1
Working title:
Unraveling the concept of Talent Management
Approaches, goals and processes of Talent Management in the Flemish Government**
_ _ _
Paper for the NIG Annual Work Conference 2012
29‐30 November 2012, Leuven
Panel 6 ‐ Strategic HRM in the public sector and public values
_ _ _
Dorien Buttiens1 – Public Management Institute – University of Leuven
Prof. dr. Annie Hondeghem – Public Management Institute – University of Leuven
** Work in progress, do not cite without author’s permission
1. Introduction
When reading about Talent Management in academic literature, it is clear that different approaches and conceptualizations of the concepts of talent and Talent Management exist2 (Lewis & Heckman, 2006; Armstrong, 2006; Thunissen, Boselie & Fruytier, 2011; Buttiens & Hondeghem, 2012a; Gallardo‐Gallardo, 2012). Next to these differences in approach and conceptualization, various goals and HR processes can be put forward when developing a Talent Management policy. This paper tries to draw an overall picture of the specific approaches, goals and HR processes of Talent management in a public sector context. More specific, we focus on the architecture of Talent management policies in 46 organizations of the Flemish Government.
1 This text is based on research conducted within the frame of the Policy Research Centre on Governmental Organization ‐ Decisive Governance (SBOV III ‐ 2012‐2015), funded by the Flemish government. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not those of the Flemish government. 2 Thunissen, Boselie & Fruytier (2011) state that a common definition of talent is not possible because of the dependence on the context of the organization.
2
As a broader framework, this paper uses the distinction between inclusive3 and exclusive4 Talent Management (as proposed in Buttiens & Hondeghem, 2012a).
The first part of the paper introduces some of the basic principles of Talent Management (e.g. value of human capital). In other words, the theories which are at the core of the different Talent management practices will be presented. Furthermore, the division of the different approaches of Talent Management (inclusive/exclusive) will be put forward.
In the second part, the specific context of Talent management in the public sector is depicted. We link the public sector values with the design and development of a Talent management policy. Furthermore, the theory of strategic balance (Paauwe, 2004; Boselie, 2010) and new institutionalism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Greenwood & Hinings, 1996, Lammers et al., 2000 in Paauwe & Boselie, 2007) will be presented to fit Talent management within the context of the public sector. Although a theoretical framework is being put forward in this paper, we approach the results in an exploratory manner. Where possible, the results will be framed in our theoretical scope.
In the third part, the methodology and course of the research is presented. The used research method is an online questionnaire, which was addressed to the heads of the HR departments of 46 organizations in the Flemish Government. The respondents were asked to express the view of the organization and to describe the goals and practices regarding Talent management.
The fourth part focuses on the results of the questionnaire. We conclude by discussing results and future research possibilities.
2. Defining Talent management
Thunissen, Boselie & Fruytier (2011) state in their literature review that Talent management is a very popular topic in academic and practice oriented literature. Moreover, Talent management seems to be an all‐round concept, used in many different contexts. As a consequence, different definitions of talent and Talent management circulate5. Several authors (Lewis & Heckman,
3 In the inclusive approach to Talent Management every employee of the organization is part of the target group. Moreover, this means that there is no subdivision of employees on the base of their (future) performance. 4 Exclusive Talent Management is aimed at a specific segment of employees in the organization. As a consequence employees who are not considered as talents will not be included in the Talent Management practices. 5 for examples see Buttiens & Hondeghem, 2012a
3
2006; Garrow & Hirsch, 2008) state furthermore that the concept of talent as well as Talent management can be applied in a very broad or a very narrow way. For the current research, we present a distinction between Talent management approaches, based on the scope of the Talent management strategy of an organization. This scope can be inclusive or exclusive. After elaborating on this distinction, we present some basic principles of Talent management. A short overview of theories and different views that can be linked with the different approaches to Talent management6 will be put forward.
2.1. Approaches to Talent Management
Before presenting the distinction in Talent management approaches, we want to focus on the concept of talent since the chosen conceptualization of talent can influence the Talent management approach. Furthermore, several authors (Thunissen, Boselie & Fruytier, 2011, Gallardo‐Gallardo, 2012) state that the way an organization defines talent is context dependent.
2.1.1. Approach to talent
Gallardo‐Gallardo (2012) developed a typology of the different approaches to talent in an organization. A distinction is made between the subject and object approach.
In the subject approach of talent the ‘employee as a person’ is considered as a talent in the
organization. In addition, this approach can be inclusive or exclusive. The inclusive subject
approach stresses the added value of the human resources for the organization in the current
knowledge economy and makes no distinction between groups of employees. Critics state that
the notion of talent in this approach can be exchanged with the notion of employee of the
organization (Lewis & Heckman, 2006). In other words, no added value is created. The exclusive
subject approach of talent includes a specific segment of the workforce. An HR policy with
specific programs and actions is developed for this group of employees. In most organizations
this group consists of ‘the high performers’ or ‘high potentials’ of the organization. Only this
group is considered as talents for the organization.
The object approach of talent defines talent as a set of exceptional skills with regard to
knowledge and competencies. In this approach the concept of talent refers to a characteristic of
6 These theories can be situated in the strategic HRM literature.
4
a person and not to the individual as a whole7. Some authors add commitment and motivation
to the concept of talent in the object approach (Ulrich & Ulrich, 2010; Boudreau & Ramstad,
2005; Martin & Schmidt, 2010). Also the nature/nurture debate can be situated within this
approach. Some authors consider talent to be something natural which cannot be mastered
(Hinrichs, 1966 in Gallardo‐Gallardo, 2011). Others presume that experience and effort
determine whether someone is talented in a specific field. The middle way are definitions that
contain aspects of both views.
This short introduction to the concept of talent, brings us to the distinction between the inclusive and exclusive approach to Talent management.
2.1.2. Inclusive approach to Talent management
In the inclusive approach to Talent Management every employee of the organization is part of
the target group. In other words, there is no subdivision of employees on the base of their
(future) performance. We make an additional subdivision on the base of the approach to talent.
The inclusive subject approach of talent encompasses a collection of typical human resource
practices, functions, activities or specialist areas such as recruiting, selection, development, and
career and succession management. There is some difference in the perspective that
practitioners take: some focus on specific sub disciplines when talking about Talent
management (f.e.: succession planning, leader development) while others emphasize the need
to use HR‐techniques for attracting and retaining talents on an organization‐wide level (instead
of the department or function level). Lewis and Heckman (2006) state that in this approach the
term ‘human resources’ of the organization is replaced with the ‘talents’ of the organization.
The second approach to inclusive Talent Management is based on the object approach to
talent. This view starts from the assumption that the strenghts/talents of every employee have
to be developed and supported within the Talent Management strategy of an organization.
Every employee is stimulated to achieve high performance. This corresponds with the view of
Lewis and Heckman (2006) on handling talent in a generic way (Buckingham & Vosburgh, 2001;
Walker & Larocco, 2002 in Lewis & Heckman, 2006).
7 As is the case in the subject approach of talent.
5
2.1.3. Exclusive approach to Talent management
Exclusive Talent Management is aimed at a specific segment of employees in the organization.
As a consequence employees who are not considered as talents will not be included in the
Talent Management practices. This approach can be connected with the view of Talent
Management of Lewis & Heckman (2006) in which talent is something generic and organizations
choose to focus on ‘high potentials’ and/or ‘high performers’. Also the follow‐up of strategic
positions in the organization is one of the priorities in the Talent Management policy8 since
these strategic positions contribute for a large extent to the competitive advantage of the
organization (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). Another view on Talent Management that can be placed
in this approach is called ‘topgrading’9.
The views above can be coupled to the exclusive subject approach of talent. However, it is also
possible to apply the object approach to talent in this view. This view can for example be found
when organizations are looking for specific strengths that are necessary in a key strategic
position.
2.2. Basic principles of Talent management
After introducing the different approaches to Talent management, we present basic principles of Talent management, coupled to this distinction. These basic principles are grounded in the strategic human resource management literature.
2.2.1. Human capital as a resource for sustained competitive advantage
In Talent Management the strategic value of employees is one of the basic assumptions. This assumption was first put forward by the resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm. The RBV puts
8 When looking to the identified approaches of Lewis & Heckman (2006), the second approach seems closely related because of the emphasis on talent pools and an adequate flow of employees throughout the organization (Kesler, 2002; Pacsal, 2004 in Lewis & Heckman, 2006). 9 This means that the organization wants to hire/develop high performers for every position in the organization: ‘packing entire companies with A‐players – high performers, form senior management tot minimum wage employees – those in the top 10% of talent for their pay’ (Lewis & Heckman, 2006). The organization focuses thus on a specific segment of the labour market. Gallardo‐Gallardo (2011) concludes that this view can be applied in organizations in which the performance of the organization is dependent on the results of all employees, like for example luxe resorts and innovative consultants.
6
emphasis on internal resources of the firm in producing a sustained competitive advantage, in contrast to external resources (such as industry position). As a consequence, also the consideration of human capital as an important resource became a more legitimate assumption.
Wright, Dunford & Snell (2001) distinguish three components of the human resource
architecture that are necessary to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. These three
components are the human capital pool, employee behavior and the HR practices or people
management system. These components are presented in figure 1.
The human capital pool refers to the stock of employee skills in the firm at any given point in
time. This pool changes overtime and must be monitored to suit with the strategic goals of the
firm.
The second component is the employee behavior. Apart from skills, the employee is also
recognized as a cognitive and emotional being who possesses free will. This means for example
that a firm may have access to an excellent human capital pool but the poor design of work or
the mismanagement of people can result in a suboptimal strategic impact. In other words, the
full potential of the human capital pool cannot be reached. The members of the human capital
pool must individually and collectively choose to engage in behavior that benefits the firm
(Boselie, 2010).
Figure 1. A model of the basic strategic HRM components (Wright, Dunford & Snell, 2001, p. 705)
7
The third component is the people management system of a firm. Wright et al. (2001, p. 705)
state that ‘by using the term system, we turn focus to the importance of understanding the
multiple practices that impact employees rather than single practices. By using the term people,
rather than HR, we expand the relevant practices to those beyond the control of the HR‐
function, such as communication (both upward and downward), work design, culture,
leadership and a host of others that impact employees and shape their competencies,
cognitions and attitudes’.
Wright, Dunford & Snell (2001, p. 706) conclude by stating that to gain sustained competitive
advantage, a superior position must be achieved on the three described components: ‘a
combination of human capital elements such as the development of stocks of skills, strategically
relevant behaviors and supporting people management systems.’
When linking the theory of Wright, Dunford & Snell (2001) to Talent management, it is clear that
the Talent Management policy of an organization is part of the people management system
since Talent Management is often focused on developing and maintaining a talent pool and
attracting and retaining employees (influencing employee behavior). Moreover, Thunnissen,
Boselie & Fruytier (2011) state that the Talent Management policy of an organization should be
a people management system in which attention is paid to managing people and managing
work.
In the result section of this paper, we identify the HR practices that organizations of the Flemish government use/ will use when executing the Talent management policy of the organization. The results should give a clear depiction of the most preferred HR practices for the Talent management policy.
2.2.2. Valuing some more than others?
In addition to the above, Lepak & Snell (1999) present a popular architectural approach to strategic HRM, that is partly based on RBV and can be described as one of the basic principles in exclusive Talent Management10. Lepak & Snell (1999) distinguish between peripheral and core employees. The core employees are of higher value because of their uniqueness and skills, in
10 Exclusive talent management is aimed at a specific segment of employees in the organization
8
contrast to the peripheral employees. In this view, the core employees constitute the real human and social capital of the organization. The main contribution of this model is the explicit acknowledgement of different employee groups in an organization with potentially different HR practices and systems to achieve (financial) organizational goals (Boselie, 2010, p. 150)11. Boselie (2010) notes however that differentiation between different employee groups can have potentially negative effects on people. He points to the mechanism of distributive justice, in which peripheral employees can perceive injustice when the group of ‘core’ employees gets more opportunities in, for example, development. This can be the case when an organization chooses an exclusive Talent Management approach. More general, when taking into account the social legitimacy of an organization12, differentiation can have a negative impact on the organization, concerning for example the corporate reputation (Boselie, 2010).
Moreover, social legitimacy is, next to labour productivity and organizational flexibility, defined by Boxall & Purcell (2003) as one of three critical HR goals of an organization. They remark that a natural tension between these different goals exists.
2.2.3. Talent management and the duality of HRM
Boselie, Brewster & Paauwe (2009) discuss in their literature review the development of the HR field, with respect to the increasing evidence of the dualities, paradoxes and ambiguities. They state that with the introduction of HRM in the 1980s, a distinction between two early approaches can be distinguished, namely the soft Harvard approach (Beer et al, 1984) and the hard Michigan approach (Fombrun et al, 1984). We argue that this duality in HRM can also be applied to the proposed distinction in Talent management.
2.2.3.1. The hard Talent management approach
Boselie, Brewster & Paauwe (2009) describe the hard utilitarian HR approach as much more shareholder oriented and less attentive to situational factors. Moreover, the hard model is built on employee incentives towards optimal performance. When looking at the distinction between
11 Boselie (2010, p. 150) places this model in the Anglo‐American view in which particularly pure economic values are prioritized. 12 Social legitimacy can be situated at a macro level, concerning the legitimacy of an organization to the outside environment, or at a more micro level, concerning the organization’s legitimacy to its own employees (fairness) (Paauwe, 2004).
9
inclusive and exclusive Talent management, the exclusive Talent management approach can be situated in this managerialist/utilitarian model that mainly pays attention to the performance of the organization and less to the individual and societal goals. The choice to focus merely on the key strategic positions or those groups of employees that occupy these strategic positions can be considered as a one dimensional focus on the organizational goals. As such, this approach comes closer to the ‘hard’ approach of HRM.
In addition, Thunissen, Boselie & Fruytier (2011) find that the view on Talent Management in academic literature is characterized by a managerialist orientation in which the organizational effectiveness is prevailing.
2.2.3.2. The soft Talent management approach
The soft Harvard approach acknowledges multiple goals as long‐term consequences of an organization’s actions, such as the well‐being of the individual, organizational effectiveness and societal well‐being (Boselie, Brewster & Paauwe, 2009). Furthermore, this soft approach is centered on employee development for all and takes into account different stakeholders. The notion of the multidimensional view on performance (the individual and societal level as well as the economic goals of the organization) can also be found in the combined action of the three critical HR goals (as mentioned above; Boxall & Purcell, 2003). It is thus important to obtain some sort of equilibrium between the different goals of an HR policy. This view is the starting point for the strategic balanced approach to HRM (Boselie, Brewster & Paauwe, 2009).
Balanced approach of HRM
The balanced approach starts from the assumption that organizational success can only be achieved when both financial and societal performance are taken into account. This model contrasts sharply with the Anglo‐Saxon or Anglo‐American managerialist oriented models since they focus on creating shareholder value in terms of profit and market value. The two performance fields of the balanced approach must be above average to create a sustainable competitive advantage (Boselie, 2010). Peccei (2004 in Paauwe, 2009) remarks that a set of HR practices that works good for financial‐economic goals, is not necessarily equally good for, e.g. the well‐being of employees. This issue highlights again that also for HR‐practices attention must be paid to the different dimensions of performance. Boselie (2010) concludes that when taking into account multiple stakeholder interests and a broader societal view in the design of the employment relationship in an organization, it is likely to result in ‘good’ people management.
10
When linking this to the proposed distinction between inclusive and exclusive Talent management, we argue that a balanced approach is more closely linked to the inclusive approach of Talent Management because the economical as well as the societal goals can be part of the inclusive Talent Management policy. When developing an exclusive Talent management approach, the focus is merely on the organizational effectiveness (e.g.: which employee group can most effectively and efficiently achieve the organizational and economical goals). The societal view on performance is also harder to link with the differentiation strategy in exclusive Talent Management. According to Boselie (2010) and Paauwe (2009) this narrow definition of performance misses out on the positive effects that can be achieved when HR practices also take into account both internal and external stakeholders (based on criteria as fairness and legitimacy). In contrast, the inclusive Talent Management approach is closer to a balanced approach because the societal goals are not directly excluded by the underlying idea that solely a group of employees can achieve a sustained competitive advantage, as is the case with exclusive Talent management. Moreover, the inclusive Talent Management approach makes it possible to include the multidimensional view on performance (the individual and societal level as well as the economic goals of the organization). Critics state however that, in the soft approach to HRM, attention is distracted from the return on investment of the organization (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005). In this respect, Knies (2012) concludes that an organization can acknowledge that everyone posseses strengths and competencies (‘talents’) that can be of value for the goals of the organization. So on the one hand, the organization strives to fulfill the wishes and needs of the individual but on the other hand, organizational success is being put forward. Hence, there is a balance between the different values.
3. Talent management and the public sector
Thunnissen, Boselie & Fruytier (2011) find that, in academic literature, research concerning Talent Management can mainly be situated in profit organizations. They conclude that, considering the specific context and characteristics of the public sector, the current models are not appropriate to research and describe Talent Management in the public sector. We see, for example that the critical HR‐goals of Boxall & Purcell (2003), mentioned above, have as ultimate business goals: creating and maintaining viability with adequate returns to shareholders and striving for sustained competitive advantage. The problem is that public sector organizations do
11
not have shareholders. Boselie (2010) states however that these ultimate business goals can be adapted to a broad range of organizations13.
The models and theories, mentioned in the theoretical background, will have to be adapted when used in research in the public sector. It is clear though that the HR practices will have to take into account rival values and goals. This also reflects the characteristics of a public sector institution in which several stakeholders have to be accounted for. The balanced approach thus seems a more natural reflex for the public sector because of the integration of the societal dimension of performance. Moreover we state that for a balanced approach, inclusive Talent management seems more appropriate because the exclusive approach of Talent Management is much more focused on the organizational effectiveness. The inclusive approach of Talent management offers, in this respect, more possibilities to incorporate both the dimensions of performance (as stated in the balanced approach theory).
In summary, when following the above‐mentioned argument, the Talent management approach in the public sector fits better with the inclusiveness criterion. This means that it is possible to set goals in organizational as well as societal performance14. Paauwe & Boselie (2007) state that strategic balancing focuses on both market principles (economic value) and institutional principles (moral values). In addition, the viability of an organization can only be secured by meeting contextual economic demands and institutional demands both at the societal level (reflected in the concept of organizational legitimacy) and at the individual employee level (reflected in the concept of organizational justice).
To add a marginal note, exclusive Talent management remains a possibility within a public sector context but appropriate consideration must be given to the possible negative side‐effects on the perceptions of organizational legitimacy and organizational justice.
13 These considerations are kept in mind by the researcher in the following stages of the research. 14 This argumentation can be situated in the contingency approaches which state that the relationship between HRM practices and performance is dependent on internal and external context (company size, age, technology, industry/sector, location,…)(Paauwe & Boselie, 2007). More specific, we point to the new institutionalism approach which studies the processes of cognitive and normative institutionalism, whereby people and organizations conform without thinking to social and cultural influences (Lammers et al., 2000). These normative influences are taken‐for granted assumptions (Zucker 1977) that actors perceive as being part of their objective reality (Paauwe & Boselie, 2007). This is in contrast with the traditional ‘functionalistic contingency approaches’.
12
In the result section, this paper explores the Talent management policies in several organizations of the public sector in Flanders. We took an exploratory stand at the first results of the questionnaire. This means that we try to frame the results within the framework we presented but a thorough analysis was not yet possible for this working paper.
4. Methodology
This paper presents the preliminary results of a survey, conducted within the entities of the Flemish government. The main goal was to get an overview of what the Talent management policies and practices look like in the organizations of the Flemish government. In addition, we focus on the approach to Talent management within the presented framework, the Talent management goals that are being put forward by the organizations and the HR processes that are part of the (future) Talent management policies.
The survey was aimed at the departments and agencies of the thirteen policy domains in the Flemish government. In total, we sent the survey to 60 organizations. The survey was addressed to the heads of the HR team. This means that we sent the survey to one person in each organization. In this manner, we could ask for the viewpoint of the organizations regarding their (future) Talent management policy. A limitation in this method is that we only get a view on the intended Talent management practices of the organizations. The actual activities and the perceived activities by the employees are thus not part of this research. We are aware though that in practice the Talent management policy can differ from what is said by the employees responsible for the HR policy. This method, however, does give a glimpse of what organizations are planning to do and on what approaches the Talent management actions are based.
We contacted the respondents via email. This email consisted of an introduction to the research and a hyperlink to the questionnaire. A week later, a reminder was sent to the respondents who didn’t answer. The following week, we contacted the non‐respondents by telephone to ask if they received the invitation, if there were any problems and if the right person was contacted. A few days later, these respondents were again emailed with an invitation to participate in the survey. The survey is closed down with 46 filled in surveys, of which 43 were entirely completed. The response grade is thus about 77%. The contacts by telephone revealed some of the reasons why organizations didn’t participate. These contacts stated that there were too much surveys they had to fill in; that the leading civil servant didn’t give permission or that the function of HR was vacant at the moment.
The questions of the survey varied in their form and answer possibilities. We will concisely run through the different questions. The question regarding the development stage of the Talent
13
management policy is developed as a multiple choice question. The respondents could tick one option of the five stages that were given (The organization is not receptive for a Talent management policy; There is a willingness to develop a Talent management policy; There are actual plans to implement a Talent management policy; At the moment, the organization is implementing one or more Talent management practices; The organization can look back upon an evaluation of a Talent management practice)15.
The question on the approach to Talent management started with a short description of inclusive and exclusive Talent management. The respondents had 4 options they could choose from (Inclusive Talent management16; Exclusive Talent management17; no idea; not applicable). It was possible to choose inclusive as well as exclusive Talent management from the list. Furthermore, a follow‐up question emerged when respondents ticked ‘not applicable’. The question concentrated on which Talent management approach the organizations would apply in the future (Inclusive Talent management; exclusive Talent management; no idea).
Regarding the goals of the Talent management policy, the respondents could choose between 7 options (Making employees more employable within the own organization; Making employees more employable on the internal labour market; Making employees more employable on the external labour market; Employee satisfaction; Increased productivity; Becoming/remaining an attractive employer; More qualitative service delivery). In addition, there was also the possibility to add goals that were not listed in the survey.
The question on the integration of HR processes in the Talent management policy listed ten HR activities, in which the respondents had to state if they were used by the organization. The respondent had three options per HR process, used in the current situation, used in the future
15 The definition of talent and Talent management, as used by the working group on Talent management in the Flemish government were used. The definition of Talent management was described as follows: ‘Talent Management is aimed at attracting, developing, retaining and applying talents whereby the perspective of the employee as well as the perspective of the organization are integrated.’ The definition of talent was described as follows: ‘Talent is the combination of doing something good and doing something you like. This results in a strong commitment to bring things to a good end.’ 16 Inclusive Talent management was described as aimed at all employees. This means that every employee is part of the Talent management policy. 17 Exclusive Talent management was described as focusing on key positions in the organizations, on high potentials or high performers. Only a specific segment of the employees is part of the Talent management policy.
14
situation and not applicable. Furthermore, to ensure a univocal interpretation, each HR process was followed by a short description.
The results are analyzed with the statistical program SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). The analyses in this paper are limited to the basic analyses such as frequency tables and cross tables.
5. Results
This part of the paper presents the results of the survey. We first take a look at the development stage in which the Talent management policy of the organizations is situated. Subsequently, the approach to Talent management, the goals and HR‐processes which are put forward in the Talent management policies in the organizations are presented.
5.1. Development stage of the organizations’ Talent management policies
The first question concerns the development phase of the organization in their Talent management policy. Five options were given, ranging from ‘The organization is not receptive for a Talent management policy‘ to ‘We can look back upon an evaluation of a Talent management practice’. We see in table 1 that 41.3% of the questioned organizations (N=46) is receptive for developing a Talent management policy. Almost 11% however, does not see any opportunity to start with Talent Management. In contrast, almost half of the questioned organizations (43.4%) has concrete plans or is currently implementing a Talent Management practice.
Tabel 1. Development stage of the organizations’ Talent management policies
Frequency Percent (%) The organization is not receptive for a Talent management policy
5 10.9
There is a willingness to develop a Talent management policy
19 41.3
There are actual plans to implement a Talent management policy
10 21.7
At the moment, the organization is implementing one or more Talent management practices
10 21.7
The organization can look back upon an evaluation of a Talent
2 4.3
15
management practice Total 46 100
5.2. Approach to Talent Management
Next to the development stage of the Talent management policies, also the approach to Talent management was assessed. A short description of the inclusive, as well as the exclusive approach was provided. Respondents thus could choose for inclusive and/or exclusive Talent management. Furthermore, also the options ‘no idea’ and ‘not apliccable’ were given. When a respondent ticked the ‘not applicable’ option, a follow‐up question emerged. This follow‐up question asked which Talent management approach the organization would opt for in the future (‘Inclusive Talent management’ and/or ‘Exclusive Talent management’, ‘no idea’).
More than half of the questioned organizations of the Flemish government (55.8%; N=4318) state that the organization chooses an inclusive Talent management approach. Approximately, 5% of the organizations take an exclusive approach to Talent management while two organizations of the Flemish government (4.7%) combine both approaches. Two respondents have no idea which approach the organization is taking.
Tabel 2. Approach to Talent management in the organizations of the Flemish government
Frequency Percent (%)
Inclusive Talent management 24 55,8
Exclusive Talent management 2 4,7
Inclusive and exclusive Talent management
2 4,7
No idea 2 4,7
Not Applicable 13 30,2
18 Data of three organizations are incomplete
16
Total 43 100
Almost 30% of the respondents selected the ‘not applicable’ option. When asked what approach the organization would take in the future (Table 3; N=13), the majority chooses the inclusive Talent management approach (61.5%).
Tabel 3. Future approach to Talent management
Frequency Percent (%)
Inclusive Talent management 8 61,5
Exclusive Talent management 3 23,1
Inclusive and exclusive Talent management
0 0
No idea 2 15,4
Total 13 100
Overall, the inclusive Talent management approach seems most popular in the organizations of the Flemish government. Moreover, it is interesting to see that two questioned organizations combine the inclusive and exclusive approach in their Talent management policy.
5.3. Goals of a Talent management policy
With regard to the goals of the Talent management policy, the respondents could choose between seven different Talent management and also had the opportunity to add goals themselves. In table 4 (N=42)19, we see that ‘Making the employees more employable within the own organization’ is selected in the majority of the organizations (90.2%). Also ‘employee satisfaction’ (78.6%), ‘increased productivity’ (71.4%), ‘becoming/remaining an attractive employer’ (64.3%) and ‘more qualitative service delivery’ (64.3%) are put forward as Talent
19 Data of three organiations are missing. One respondent stated that selecting goals was not yet possible.
17
management goals by more than half of the questioned organizations. The least selected goals are ‘Making employees more employable on the internal labour market’ (21.4%) and ‘Making employees more employable on the external market’ (9.5%).
Tabel 3. Goals of the Talent management policies
Frequency Percent (%) Making employees more employable within the own organization
38 90,5
Employee satisfaction
33 78,6
Increased productivity
30 71,4
Becoming/remaining an attractive employer
27 64,3
More qualitative service delivery 27 64,3
Making employees more employable on the internal labour market
9 21,4
Making employees more employable on the external labour market
4 9,5
Nine respondents made use of the possibility to add goals themselves. The goals that were reported by the respondents, can be characterized by a focus on the organization, on the employee or on both. The organization‐oriented goals were: continuation of the service and succession planning; efficiency and effectivity; organizational development and raising innovation and creativity within the organization. The employee‐oriented goals were aimed at personal development, remaining employable and reducing stress. The listed goals that carried an employee as well as an organization orientation were: reducing absenteeism and “continuous development of the organization and the employee, while being in search of the optimal fit […]”.
5.4. HR processes in the organizations’ Talent management policies
18
Regarding the HR processes in Talent management, the survey asked the respondents in which processes they are applying principles of Talent management (at the moment/in the future)20.
The first results (see table 5; N=45) show that Talent management is mainly applied in processes concerning education and training (64.4%); performance management (64.4%) and commitment and engagement strategies (64.4%). Next, also role development (55.6%) and career management (53.5%) are selected by more than half of the respondents. The least chosen HR process is Talent audit, with 11 organizations (24.4 %) applying a talent audit.
Tabel 4. HR processes within the Talent management policy of the questioned organizations
Current situation Future situation Frequency Percent (%) Frequency Percent (%)Recruitment and selection
21 46,7 10 22,2
Attraction and retention policy
20 44,4 16 35,6
Talent audit 11 24.2 16 35,6Role development 25 55,6 11 24,4Developing engagement and commitment
29 64,4 8 17,8
Performance management
29 64,4 9 20,0
Reward 16 35,6 8 17,8Training and development
29 64,4 13 28,9
Career management
24 53,3 14 31,1
Management development
22 48,9 9 20,0
With regard to these results, a few marginal notes can be added. First, the results show that the respondents who stated that ‘The organization is not receptive for a Talent management policy’ in the development question, nevertheless selected several HR processes. This paradox can
20 The option ‘not applicable’ was also a possibility.
19
possibly be explained by the difference between ‘having a formal Talent management policy’ and ‘informally applying some principles of Talent Management’.
Second, it is remarkable that every HR process that was being suggested in the survey, is selected by at least a quarter of the organizations. These results indicate that Talent management is not solely applied to the HR processes that seem most popular in literature (e.g. recruitment and staffing, training and development and retention management; Thunissen, Boselie & Fruytier, 2011) but are applied to the whole range of HR processes.
Third, the HR practice ‘talent audit’ is least selected (24.2%) by the respondents. This HR process can be seen as one of the starting points of a Talent management policy in which the organization is provided of an overview of the talents within the organization. On a closer look, mainly the organizations who are actively working with a Talent management policy have selected the HR process of talent audit. Moreover, the difference between organizations who are working actively with Talent management and those who are not21 is significant in their use of Talent audit as HR practice (X² (1) = (16.6), p < 0.001). This is also the case for the HR process ‘Management development’. Although almost half of the organizations (N=44.4) selected this process, there is a significant difference between both groups (X² (1) = (8.0), p< 0.01). This is in contrast with the other HR processes whereby both groups select the HR processes as being applied in their organization. A possible explanation could be that both the process of talent audit and management development are more applied in an integrated and formal Talent management policy while the ‘non‐active Talent management’ organizations have only minor parts of Talent management in some more general processes.
When looking at the future HR activities concerning Talent management, a different picture emerges. In table 5 (N=45), we see that a third of the organizations wants to apply an attraction and retention policy (35.6%) and a Talent audit (35.6%) within their future Talent management policy. These HR processes are followed by the introduction of career management (31.1%) and
21 The group ‘organizations who are working actively with Talent management’ is based on the categories of the variable ‘development stage of the Talent management policy’: ‘There are actual plans to implement a Talent management policy’; ‘At the moment, the organization is implementing one or more Talent management practices’ and ‘The organization can look back upon an evaluation of a Talent management practice’. The group ‘organizations who aren’t working actively with Talent management’ is based on the categories of the variable ‘development stage of the Talent management policy’: ‘The organization is not receptive for a Talent management policy’ and ‘There is a willingness to develop a Talent management policy’.
20
training and development (28.9%) as part of the future Talent Management policy. The activities who are least attractive to integrate within the future Talent management policy are development of engagement and commitment (17.8%) and a reward policy (17.8%). With regard to the development of engagement and commitment, it is clear that almost two third (64.4%, table 5) of the organizations already uses this practice in their talent management. The reward policy seems currently (35.6%) as well as in the future (17.8%) not an evident choice to integrate in a Talent management policy. The financial reward system in the Flemish government is strictly regulated, a possible explanation could be that the lack of leeway inhibits the integration of talent management in this system.
Next to the possibility to select a current or a future HR process for the Talent management policy of the organization, the respondents also had the possibility to select the ‘not applicable’ option. In table 7 (N=45), the results of this option are shown.
Tabel 5. HR processes that are not applicable in the Talent management policies of the questioned organizations
Frequency Percent (%) Recruitment and selection
16 35,6
Attraction and retention policy
11 24,4
Talent audit 19 42,2Role development 12 26,7Developing engagement and commitment
10 22,2
Performance management
10 22,2
Reward 24 53,3Training and development
9 20,0
Career management 11 24,4Management development
15 33,3
The results fit with the earlier conclusions, namely that reward management seems hard to integrate within the Talent management policies of the organizations in the Flemish government. More than half of the respondents (53.3%) state that reward management is not applicable within their (future) Talent management policy. Furthermore, also Talent audit
21
(42.2%), recruitment and selection (35.6%) and management development (24.4%) seem no option for at least a quarter of the respondents.
6. Conclusion
This paper started with clarifying the concepts of talent and Talent management by presenting a distinction between the inclusive and exclusive approach of Talent management. As a second step in the demystification of the subject, we concentrated on the basic principles of Talent management within these different approaches. For exclusive Talent management, for example, we discussed the theory of Lepak & Snell (1999), in which the added value of core employees is contrasted with the value of peripheral employees. With regard to the distinction between inclusive and exclusive Talent management, we also looked at the increasing evidence of the dualities, paradoxes and ambiguity that exist, when looking at the general HRM study area. Furthermore, the balanced theory of HRM is linked to the use of an inclusive approach to Talent management since this approach draws closer to the multidimensional concept of performance in which individual, organizational and societal goals are balanced. When linking this to a public sector organization, these goals are part of the institutional demands at a societal level and at the individual employee level.
Although this first part of the paper tries to identify the different stances on Talent management, it does not show on how Talent management is applied in practice. The second part of the paper unravels the approaches, goals and HR processes that are being used in Flemish public sector organizations. These data are obtained by a questionnaire in 46 organizations of the Flemish government and were aimed at the head of the HR team. We use the results in this paper in an exploratory manner to get an overview on what Talent management looks like in the Flemish public sector. In the following stages of the research project these results will be linked to the theoretical considerations.
In summary, half of the organizations in the Flemish public sector are not applying a formal Talent management policy. About 20% of the organization is in the stage of developing a Talent management policy, while a quarter of the organizations is implementing and evaluating Talent management practices. Furthermore, it is clear that inclusive Talent management is the prevailing approach in the Flemish government as more than half of the organizations choose an inclusive approach. The most selected goals for the Talent management policy are ‘making the employees more employable within the own organization’, ‘employee satisfaction’ and ‘increased productivity’. Typical organizational (increased productivity) as well as individual goals (employee satisfaction) are thus put forward. When looking at the design of the Talent
22
management policy, the HR process of ‘education and training’, ‘performance management’ and ‘commitment and engagement strategies’ were most selected. The least popular HR process, to integrate in a (future) Talent management policy, is the ‘management of reward’. A possible explanation could be that the financial reward system in the Flemish government is strictly regulated. The lack of leeway can thus discourage HR workers to apply Talent management in this process.
One of the limitations in this research is that we only consulted the HR workers of the organizations in the Flemish government. The perception of the employees on the different practices is not included in the scope of this research phase. We opted for this approach because our main goal was to develop an overall view on what is happening on Talent management in the Flemish government. HR workers are in the best position to provide information on questions regarding the approach to Talent management and the intended Talent management practices. In the following stages of the research, though, the perspective of the employee is included. Furthermore, this paper reflects a very first glimpse on the results. In further stages of the project, results of the questionnaire will be analyzed more thoroughly.
23
7. References
Armstrong, M. (2006). Human Resource management practice. Talent management. Londen: KoganPage.
Boselie, P. (2010). Strategic human resource management. A balanced approach. Birkshire: MCGram‐Hill Higher Education.
Boselie, P., Brewster, C. & Paauwe, J. (2009). In search of balance. Managing the dualities of HRM: An overview of the issues. Personnel Review, 38(5), pp. 461‐471
Boudreau, J.W. & Ramstad, P.M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition? In M. Losey, S. Meisinger & D. Ulrich (Eds.), The Future of Human Resource Management (pp. 293‐303). Hoboken, New Jersy: Wiley & Sons
Boxall, P. & Purcell, J. (2003). Strategy and Human Resource Management. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Buttiens, D. & Hondeghem, A. (2012a). Talent Management in the Flemish Public Sector. Positioning the Talent Management approach of the Flemish Government. Paper presented on the conference of the European group of public administration of 07.09.2012 in Bergen, Norway.
Collings, D.G. and Mellahi, K. (2009) Strategic Talent Management: A review and research agenda , Human Resource Management Review, 19: 4, 304 313
Gallardo‐Gallardo, E. (2012). What is the meaning of ‘talent’ from a business point of view? Paper presented on ‘Workshop on Talent management – European institute for advanced studies in management’ 16‐17.04.2012 in Brussel, België.
Garrow, V. & Hirsh, W. (2008). Talent Management: Issues of focus and fit. Public Personnel Management, 37(4), pp. 389‐402.
Knies, E. (2012). Meer waarde voor en door medewerkers. Een longitudinale studie naar de antecedenten en effecten van peoplemanagement. Amersfoort: Wilco.
Lepak, D.P. & Snell, S.A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Towards a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24, pp. 31‐48.
Lewis, R.E. & Heckman, R.J. (2006). Talent management: a critical review. Human resource management review. 16, 139‐154.
Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and performance: achieving long‐term viability. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Paauwe, J. (2009). HRM and performance: Achievements, methodological issues and prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 129‐142
24
Paauwe, J. & Boselie, P. (2007). HRM and societal embededness. In Boxall, P., Purcell, J. & Wright, P. (Reds.). The Oxford handbook of human resource management (pp. 166‐184). Oxford: Oxford university press.
Thunissen, M. , Boselie, P. & Fruytier, G. (2011). A review of Talent Management: Lessons learned. Paper gepresenteerd op Dutch HRM Conference van 10‐11.11.2011 in Groningen, Nederland.
Wright, P.M., McMahan, G.C. & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human Resources and sustained competitive advantage: a resource‐based perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2). pp. 301‐326.
Wright, P.M., Dunford, B.B. & Snell, S.A. (2001). Human Resources and the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27(2001), pp. 701‐721.