy, R., & Kao, T. (2004). Talent wars: Out of mind, out of practice. Human Resource
Planning, 27(4), 15-19.
Garrow, V., & Hirsh, W. (2008). Talent management: Issues of focus and fit. Public Personnel
Management, 37(4), 389-402.
Guthridge, M., & Komm, A. (2008). Why multinationals struggle to manage talent. The
McKinsey Quarterly, pp. 10-13.
Harvey, M., Fisher, R., McPhail, R., & Moeller, M. (2009). Globalization and its impact on
global managers’ decision processes. Human Resource Development International, 12(4),
354-370.
Hayutin, A. (2010). Population age shifts will reshape global workforce. Retrieved from http://
longevity.stanford.edu/files/SCL_Pop %20 Age%20Shifts_Work%20Force_April%20
2010_v2_FINALWEB_0
Heinen, J. S., & O’Neill, C. (2004). Managing talent to maximize performance. Employment
Relations Today, 31(2), 67-82.
Hiltrop, J. (1999). The quest for the best: Human resource practices to attract and retain talent.
European Management Journal, 17(4), 422-430.
Iles, P., Preece, D., & Chuai, X. (2010). Talent management as a management fashion in HRD:
Towards a research agenda. Human Resource Development International, 13(2), 125-145.
Leisy, B., & Pyron, D. (2009). Talent management takes on new urgency. Compensation &
Benefits Review, 41(4), 58-63.
Lewis, R., & Heckman, R. (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human Resource
Management Review, 16, 139-154.
Marquardt, M., Berger, N., & Loan, P. (2004). HRD in the age of globalization. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
584 Advances in Developing Human Resources 14(4)
McCauley, C., & Wakefield, M. (2006). Talent management in the 21st century: Help your
company find, develop, and keep its strongest workers. The Journal for Quality and Par-
ticipation, 29(4), 4-7.
McDonnell, A., Lamare, R., Gunnigle, P., & Lavelle, J. (2010). Developing tomorrow’s leaders—
Evidence of global talent management in multinational enterprises. Journal of World Busi-
ness, 45, 150-160.
McGuire, D. (2011). Diversity and HRD. In D. McGuire & K. M. Jørgensen (Eds.), Human
resource development: Theory and practice (pp. 172-180). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McLean, G. N. (2006). Organization development: Principles, processes, performance. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
McLean, G. N. (2010, October 28). TM: A new concept or repackaging of existing concepts?
Should HRD even be involved? In Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on
human resource development (Opening Keynote Presentation, pp. vii-xii) International
HRD Conference, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Mellahi, K., & Collings, D. G. (2010). The barriers to effective global talent management: The
example of corporate élites in MNEs. Journal of World Business, 45, 143-149.
Meyers, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organi-
zational commitment and job performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that counts.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152-156.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Odell, C., & Spielman, C. (2009). Global positioning: Managing the far-reaching risks of an
international assignment program. Benefits Quarterly, 25(4), 23-29.
Orr, B., & McVerry, B. (2007). Talent management challenge in the oil and gas industry. Natural
Gas & Electricity, 24(5), 18-23.
Osman-Gani, A. M. (2000). Developing expatriates for the Asia-Pacific region: A comparative
analysis of multinational enterprise managers from five countries across three continents.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(3), 213-235.
Osman-Gani, A. M., & Chan, T. (2009). Trends and challenges of developing human capital in
Singapore: an analysis of current practices and future potentials. Human Resource Develop-
ment International, 12(1), 47-68.
Osman-Gani, M. A., & Zidan, S. S. (2001). Cross-cultural implications of planned on-the-job
training. Advanced in Developing Human Resources, 3(4), 452-460.
Pfeffer, J. (2001). Fighting the war for talent is hazardous to your organization’s health. Organi-
zational Dynamics, 29(4), 248-259.
Scullion, H., Collings, G. D., & Caligiuri, P. (2010). Global talent management. Journal of
World Business, 45, 105-108.
Shen, J., & Lang, B. (2009). Cross-cultural training and its impact on expatriate performance in
Australian MNEs. Human Resource Development International, 12(4), 371-386.
Stanek, M. B. (2000). The need for global managers: A business necessity. Management Deci-
sion, 38(4), 232-242.
Strack, R., Baier, J., & Fahlander, A. (2008). Managing demographic risk. Harvard Business
Review, 86(2), 119-128.
Kim and McLean 585
Tarique, I., & Schuler, S. R. (2010). Global talent management: Literature review, integrative
framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of World Business, 45, 122-133.
Thomas, C. D. (1999). Cultural diversity and work group effectiveness: An experimental study.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 242-263.
Tucker, E., Kao, T., & Verma, N. (2005). Next-generation talent management: Insights on how
workforce trends are changing the face of talent management. Business Credit, 107, 20-27.
Wagner, J. A., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1995). Management of organizational behavior (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wang, X., & McLean, G. N. (2007). The dilemma of defining international human resource
development. Human Resource Development Review, 6(1), 96-108.
Wooldridge, A. (2006, October). The battle for brain power. The Economist. Retrieved from
http://www.economist.com/node/7961894
Yeaton, K., & Hall, N. (2008). Expatriates: Reducing failure rates. Journal of Corporate
Accounting & Finance, 19(3), 75-78.
Zheng, C. (2009). Keeping talents for advancing service firms in Asia. Journal of Service Man-
agement, 20(5), 482-502.
Bios
Sehoon Kim is a PhD student in the Department of Educational Administration and Human
Resource Development at Texas A&M University. He previously worked in the HR field in
Korea. His research interests include work hours, talent management, cross-cultural issues, and
brain drain.
Dr. Gary N. McLean (Ed.D., Ph.D. hon.) is president of McLean Global Consulting, Inc., a
family business. As an OD practitioner, he works extensively globally. He also teaches regu-
larly at universities in Thailand, Mexico, and France. He was formerly a senior professor and
executive director of international human resource development programs at Texas A&M
University and is professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota. He has served as President
of the Academy of Human Resource Development and the International Management
Development Association. His research interests are broad, focusing primarily on organization
development and national and international HRD.
Review of Public Personnel Administration
2014, Vol. 34(2) 174 –195
© 2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X13510853
rop.sagepub.com
Article
Does Leadership Style
Make a Difference? Linking
HRM, Job Satisfaction, and
Organizational Performance
Brenda Vermeeren1, Ben Kuipers1,
and Bram Steijn1
Abstract
With the rise of New Public Management, public organizations are confronted
with a growing need to demonstrate efficiency and cost-effectiveness. In this
study, we examine the relationship between public organizational performance and
human resource management (HRM). Specifically, we focus on job satisfaction as a
possible mediating variable between organizational performance and HRM, and on
the influence of a supervisor’s leadership style on the implementation of Human
Resource (HR) practices. Drawing on a secondary analysis of data from a national
survey incorporating the views of 6,253 employees of Dutch municipalities, we tested
our hypotheses using structural equation modeling. The findings indicate that (a)
job satisfaction acts as a mediating variable in the relationship between HRM and
organizational performance and (b) a stimulating leadership style has a positive effect
on the amount of HR practices used, whereas (c) a correcting leadership style has no
effect on the amount of HR practices used.
Keywords
HRM, leadership style, job satisfaction, organizational performance, public sector,
Dutch municipalities
Introduction
During the last three decades, public sector performance has become an increasingly
important issue. With the rise of New Public Management, targets, performance, and
1Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Brenda Vermeeren, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Room M7-13, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands.
Email: vermeeren@fsw.eur.nl
510853ROP34210.1177/0734371X13510853Review of Public Personnel AdministrationVermeeren et al.
research-article2013
mailto:vermeeren@fsw.eur.nl
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F0734371X13510853&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2013-11-14
Vermeeren et al. 175
a more business-oriented management approach have come to play central roles within
the public sector (Boyne, Meier, O’Toole, & Walker, 20
06
; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992;
Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004). Several innovations in the field promised to increase the
quality of public service while reducing its costs. However, research into human
resource management’s (HRM) contributions to these developments in the public sec-
tor has been scarce (Boyne, Poole, & Jenkins, 1999; Gould-Williams, 2003). This
neglect persists despite the fact that employees (those who deliver public services) are
crucial to achieving superior public performance. High-quality services require highly
qualified and motivated personnel (Batt, 2002).
Based on numerous studies in the private sector, we can conclude that human
resource (HR) practices and organizational performance are at least weakly related
(Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005; Guest, 2011; Paauwe, 2009). However, research com-
paring HRM in the public and private sectors suggests that the HR policies and prac-
tices in these sectors differ in many important areas (Boyne et al., 1999). In particular,
public organizations are more likely than private organizations to engage in activities
associated with the role of model employer. Such activities imply commitment to staff
training, trade union, and workforce participation in decision making, promotion of
equal opportunities, and a concern for the welfare of employees to meet their personal
and family needs. Given these empirical findings, we cannot simply assume that the
relationship between HRM and performance will be the same in the public sector.
In private sector–based research on HRM and performance, the assumption is that
an underlying causal link that runs through employee outcomes (in the form of
employee attitudes and behavior) connects HR practices with organizational perfor-
mance (Boselie et al., 2005; Guest, 2002; Paauwe & Richardson, 1997). In other
words, HR practices are implemented to influence employees, with the ultimate aim to
positively influence the organization’s performance. Job satisfaction is conceptualized
as one of the key indicators of employee outcomes in HRM and performance research
(Guest, 2002; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Previous research has demonstrated a
positive relationship between HRM and job satisfaction (e.g., Guest, 2002; Steijn,
2004) and between job satisfaction and performance (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1975;
Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Taris & Schreurs, 2009). These findings sup-
port the idea that job satisfaction acts as a mediating variable in the relationship
between HRM and performance. At this time, only a few studies have examined that
mediating relationship (e.g., Ahmad & Schroeder, 2003; Gelade & Ivery, 2003), but
more research is needed to understand how HRM and organizational performance are
related. Such research is even more important in the context of the public sector, as
previous research showed differences in job satisfaction between public and private
sector employees (DeSantis & Durst, 1996).
In general, in the HRM literature is stated that the HR practices perceived or expe-
rienced by employees will be those enacted by their supervisors (Bowen & Ostroff,
2004; Paauwe, 2009; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007; Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, &
Allen, 2005). To influence employee outcomes positively, supervisors require well-
designed HR practices for use in their management activities. Den Hartog, Boselie,
and Paauwe (2004) stressed the important role that supervisors play in implementing
176 Review of Public Personnel Administration 34(2)
an intended HRM policy, as differences in implementation at this level may be attrib-
utable to supervisors’ different leadership styles. Such differences in implementation
and communication may lead to variation in employees’ HR perceptions. However,
scholars have uncovered little empirical evidence that bears on the role of supervisors’
leadership styles in HRM implementation. Focusing on leadership style can provide
additional insight into how supervisors influence the implementation of HR
practices.
This study adds to prior research in three ways. First, we focus specifically on the
relationship between HRM and organizational performance in the public sector.
Second, we test whether job satisfaction acts within a public context as a mediator
between HRM and organizational performance. Third, we focus on the influence of a
supervisor’s leadership style on the implementation of HR practices. Thus, our main
research question is as follows:
Research Question: To what extent is the relationship between HRM and the per-
formance of public organizations mediated by job satisfaction and what is the influ-
ence of a supervisor’s leadership style on the implementation of HR practices?
After a theoretical exploration of the literature on HRM, job satisfaction, organiza-
tional performance, and leadership, we will formulate several hypotheses and test
them using survey data from 6,253 employees of Dutch municipalities. We perform
these tests using structural equation modeling (SEM). We will then discuss our find-
ings. Finally, we conclude by describing suggestions for future research and implica-
tions for theory and practice.
Literature Review
The increased focus on performance in the public sector has encouraged a large amount
of research (Boyne et al., 2006; Halachmi & Bouckaert, 1996). In particular, the
impact of management on performance in public organizations has been frequently
studied (Meier, O’Toole, Boyne, & Walker, 2007; Nicholson-Crotty & O’Toole, 2004).
The O’Toole and Meier (1999) model of management is well known and has often
been used to test the impact managers may have on the performance of public organi-
zations. In one of their articles, O’Toole and Meier (2008) focused on the internal side
of management and, in particular, on the contribution of “the human side” of public
organizations to organizational performance in public education. Their results indicate
that the power of HRM in attracting and developing an organization’s human capital
is important to organizational performance. Gould-Williams (2003), in turn, examined
the relationship between HRM and performance in local government in the United
Kingdom. He found, the more HR practices are used within an organization, the
greater the impact on organizational performance. In both articles, the authors stated
that more research is needed to explore the relationship between HRM and organiza-
tional performance in the public sector.
Vermeeren et al. 177
As the existing literature has paid little attention to the relationship between HRM
and performance in a public context, we must turn to the general HRM literature to get
more insight. However, that literature contains a very diverse array of theoretical per-
spectives, definitions, measurements, methodologies, and research fields (Boselie et
al., 2005). Nevertheless, following Paauwe (2009), we can conclude that there is at
least a weak relationship between HR practices and organizational performance. Yet,
despite the fact that several studies indicate a link between HRM and performance,
significant challenges to a full understanding of this relationship still exist (Boselie
et al., 2005; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Guest, 2011; Paauwe, 2009).
In this study, we adopt a micro approach to HRM. This approach reflects a more
operational view of HRM by focusing specifically on the effect of multiple HR prac-
tices on individuals (Wright & Boswell, 2002). By using this micro approach, we
attempt to acquire more insight into the impact of multiple HR practices on individuals
(measured through job satisfaction) and, subsequently, on organizational performance.
By focusing on job satisfaction as a mediating factor, our aim is to generate a better
understanding of what takes place between HRM and performance. Furthermore,
scholars frequently identify the leadership style of supervisors (who are increasingly
charged with implementing HR practices) as a variable essential to a better under-
standing of the relationship between HRM and performance (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004;
Paauwe, 2009; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007; Wright et al., 2005). In this respect,
Purcell and Hutchinson (2007) used the term “people management” to mark the dis-
tinction between a supervisor’s leadership style and the application of HR practices.
This distinction is based on the assumption that supervisors require well-designed HR
practices to use in their people management activities and that their leadership style
will influence the way they enact these practices.
The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction
Guest stated in 1999 that, given the growing interest in research on the relationship
between HRM and performance, a focus on workers’ viewpoints has become increas-
ingly important. An analysis of 104 articles by Boselie et al. (2005) confirms Guest’s
impression that the linking mechanisms between HRM and performance have largely
been disregarded. To understand how HR practices influence employees and improve
worker performance in ways that are beneficial to the organization, research is required
that concentrates on employee perceptions of HR practices and establishes relation-
ships between their job satisfaction and organizational performance, to take one exam-
ple (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). One model that takes this focus is the Paauwe and
Richardson (1997) model on HRM, HRM outcomes and organizational performance.
In this model, the first element consists of HR practices such as recruitment, rewards,
and employee participation. This element influences the so-called HRM outcomes,
such as job satisfaction and motivation. Both of these elements affect the third ele-
ment, organizational performance, which involves performance indicators related to
the effectiveness, quality, and efficiency of the organization.
178 Review of Public Personnel Administration 34(2)
A variety of studies have examined separate parts of this model. Focusing specifi-
cally on the public sector, a number of studies have explored the relationship between
HRM (Element 1) and HRM outcomes (Element 2; for example, Gould-Williams,
2004; Steijn, 2004) and between HRM outcomes (Element 2) and organizational per-
formance (Element 3; for example, Kim, 2005; Ostroff, 1992). The model by Paauwe
and Richardson (1997) adds to this research through its explicit focus on the mediating
effect of HRM outcomes on the relationship between HRM and organizational perfor-
mance. Moreover, the Paauwe and Richardson model adds to existing public sector
research by promoting an explicit concentration on the concept of HRM itself. This
concentration marks an important difference with the aforementioned management
model by O’Toole and Meier (2008). Therefore, we use the Paauwe and Richardson
model as the starting point for our research. However, while that model offers an
exhaustive range of options to consider for each element, we limit ourselves to job
satisfaction as the only included HRM outcome.
The introduction of job satisfaction enables us to refine the relationship between
HRM and organizational performance. To a large extent, positive employee outcomes
depend on employees’ perceptions of how much the organization cares about their
well-being and values their contributions (Gould-Williams, 2007; Vermeeren, Kuipers,
& Steijn, 2011). In this respect, the degree of job satisfaction will depend on the fulfill-
ment of employee’s needs and values (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). To increase orga-
nizational performance, it is likely important that the organization must not only meet
the needs of customers, but also meet those of employees (Schneider & Bowen, 1993).
This assertion is based on the assumption that if organizations care for their employ-
ees, these employees will care for the organization (and their customers). In other
words, this argument is based on the assumption that a happy worker is a productive
worker (Taris & Schreurs, 2009). In this respect, the degree to which HR practices are
introduced can be conceptualized as a marker of the extent to which an organization
values and cares for employees. As noted above, previous research has demonstrated
a positive relationship between HRM and job satisfaction (e.g., Guest, 2002; Steijn,
2004) and between job satisfaction and performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1975;
Judge et al., 2001; Taris & Schreurs, 2009).1 These findings support the idea that job
satisfaction acts as a mediating variable in the relationship between HRM and perfor-
mance. However, this relationship is mostly studied in separate parts and seldom
examined within one design. We will therefore study the relationships among HRM,
job satisfaction, and organizational performance in one model. Following this plan,
our first hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Job satisfaction acts as a mediating variable in the relationship
between HRM and organizational performance.
The Role of Leadership Style
For many years, HRM and leadership were separate research areas. Gradually, interest
in combining these two areas has grown. The connection between these areas is based
Vermeeren et al. 179
on the proposition that employees are likely to be influenced by the HR practices they
experience and their supervisor’s leadership style (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007).
Supervisors need HR practices to support their management activities, and the way
supervisors enact these practices is influenced by their leadership style. However, pre-
vious research on the relationship between HRM and performance paid little attention
to supervisors’ leadership styles. One of the few studies that did attend to leadership
style demonstrated that leadership and employee satisfaction with HR practices have
a strong and independent impact on such employee attitudes as job satisfaction and
commitment (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007).
However, this demonstration does not allow us to say much about the influence of
different leadership styles on the use of HR practices within an organization. It is
appropriate to assume a relationship exists between different leadership styles and
HRM, because the choice of which HR practices to use appears to be linked to leader-
ship style. For example, Zhu, Chew, and Spangler (2005) have shown that transforma-
tional leaders influence organizational outcomes by their use of “human-capital-enhancing
HRM.” Human-capital-enhancing HRM is defined as an approach to managing people
that achieves competitive advantage through the strategic development of a highly
committed and capable workforce (Zhu et al., 2005). Their assumption is that transfor-
mational leaders possess a clear vision of what the organization will be, and what it
will do, in the future. HRM plays a critical role in the communication process between
leaders and employees, because without such HRM activities as staffing and training
the leader’s vision will not be transmitted effectively.
Today, scholars in the field of leadership research use many and varied conceptual-
izations of leadership. Despite differences among these conceptualizations, we can
detect a certain commonality. This commonality is not of jargon, but of the ideas that
underpin the language used. Many conceptualizations are based on a distinction
between an internally and intrinsically directed, people-oriented, and stimulating lead-
ership style versus an externally and extrinsically directed, task-oriented and correct-
ing leadership style (Howell & Avolio, 1993). For example, this distinction underpins
the differentiation made between transformational versus transactional leadership
(Bass & Avolio, 1994) and participative versus authoritive leadership (Likert, 1961).
With respect to the relationship between leadership style and HRM, Guest (1987) has
argued that a more correcting leadership style could be linked to hard HRM and that a
more stimulating leadership style could be linked to soft HRM. In his research, he
refers to the classic distinction in McGregor (1960) between theory X and theory Y.
The “hard” version of HRM is widely acknowledged to place little emphasis on work-
ers’ concerns. In contrast, “soft” HRM would be more likely to pay attention to work-
ers’ outcomes (Guest, 1987).
We will also use McGregor’s distinction between theory X and theory Y. This dis-
tinction, despite frequent criticism (Bobic & Davis, 2003), still remains useful for
distinguishing between the different leadership styles a supervisor can adopt. Theory
X assumes that employees are not self-motivated and will avoid work if possible.
Employees, therefore, must be closely supervised and corrected when necessary.
Employees are seen as factors in the production process. Theory Y, in contrast, assumes
180 Review of Public Personnel Administration 34(2)
that employees are ambitious and self-motivated and can play a crucial role within the
organization. Supervisors must ensure that their employees are properly stimulated by
paying attention to their values and needs. It is in this context that Guest (1999) stated
that if more HR practices are used, the impact on workers will be larger. Based on the
idea that an HRM system should be designed to meet employees’ needs for skills and
motivation and provide them with the opportunity to profile themselves to improve
their performance (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000), we would expect
that a stimulating leadership style (theory Y) would be accompanied by the use of a
greater number of HR practices tailored to invest in employees and meet their needs
than would be the case for a correcting leadership style (theory X), in which employ-
ees are seen as factors in the production process. This leads us to our second hypoth-
esis, which consists of two separate parts:
Hypothesis 2a: A stimulating leadership style has a positive effect on the amount
of HR practices used within an organization.
Hypothesis 2b: A correcting leadership style has a negative effect on the amount of
HR practices used within an organization.
Figure 1 shows the overall theoretical model representing the hypotheses thus
developed above. In the following sections, we present the methodology for testing
this model and our empirical results.
Research Methods
A quantitative study was carried out to address our research question. This section
describes the data and the measurement procedure, including the results of a confirma-
tory factor analysis using AMOS version 16.
Stimulating
Leadership
HRM
Job
Satisfaction1
Organizational
Performance1
Correcting
Leadership
2B
2A
1
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Vermeeren et al. 181
Data
To test our hypotheses about the direct and indirect relationships between the variables
we apply a quantitative research design. For our analysis, we used data from a Dutch
national survey on well-being among municipal employees. In 2005, a public sector
organization representing municipalities approached 29,626 employees of Dutch
municipalities in all functional areas (e.g., administrative, sociocultural, legal and
information and communication technology functions), asking them to fill out a ques-
tionnaire about employee well-being via Internet or mail. Of these employees, 7,918
respondents participated in the research. The respondents with missing data for the
analyzed variables were removed from the sample, which resulted in a file with 6,253
respondents. The data for the resulting sample are as follows: 58% are male, the pre-
dominant age is 45 to 54 years (37.5%), and the predominant educational level is
secondary (vocational) education (43.1%). When compared with general population
data (A+O fonds Gemeenten, 2005), the sample’s deviation from the general popula-
tion is small (2%-6%). Despite the response rate of 26.7%, the respondents are gener-
ally representative of the population with respect to gender, age, and educational level.
The respondents also worked in different municipalities spread across the Netherlands
and in organizations of various sizes.
Measures
HRM. HRM and performance research exhibits little consistency in the selection of
HR practices by which to measure HRM. Boselie et al. (2005) analyzed 104 important
HRM and performance studies and identified as many as 26 different HR practices
that are used in different studies. No single agreed, or fixed, list of HR practices or
systems of practices exists by which to measure HRM (Guest, 2011; Paauwe, 2009).
Nevertheless, a certain consensus regarding the measurement of HRM has emerged in
the scientific literature on HRM and performance during the past decade. More than
half of the articles published after 2000 made use of Ability, Motivation, and Oppor-
tunity (AMO) theory (Paauwe, 2009). AMO theory proposes that an HRM system
should be designed to meet employees’ needs for skills and motivation and, after
meeting those needs, provide them with opportunities to use their abilities in various
roles (Appelbaum et al., 2000). The underlying idea is that employees will perform
well if they have the requisite abilities, when they are motivated and when they obtain
the opportunity to profile themselves (Appelbaum et al., 2000).
In our study, an existing data set is used for secondary data analysis. Although this
data set can be employed to search for the presence of HR practices within organiza-
tions, it was not developed for this specific purpose. The survey only measures 10
different HR practices used to a limited extent, and it is not able to measure all the
aspects of HRM proposed by AMO theory. In particular, the survey does not allow us
to determine whether an HR system provides employees with opportunities to use
their abilities in various job roles. Despite this limitation, we use this list of practices
as an indicator of the extent to which HR practices were used in public organizations.
182 Review of Public Personnel Administration 34(2)
Researchers often advocate the study of an HRM system instead of individual HR
practices (Wright & Boswell, 2002). Organizations rarely use HR practices in isolation;
they more typically use them in combination. This system approach adheres to the prin-
ciple “the whole is more than the sum of its parts” and examines a bundle of HR prac-
tices. In this study, we have followed the system approach. In the survey, employees
were asked about the use of 10 different HR practices within their organization (job
evaluation conversations, assessment interviews, personal development plans, training
plans, career plans, competency management, population aging HRM policy, mobility
management, job rotation, and individual coaching). This particular list has been used
in previous research (Steijn, 2004). In accordance with Guest’s suggestion, we counted
how many of these practices were present in the organization according to its employ-
ees. Cronbach’s alpha is widely used to demonstrate consistency among a set of items
and, based on the score, it might be argued that a bundle of HR practices can be observed
(Guest, Conway, & Dewe, 2004). The Cronbach’s alpha of the HR bundle is .70. This
is within the range for acceptable internal consistency. The assumption is that the use of
more HR practices suggests the existence of a better developed HRM policy within an
organization. In making this assumption, we can only say something about the surplus
value of HRM in general terms. However, we do not know whether some individual
practices have stronger effects than others, how each of the individual practices affects
performance and whether complementarities or synergistic interdependent relation-
ships among such practices can further enhance organizational performance (Delaney
& Huselid, 1996; Guest et al., 2004; Sels et al., 2006).
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is measured using one item: “All things considered,
how satisfied are you with your job?” The answers were given using a 5-point Likert-
type scale ranging from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5). Although there is
some disagreement regarding how to measure job satisfaction, previous research
shows that job satisfaction can reliably be measured using only one item (Nagy, 2002;
Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997).
Organizational performance. To measure organizational performance, perceptions of
performance and objective performance indicators can be studied (Delaney & Huselid,
1996; Kim, 2005). In this article, the focus is on employee perceptions of organiza-
tional performance because objective performance data are not available in the data-
base. When objective performance data are not available, subjective (perceptual)
performance measures may be a reasonable alternative (Delaney & Huselid, 1996;
Kim, 2005). There is evidence of a strong correlation between perceptual and objec-
tive measures at the organizational level, although there is always some doubt regard-
ing perceptual measures of performance (Kim, 2005). In this study, we used one item
to measure performance, “the perception that the organization is doing good work,”
utilizing a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from totally disagree (1) to totally agree
(5). The use of only one indicator is clearly an important limitation, but at least we are
able to characterize how employees assess their organization’s performance.
Vermeeren et al. 183
Leadership style. To measure the influence of leadership style, we used two latent vari-
ables that correspond to the distinction between stimulating and correcting leadership
(cf. Bass & Avolio, 1994; Likert, 1961; McGregor, 1960). The specific items can be
found in the appendix. All answers were given on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (5).
Descriptive and reliability statistics were computed for the individual items and the
two scales (see Table 1). To show the strength of the associations between the items,
Table 1 displays the correlations matrix. The correlations are all significant at the 1%
level.
To test whether the distinction between the two leadership styles is supported by the
data, we performed confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS version 16. Unlike
exploratory factor analysis, in which only the number of factors and observed vari-
ables are specified, confirmatory factor analysis permits specification and testing of a
more complete measurement model (Byrne, 2001). The simultaneous estimation of
the measurement models allows us to examine the relationships between the items and
their latent constructs as well as the relationships among the constructs themselves.
Furthermore, one also receives information on whether the items load only on their
target variable, or whether they load on the other dimension as well (unidimensionality
of factors). Based on the results of the confirmatory factor analysis, the measurement
model was modified where necessary. The modifications made to enhance the model
included the introduction of error correlations.2 Reasons for error correlation include
respondents’ inability to answer questions, a lack of effort on the part of the respon-
dents to provide the correct answers or other psychological factors, or inadequately
worded questions on the survey questionnaire (Byrne, 2001).
For evaluating the convergent validity of the measurement model, Anderson and
Gerbing (1988) suggested examining the construct loading and determining whether
each estimator’s coefficient is significant. For this model, the regression weights range
from .69 to .89 and all are significant (see Table 1). These coefficients may be inter-
preted as indicators of the validity of the observed variables, that is, how well they
measure the latent dimension or factor. For this model, convergent validity has been
achieved. With regard to discriminant validity, we note that the items related to the
same construct are always more closely correlated with one another than with the
items for the other construct. In addition, Bagozzi and Philips (1982) suggested that
discriminant validity in SEM is achieved if the unconstrained model has a signifi-
cantly lower chi-square value than the constrained model. In this study, the chi-square
value for the unconstrained model (CMIN 1711.061/df 62) appears to be significantly
lower than that for the constrained model (CMIN 2722.621/df 63). Thus, for this
model, discriminant validity has been achieved. Finally, the R2 in Table 1 is a measure
of reliability, which indicates how consistently the observed variable measures the
latent dimension. The explained variance corresponding to the observed variables
indicates that the respective factor explains an adequate portion of the variance
(between 47% and 78%; Perry, 1996).
The overall fit of the measurement model was tested using absolute and relative fit
indices, which indicated a good fit. In general, a chi-square test is used to assess the
184
T
a
b
le
1
.
M
ea
su
re
m
en
t
M
o
de
l:
M
ea
ns
, S
ta
nd
ar
d
D
ev
ia
ti
o
ns
,
C
o
rr
el
at
io
ns
, S
ta
nd
ar
di
ze
d
Es
ti
m
at
es
, R
2
(N
=
6
,
2
53
).
M
SD
X
1
X
2
X
3
Y
1
Y
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
10
St
an
da
rd
iz
ed
M
L
Es
ti
m
at
es
(
SE
)
R
2
C
o
rr
ec
ti
ng
le
ad
er
sh
ip
X
1
3.
38
1.
03
2
—
.7
26
(
.0
13
)
.5
28
X
2
3.
71
.9
8
0
.5
69
—
.6
87
(
.0
13
)
.4
72
X
3
3.
33
1.
06
0
.5
60
.5
13
—
.7
58
(
.0
13
)
.5
75
St
im
ul
at
in
g
le
ad
er
sh
ip
Y
1
3.
56
1.
09
1
.4
06
.3
85
.4
29
—
.8
41
(
.0
11
)
.7
08
Y
2
3.
50
1.
11
6
.4
56
.4
38
.4
86
.7
82
—
.8
85
(
.0
11
)
.7
83
Y
3
3.
19
1.
09
1
.4
62
.4
54
.5
04
.7
36
.7
72
—
.8
65
(
.0
11
)
.7
48
Y
4
3.
64
1.
10
3
.4
77
.5
02
.4
57
.6
35
.6
78
.6
51
—
.7
74
(
.0
12
)
.5
99
Y
5
3.
54
1.
06
7
.4
74
.4
63
.4
81
.6
98
.7
18
.7
35
.6
85
—
.8
44
(
.0
11
)
.7
12
Y
6
3.
51
1.
12
3
.4
86
.4
73
.4
99
.7
28
.7
94
.7
48
.6
82
.7
70
—
.8
78
(
.0
11
)
.7
72
Y
7
3.
13
1.
16
5
.4
71
.4
63
.4
84
.6
54
.6
97
.7
15
.6
19
.6
56
.6
81
—
.8
00
(
.0
12
)
.6
39
Y
8
3.
76
1.
07
0
.3
82
.3
65
.4
26
.6
80
.6
64
.6
56
.5
58
.6
43
.6
56
.6
11
—
.7
57
(
.0
12
)
.5
73
Y
9
3.
77
1.
05
6
.3
76
.3
77
.4
34
.6
42
.6
59
.6
31
.5
98
.6
61
.6
50
.6
42
.7
12
—
.7
55
(
.0
11
)
.5
70
Y
10
2.
94
1.
09
2
.3
98
.3
93
.5
11
.5
92
.6
24
.6
13
.5
43
.5
78
.6
23
.6
02
.5
44
.5
33
—
.7
11
(.
01
2)
.5
06
Vermeeren et al. 185
sample data in relation to the implied population data. However, there are concerns
about using the chi-square test because its probability is sensitive to sample size
(Jöreskog, 1993). In larger samples (as in this research), the chi-square test almost
always leads to the rejection of the model because the difference between the sample
covariances and implied population covariances will lead to a higher chi-square value
if the sample size increases.3 As a result, a number of alternative fit measures have
been developed (Hu & Bentler, 1999), including the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the
adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), the normed fit index (NFI), and the compara-
tive fit index (CFI). The values for this model were .959 (GFI), .940 (AGFI), .972
(NFI), and .973 (CFI). In the social sciences, a cutoff value of .95 is the prescribed
norm (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Based on these fit indices, one can conclude that the
model is a good fit. In addition, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
value of .065 indicates that the model is a reasonable fit (Byrne, 2001).
Finally, a traditional measure of scale reliability is Cronbach’s alpha, which mea-
sures internal consistency among items on a scale. The Cronbach’s alpha for the stimu-
lating leadership scale is .95 and for the correcting leadership scale is .78. Based on
these results, one may conclude that the reliability coefficients provide independent
corroboration for the results obtained from the use of confirmatory factor analysis. The
results show that the distinction between the two leadership styles is supported by the
data.
Control variables. Of course, several other variables can affect HRM, job satisfaction,
and organizational performance. Therefore, Guest (1999) emphasized that several
controls must be in place to take account of individual and organizational factors. Fol-
lowing Guest, our control variables are divided into two groups. In the first group, we
controlled for individual characteristics (gender, age, and educational level). These
controls are based on the assumption that different groups within organizations may be
managed differently with the result that their perceptions will be different. Then, we
controlled for one important organizational characteristic: organizational size. This
control is based on the assumption that large organizations pursuing improved perfor-
mance have more resources with which to provide their employees a large HRM
policy.
We coded gender as a dummy variable (1 = female). The category of age was sub-
divided into five categories (1 = 15-24 years; 2 = 25-34 years; 3 = 35-44 years; 4 =
45-54 years; and 5 = 55 years and older). Educational level was also subdivided into
five categories (1 = primary education; 2 = lower vocational education; 3 = higher
general secondary education, preparatory academic education; 4 = higher vocational
education, candidate exam; and 5 = scientific education). Finally, the category of orga-
nizational size was subdivided into seven categories (1 = fewer than 100 employees; 2
= 101-500 employees; 3 = 501-1,000 employees; 4 = 1,001-5,000 employees; 5 =
5,001-10,000 employees; 6 = 10,001-20,000 employees; 7 = more than 20,000
employees). Because we used secondary data analysis, we were restricted to these
categories in measuring the control variables.
186 Review of Public Personnel Administration 34(2)
Results
The hypothesized relationships among the variables were analyzed using SEM. This
statistical methodology allows us to test the full conceptual model in a simultaneous
analysis. In addition, SEM enables us to analyze simultaneously the direct and indirect
relationships among the dependent and independent variables. Finally, SEM also
enables us to compare different models (Byrne, 2001). We built our SEM model using
AMOS version 16. To examine whether the data were normally distributed, the index
of multivariate kurtosis was considered. Bentler (2005) has suggested that, in practice,
values above 5.00 are indicative of nonnormality. Our data have a score of 4.94, which
indicates that it is normally distributed.
In Table 2, the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study variables
are presented.The results show that, of the 10 HR practices, employees observed, on
average, the use of 4 HR practices within their organizations. The most frequently
observed HR practice was job evaluation conversations, and the least frequently
observed practice was job rotation. Employees were generally satisfied with their jobs.
The average score for this variable on a 5-point scale was 3.78. Moreover, employees
perceive the organization to be doing good work, with the average score on a 5-point
scale being 3.48. Finally, the average score for the stimulating leadership style was
3.46 on a 5-point scale; the average score for the correcting leadership style was 3.47.
To test the proposed relationships, a causal structure was posited that resulted in a
structural equation model. First, we tested the hypothesis that job satisfaction acts as a
mediating variable in the relationship between HRM and organizational performance.
A distinction can be made between fully mediated and partially mediated models
(Wood, Goodman, Beckman, & Cook, 2008). Therefore, in SEM, two different mod-
els must be created. In the first model, the direct relationship between HRM and orga-
nizational performance was fixed at zero. In the second model, the direct relationship
and indirect relationship between HRM and organizational performance were esti-
mated. By using the chi-square difference test and other global-fit measures, one can
test the models against each other. In Table 3, the fit indices are presented. The chi-
square difference test implies that the relationship between HRM and organizational
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations (N = 6,253).
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(1) Gender .42 .493 —
(2) Age 3.57 .958 −.223** —
(3) Educational level 3.18 1.169 .071** −.116** —
(4) Organizational size 2.76 1.269 −.009 .007 .159** —
(5) HRM 3.73 2.04 .004 .045** .093** ,175** —
(6) Job satisfaction 3.78 .933 .037** −.014 .008 −.016 .150** —
(7) Organizational performance 3.48 .956 −.011 .005 .040** .043** .206** .319** —
(8) Stimulating leadership 3.46 .914 .008 −.002 −.008 .000 .251** .416** .443** —
(9) Correcting leadership 3.47 .854 −.007 .014 −.045** .016 .188** .240** .325** .649** —
Note. HRM = human resource management.
**p < .01.
Vermeeren et al. 187
performance is partially mediated by job satisfaction. Furthermore, the partially medi-
ated model shows a better model fit than the fully mediated model.In Figure 2, the
partially mediated model is shown. Only the statistically significant relationships are
described (with a significance level of .01). The numerical scores on all lines indicate
standardized regression coefficients (β), and the scores in brackets are the explained
variances.
Second, we analyzed the effect of leadership style on HRM. We assumed that the
amount of HR practices perceived by employees would be influenced by their supervi-
sors’ leadership styles. We distinguished between stimulating and correcting leader-
ship to test our hypotheses that (a) a stimulating leadership style has a positive effect
on the amount of HR practices used within an organization and (b) a correcting leader-
ship style has a negative effect on the amount of HR practices used within an organiza-
tion. The overall model fit was tested using several fit indices. The model fit values
were .999 (GFI), .997 (AGFI), .996 (NFI), and .998 (CFI), implying that the model
was a very good fit. In addition, the RMSEA, with a value of .015, also indicated that
the model is a good fit.The model in Figure 3 is the result. Only the statistically signifi-
cant relationships are shown (with a significance level of .01). The numerical scores
on all lines indicate standardized regression coefficients (β), and the scores in brackets
are the explained variances. The results show that a stimulating leadership style has a
significantly positive effect on the implementation of HR practices, supporting
Hypothesis 2a, whereas a correcting leadership style appears to have no effect on the
amount of HR practices used, rejecting Hypothesis 2b.
Table 3. Fit Indices for the Fully and Partially Mediated Models.
Model χ2 df GFI AGFI NFI CFI RMSEA
Fully mediated model 189.389 7 .990 .970 .874 .877 .065
Partially mediated model 8.670 6 .999 .998 .994 .998 .008
Note. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; NFI = normed fit index; CFI =
comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
Age
Organizational
Size
Educational
Level
Job Satisfaction
(.024)
HRM
(.038)
Organizational
Performance
(.127)
.053
.074
.163
.158 .294
-.044 .020
.162
-.118
.158
Figure 2. Result of structural equation modeling.
188 Review of Public Personnel Administration 34(2)
When we compare the model in Figure 2 with the model in Figure 3, we see that the
first model shows a statistically significant and positive relation between HRM and
organizational performance. However, the model in Figure 3 shows that this relation
becomes weaker when the variables related to leadership style are included. Therefore,
we also examined whether supervisors’ leadership style influences the relationship
between HRM and performance (moderating effect). However, these effects do not
appear to be significant. These results imply that leadership style has its own, indepen-
dent, effect.
Finally, model validity was achieved through cross-model validation. Camilleri
(2006) suggested attaining cross-validation in three phases. In the first phase, data are
divided into two data sets. One data set consists of a random selection of 20% of the
data collected from respondents; the second data set consists of a random selection of
80% of the data collected. In the second phase, SEM by means of a path analysis that
calculates the structural fit index (measured by R2) is conducted for both the data sets.
The third phase consists of examining the differences between the calculated structural
fit indices obtained for each data set. The extent of model validity is determined by the
similarity in the variance accounted for by each data set. The results of the cross-model
validation are presented in Table 4. Given the fact that the differences in the explained
variances are small, the cross-model validation provided satisfactory results.
Age
Organizational
Size
Educational
Level
Job Satisfaction
(.177)
HRM
(.102)
Organizational
Performance
(.229)
.054
.076
.163
.050 .161
-.025 .029
.086
-.116
.159
Stimulating
Leadership
Correcting
Leadership
.252 .439
-.054
.310
.069.649
-.045
Figure 3. Result of structural equation modeling.
Table 4. Results of Cross-Model Validation Showing R2 for the Three Samples.
Predicted variable Full sample 20% sample 80% sample
Difference in R2 for
20%-80% sample
HRM .102 .109 .100 .009
Job satisfaction .177 .197 .173 .024
Organizational performance .229 .240 .231 .009
Note. HRM = human resource management.
Vermeeren et al. 189
Discussion
Looking at the main independent and dependent variables, we expected that a supervi-
sors’ leadership style has an influence on the implementation of HR practices. Our
research provides empirical evidence that a supervisor’s leadership style, and specifi-
cally a stimulating leadership style, is important to the HRM–performance relation-
ship within an organization. When we compare Figure 2 with Figure 3, we see that
adding “leadership” importantly increases explained variance. As such, the results of
this study emphasize the important role of supervisors in the HRM and performance
model, as was previously suggested by Wright et al. (2005) and Paauwe (2009), among
others. When we look at the results in greater detail, we find evidence of the positive
relationship between a supervisor’s leadership style and the HR practices conducted
within the organization, as previously shown by Purcell and Hutchinson (2007) and
Zhu et al. (2005). More specifically, a stimulating leadership style is demonstrated to
have an important effect on the implementation of HR practices. In contrast, a correct-
ing leadership style appears to have no effect on the amount of HR practices used.
Thus, our hypothesis that a stimulating leadership style has a positive effect on the
amount of HR practices used within an organization is confirmed, whereas our hypoth-
esis that a correcting leadership style has a negative effect on the amount of HR prac-
tices used within an organization must be rejected. Nevertheless, the results are in line
with the research discussed by Guest (1987), which argued that a stimulating leader-
ship style (theory Y) could be linked to soft HRM (HRM focusing on the development,
motivation, and commitment of employees). Furthermore, it would be interesting in
future research to test Guest’s (1987) idea that theory X (with a correcting role for the
supervisor) is linked to hard HRM (a focus on rewards and determinations of whether
employees do what the organization requires). To study this relationship, data must
include such elements of HRM as performance-related pay. An additional interesting
result is that a stimulating leadership style appears to be very important to employees’
degree of satisfaction, while the correcting leadership style has a negative influence on
job satisfaction. Finally, a stimulating leadership style and a correcting leadership style
have a positive effect on organizational performance, although the effect of the stimu-
lating leadership style is much larger.
Our research also provides empirical evidence for the mediating relationship
between HRM and organizational performance. The results indicate a direct effect and
an indirect effect of HR practices on organizational performance, as is already assumed
in the Paauwe and Richardson (1997) model. Our analysis shows that when employees
perceive a more elaborate use of HR practices, organizations do achieve a better score
for their performance. Moreover, when more HR practices are used, employees expe-
rience greater satisfaction, which positively influences organizational performance.
This study adds to previous research by confirming the hypothesis that job satisfaction
acts as a mediating variable in the relationship between HRM and organizational per-
formance. This important finding provides more insight into employees’ reactions to
HRM and its effect on organization performance. These reactions have been largely
disregarded in previous research (Boselie et al., 2005).
190 Review of Public Personnel Administration 34(2)
Looking at the results in greater detail, we see that older employees and employees
with higher education levels perceive a greater use of HR practices. This suggests that
different groups within organizations (e.g., younger and older employees) are man-
aged differently. In addition, organizational size has a relatively large effect on HRM,
as can be concluded from its high beta weight. In line with Guest’s (1999) assumption,
this finding indicates that the HRM policy of organizations is influenced by such con-
textual variables as the size of the organization.
Finally, our study supports the idea that a focus on HRM as a method of increasing
organizational performance is also relevant in the public sector. Based on this study,
conclusions regarding the relationship between HR practices and organizational per-
formance in private organizations (cf. Paauwe, 2009) also appear applicable to public
sector organizations. In line with the results of previous research (e.g., Gould-Williams,
2003; Kim, 2005; O’Toole & Meier, 2008), public organizations appear to be more
successful if they value their employees and if they utilize a more extended set of HR
practices. In addition, this study illustrates the important role supervisors play in this
relationship in the public sector.
Conclusion
In the introduction, we stated that public sector performance has become an increas-
ingly important issue over the past three decades. Several innovations in the field have
promised to increase the quality of public service while reducing its costs. However,
research into the contributions of HRM to these developments has been scarce. Our
main research question, therefore, was “To what extent is the relationship between
HRM and the performance of public organizations mediated by job satisfaction, and
what is the influence of a supervisor’s leadership style on the implementation of HR
practices?” Based on the data and arguments presented in this study, one can conclude
that a positive relationship exists between HRM and organizational performance in the
public sector. Specifically, by studying the relationships among HRM, job satisfaction,
and organizational performance in a single model, this research showed that job satis-
faction partly mediates the relationship between HRM and organizational perfor-
mance. Moreover, this study showed that the choice to use HR practices is influenced
by a supervisor’s leadership style.
Despite these findings, the limits of this article suggest lines of further research.
This study used a cross-sectional data set restricted to Dutch municipalities. Its find-
ings, therefore, have limitations with respect to internal and external validity. A longi-
tudinal data set would increase internal validity, as such data enable researchers to
make stronger causal claims. HRM–performance research is dominated by cross-
sectional research, which generates considerable discussion of questions regarding
“what came first?” (Guest, 2011). Are public organizations more successful if they
value their employees, or do public organizations value their employees if they are
more successful? Or are both propositions true? A similar problem can be observed
with respect to the relationship between job satisfaction and performance (Judge et al.,
2001; Taris & Schreurs, 2009). For this reason, a longitudinal research design would
Vermeeren et al. 191
be preferable in further research. With respect to external validity, we have examined
the HRM and performance relationship in the public sector by focusing on Dutch
municipalities. More research is needed to determine whether the HRM–performance
relationship holds for different kinds of public sector organizations and different coun-
tries. Finally, the selection of the data source (survey) may have influenced some of
the results. The use of only one survey instrument may create distortions in the data,
in particular regarding common method bias (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). This is spe-
cifically a question with respect to the connection between job satisfaction and organi-
zational performance. The strong relationship between these two variables may be
attributable to the fact that employees were asked to rate their job satisfaction and their
perceptions of organizational performance. This potential problem highlights the
importance of replicating our research, ideally by using objective performance
indicators.
This study not only generates recommendations to further enhance HRM and per-
formance research in the public sector. Based on its observations, this study also pro-
vides possible starting points for improving the performance of public organizations
through their employees. To increase organizational performance, it appears important
that organizations invest in employees’ needs by implementing HR practices.
Moreover, this study suggests that the stimulating leadership style is very important to
employee satisfaction, while the correcting leadership style negatively influences job
satisfaction. This suggestion further implies that when a public sector organization
wishes to acquire an involved and motivated staff, its supervisors must assume a stim-
ulating role. Based on our findings, attention to a supervisor’s leadership style appears
to be a prerequisite for successfully implementing HRM within an organization. More
specifically, this study indicates that there is an important role for supervisors to play
in implementing HRM, developing a satisfied workforce, and enhancing organiza-
tional performance.
Appendix
Correcting Leadership
•• X1: My supervisor keeps an eye on my work to check if I do my work well.
•• X2: My supervisor tells me when I do not do my work well.
•• X3: My supervisor controls whether work is finished on time.
Stimulating Leadership
•• Y1: My supervisor is aware of employees’ welfare.
•• Y2: I get enough support from my supervisor.
•• Y3: My supervisor allows people to cooperate well.
•• Y4: My supervisor lets me know if she or he is satisfied with my work.
•• Y5: My supervisor consults his staff about issues that are important to them.
•• Y6: My supervisor provides support as needed.
•• Y7: My supervisor creates a work climate in which I can develop new ideas
about my work.
192 Review of Public Personnel Administration 34(2)
•• Y8: My supervisor is accessible.
•• Y9: My supervisor lets us participate in conversations that are relevant to me
and my colleagues.
•• Y10: My supervisor protects me from high work pressure.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Notes
1. Although there is some disagreement about the precise relationship between job satisfac-
tion and performance, the literature generally assumes that greater job satisfaction is asso-
ciated with better individual and organizational performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, &
Patton, 2001; Taris & Schreurs, 2009).
2. Error correlation between X1 and X2 is .137 and between Y10 and Y11 is .326.
3. Chi-square value = N × difference between sample covariances and implied population
covariances.
References
A+O fonds Gemeenten. (2005). Personeel in perspectief, monitor gemeenten. Den Haag,
Netherlands: Author.
Ahmad, S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2003). The impact of human resource management practices
on operational performance: Recognizing country and industry differences. Journal of
Operations Management, 21(1), 19-43.
Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why
high performance work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Bagozzi, R., & Philips, L. (1982). Representing and testing organisational theories: A holistic
construct. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 459-489.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transfor-
mational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Batt, R. (2002). Managing customer services: Human resource practices, quit rates, and sales
growth. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 587-597.
Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate
Software.
Bobic, M., & Davis, W. (2003). A kind word for Theory X: Or why so many newfangled man-
agement techniques quickly fail. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
13(3), 239-264.
Boselie, J. P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and
performance research. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 67-94.
Vermeeren et al. 193
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance link-ages: The role
of “Strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29, 203-221.
Boyne, G., Meier, K., O’Toole, L., & Walker, R. (Eds.). (2006). Public service performance:
Perspectives on measurement and management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Boyne, G., Poole, M., & Jenkins, G. (1999). Human resource management in the public and
private sectors: An empirical comparison. Public Administration, 77(2), 407-420.
Byrne, B. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications and
programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Camilleri, E. (2006). Towards developing an organisational commitment—Public service moti-
vation model for the Maltese public service employees. Public Policy and Administration,
21(1), 63-83.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices
on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4),
949-969.
Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2004). Future directions in performance
Management. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(4), 556-569.
DeSantis, V., & Durst, S. L. (1996). Comparing job satisfaction among public and private sector
employees. American Review of Public Administration, 26, 327-343.
Gelade, G. A., & Ivery, M. (2003). The impact of human resource management and work cli-
mate on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 383-405.
Gould-Williams, J. S. (2003). The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achiev-
ing superior performance: A study of public-sector organizations. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 14(1), 28-54.
Gould-Williams, J. S. (2004). The effects of “high commitment” HRM Practices on employee
attitude: The views of public sector workers. Public Administration, 82(1), 63-81.
Gould-Williams, J. S. (2007). HR practices, organisational climate and employee outcomes:
Evaluating social exchange relationships in local government. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 18(9), 1627-1647.
Guest, D. E. (1987). Human resource management and industrial relations. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 24(5), 503-521.
Guest, D. E. (1999). Human resource management—The workers’ verdict. Human Resource
Management Journal, 9(3), 5-25.
Guest, D. E. (2002). Human resource management, corporate performance and employee well-
being: Building the worker into HRM. The Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 335-358.
Guest, D. E. (2011). Human resource management and performance: Still searching for some
answers. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(1), 3-13.
Guest, D. E., Conway, N., & Dewe, P. (2004). Using sequential tree analysis to search for
“bundles” of HR practices. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(1), 79-96.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159-170.
Halachmi, A., & Bouckaert, G. (1996). Organizational performance and measurement in
the public sector. Towards service, effort and accomplishment reporting. Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
locus of control and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business unit
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.
194 Review of Public Personnel Administration 34(2)
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.),
Testing structural equation models (pp. 294-316). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin,
127(3), 376-407.
Kim, S. (2005). Individual-level factors and organizational performance in government organi-
zations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 245-261.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Meier, K., O’Toole, L., Boyne, G., & Walker, R. (2007). Strategic management and the perfor-
mance of public organizations: Testing venerable ideas against recent theories. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3), 357-377.
Nagy, M. S. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(1), 77-86.
Nicholson-Crotty, S., & O’Toole, L. (2004). Public management and organizational perfor-
mance: The case of law enforcement agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 14, 1-18.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is
transforming the public sector. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An orga-
nizational level analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 77(6), 963-974.
O’Toole, L., & Meier, K. (1999). Modeling the impact of public management: Implications of
structural context. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(4), 505-526.
O’Toole, L., & Meier, K. (2008). The human side of public organizations: Contributions to
organizational performance. The American Review of Public Administration, 20(10), 1-20.
Paauwe, J. (2009). HRM and performance: Achievements, methodological issues and pros-
pects. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 129-142.
Paauwe, J., & Richardson, R. (1997). Introduction special issue on HRM and performance. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 257-262.
Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability
and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5-22.
Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and pros-
pects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform. A comparative analysis. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal
chain: Theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(1), 3-20.
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1993). The service organisation. Human resource management
is critical. Organizational Dynamics, 21(4), 39-52.
Sels, L., De Winne, S., Maes, J., Delmotte, J., Faems, D., & Forrier, A. (2006). Unravelling
the HRM-Performance link: Value-creating and cost-increasing effects of small business
HRM. Journal of Management Studies, 43(2), 319-342.
Steijn, B. (2004). Human resource management and job satisfaction in the Dutch public sector.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 24(4), 291-303.
Vermeeren et al. 195
Taris, T. W., & Schreurs, P. J. G. (2009). Well-being and organizational performance: An
organizational-level test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis. Work & Stress, 23(2),
120-136.
Vermeeren, B., Kuipers, B., & Steijn, B. (2011). Two faces of the satisfaction mirror. A study
of work environment, job satisfaction and customer satisfaction in Dutch municipalities.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31(2), 171-189.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are
single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247-252.
Wood, R. E., Goodman, J. S., Beckman, N., & Cook, A. (2008). Testing mediation in manage-
ment research: A review and proposals. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 270-295.
Wright, P., Gardner, T., Moynihan, L., & Allen, M. (2005). The relationship between HR prac-
tices and firm performance: Examining causal order. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 409-446.
Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro
and macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, 28(3), 247-276.
Zhu, W., Chew, I., & Spangler, W. (2005). CEO transformational leadership and organizational
outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management.
The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 39-52.
Author Biographies
Brenda Vermeeren is a PhD student at the Department of Public Administration at Erasmus
University Rotterdam. Her research is focused on the relationship between human resource
management (HRM) and Performance of Public Organizations.
Ben Kuipers is an assistant professor at the Department of Public Administration at Erasmus
University Rotterdam and director and consultant at Performability. His research and consulting
work focus on strategic human resource management, change management, and team perfor-
mance in private and public organizations.
Bram Steijn is a full professor of HRM in the public sector at the Department of Public
Administration at Erasmus University Rotterdam. His current research is focused on public
service motivation, job satisfaction, and HRM and performance in the public sector.
