Title: The identification of talent in organizations: Case ... Web viewSpecific challenges signal the organisational capabilities and individual ... a case study methodology using

The identification of talent: Case studies from the UK public and private sectors.

Oghale Ayetuoma1, Stephen Swailes2 & Janet Handley3

Refereed paper submitted to the Leadership, Management and Talent Development track of

the 16th International Conference on HRD, University College Cork, Ireland, 3rd-5th June

2015.

1. PhD Candidate, Department of People, Management & Organizations, The Business

School, University of Huddersfield

2. Professor of HRM, Department of People, Management and Organizations, The

Business School, University of Huddersfield

3. Head of Department of People, Management and Organizations, The Business

School, University of Huddersfield.

Corresponding Author:

Stephen Swailes

Professor of Human Resource Management

The Business School

University of Huddersfield

Huddersfield HD1 3DH

Email: [email protected]

1

Abstract

Purpose: This paper reports the preliminary results of a study looking at how three

organizations in the UK public and private sectors identify high potential employees.

Specifically, the paper looks at how talent is constructed and identified and the barriers and

challenges encountered with talent identification from the perspectives of both management

and ‘talented’ employees.

Design/methodology/approach: Three in-depth case studies involving multiple informants

in the Civil Service, local government and retail were written based on 21 interviews with

HR/Talent & leadership development managers as well as managers on talent schemes.

Additional data was obtained from corporate documentation.

Findings: All three companies had different drivers for talent management which influenced

the constructions of talent used and frameworks for talent identification. The civil service and

retail sectors used a categorising tool that enabled a common language for defining potential

and facilitated identification practices. Despite this, definitions of potential and competency

frameworks in both the retail and civil service sectors differed as well as their processes for

identification. The challenges and barriers to talent identification appeared more similar than

different but notably and in contrast to the public sector (the civil service and local

government) which had an exclusive talent management practice, the retail sector operated a

more inclusive talent strategy which was driven by a culture of openness, honesty and a

rigorous talent identification framework.

Research Limitations: Talent management practices were mostly in their start-up phase

being two to five years old and still evolving. Inclusion of the views of employees not in the

talent pools would create a broader perspective on the process of identification. This paper

reports work in progress and further analysis of case data is continuing.

Originality/value: This empirical study contextualises talent definition and identification

practices from the perspectives of HRM specialists, line managers and high-potential

employees. Since the majority of research on talent management concerns practices from the

U.S. or Multi-nationals, this study adds value to the limited research on talent management

outside these contexts.

Keywords: Talent, talent management, talent identification

2

Introduction

One of the enduring questions in the literature on talent management concerns the

inconsistencies and ambiguity surrounding definitions of talent and talent management (The

Economist, 2006; Tansley, 2011). Research by the CIPD (2007) found that, “talent mainly

focused on individual attributes, with great variations over definition” as most times these

definitions were ‘organization-specific’ and determined by the nature of work as well as

mission and culture (CIPD, 2007; Iles, Chuai, & Preece, 2010).

Questions arise therefore concerning how organizations then define talent and conceptualize

their talent management practices, what challenges and barriers to reliable and valid talent

identification occur and how they are managed, and, how are the challenges and barriers to

talent identification managed? This paper attempts to explore these research questions and

provide some perspectives of constructions of ‘talent’ and talent identification practices

across UK public and private sector originations. This is in response to calls for more

research on the ‘reliability/validity of talent identification and assessment using in-depth case

studies’ and ‘to develop more collective perspectives on ‘talent’ (Iles, 2013: 302-303)

particularly in contextualizing the criteria used for high potential and high performance

(Dries & Pepermans, 2008; Tansley et al., 2013: 339)..

Although there are several papers on talent management addressing the importance of

evaluating and identifying talent and potential, the reporting of talent practices are biased

towards organizations in the U.S. and multinationals such that there is a need for an

understanding of practices outside these contexts (Collings et al., 2011).

Talent Management.

The identification and development of talent has been championed as being critical to

organisational success (Boudreau, 2005; Hartmann et al., 2010; Iles, Preecce & Chuai, 2010)

and is recognised as one of the major challenges of the HR function (Buckingham &

Cosburgh, 2001). However, despite this claim, the Chartered Institute of Personnel

Development (CIPD) revealed that only 6% of organisations have effective TM systems in

place (CIPD, 2012).

3

Theoretical development in the field has been limited (Dries, 2013) and commonly draws on

Strategic HRM (Collings & Mellahi 2009; Iles et al. 2010), the resource based view of the

firm and differentiated HR architecture (Lepak & Snell; Wright et al, 2001). Some authors

(Iles et al., 2010; Preece et al., 2011) attribute this poor theoretical foundation to the fact that

most of the talent literature is ‘practitioner or consultancy-based’ and focuses on the practices

(the ‘how’) as opposed to ‘who’ is considered talent and ‘why’.

Lewis and Heckman (2006) argue that definitions of talent management fall into three

groups. First, ‘talent management is used as a substitute label for HRM practices such as

recruitment, leadership development, succession planning’ and that herein lies its limitation.

Second, they label talent management as a, ‘general classification of employees into different

talent pools’. Emphasis is on projecting employee needs and managing the progression of

employees through positions (Lewis and Heckman, 2006:140). Some authors contend that

although this stream of thought builds on earlier research in succession planning, it provides a

differentiation between talent management and HRM (Barlow, 2006; Jackson & Schuler,

1990). This perspective focuses on the internal rather than external labour market and starts

with the identification and mobilization of internal talent pools (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005;

Bryan, Joyce & Weiss, 2006).

Their third definition encapsulates a ‘focus on talented employees’. The argument is that all

roles within the organisation should be filled with ‘A’ performers, a system known as “top-

grading” (Smart, 1999) which emphasises management of ‘C’ players and poor performers

out of the organisation (Michaels, Handfield-Jones and Axelrod, 2001). This perspective

argues that, “an organisation is only as strong as its top talent” (Walker & LaRocco, 2002:

12). Although this approach has attracted global attention in practice (Hartmann et al.,

(2010), its applicability should be questioned as it is neither desirable nor appropriate to fill

all positions with top performers. Collings and Mellahi (2009) proposed a fourth definition

which emphasises the importance of key positions that have a big impact on the success of

organizations (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Hulesid et al., 2005). They argue that the priority

is first to identify the key positions following which talented employees can then be

developed to fill them.

Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2013: 291) argue that discussions about the definitions of talent

border on whether talent refers to people (subject), the characteristics of people (object) or

4

whether talent is more about performance, potential, competence, or commitment.

Furthermore, is talent a natural ability or does it relate more to mastery through experience?

Three main perspectives of talent can be found in the literature. The first is the exclusive

perspective which views key people displaying high performance and potential as talent (non-

position-related understanding). The underlying argument is that it is not possible for

everyone in an organisation to be considered as talent because what differentiates the

‘talented’ from the others is measured in terms of their current and past performance as well

as their future potential. These perceptions support the elitist view that 20% of the workforce

contribute 80% of the value. This perception of talent is essentially based on segmentation of

the workforce into parts that will be treated differently. Chuai (2008: 12), for instance,

asserts that talent management is impractical without segmentation, arguing that without it,

managers will treat all employees equally regardless of performance, competence and

potential or other characteristics that in practice distinguish one employee from the other.

The second exclusive perspective focuses on having the right people in key positions

(position-related understanding). Although this second strand also adopts a narrow sense of

the definition of talent, it is examined from a different perspective. Huselid et al. (2005) argue

that talents are not non-position-related. Here, it is only the right people (A players)

occupying those positions, that are considered talent and get a disproportionate level of

financial and managerial investment, guaranteeing the maximum opportunities for their

development. A perfect match of ‘A’ players’ and ‘A’ positions’ is expected to contribute to

‘A performance’. Huselid et al (2005) also propose placing the very best employees in

strategic positions, good performers in support positions, and eliminate non performing jobs

and employees that do not add value. In the second strand and in the first, the principle of

differentiation is paramount. From Huselid et al. (2005: 117) “effective business strategy

requires differentiating a firm’s products and services in ways that create value for customers;

accomplishing this requires a differentiated workforce strategy as well”.

The third perspective is an inclusive perspective in which organizations perceive all or most

of their workforce as talent (Swailes et al., 2014). This perspective assumes that everyone can

potentially contribute to competitive advantage and perceives that everyone has talent and

that talent is seen as an absolute characteristics of an employee not something that is relative

5

to other employees. The inclusive approach does not hold that everyone has to be a high

potential employee.

Talent Identification.

As shown above, constructions of talent vary widely, from being focused on particular people

to a set of characteristics, or to statement of need. Organizations also vary in the extent to

which they view talent as the performance and potential of employees, or whether it is a more

exclusively focused on scarce resources and more senior positions (Yarnall, 2010). This

model of talent is defined by McCartney and Garrow (2006: 6) as, “employees who have a

disproportionate impact on the bottom line, or who have the potential to do so”. The

identification of talent in this case is driven by capability or skills gaps in the organisation

and identifying critical segments of the workforce, which are essential to the business’

(Yarnall, 2008: 32).

Yarnall (2008) explains that current trends in talent management suggest a move back to a

more planned approach to career development with case study research indicating companies

are taking back control over the careers of high potential employees and developing smaller

groups in line with the business strategy. She argues that these trends frequently involve

identifying, selecting and developing discrete talent pools which are seen as valuable

resources for future senior roles and have been categorized as leadership pipelines,

professional groups and critical role approaches (Garrow & Hirsh, 2008). One of the reasons

for establishing talent pools is the need to improve succession planning processes by moving

away from rigid replacement strategies towards creating pipelines for future roles (Byham et

al., 2002). Other reasons include focusing training and development resources more clearly

on existing gaps and reducing turnover and retention of top talent (Nottingham Business

School, 2007; Pepe, 2007).

Specific issues identified in relation to the identification of leadership potential include:

i) adequately separating performance from potential ratings (Balzer & Sulsky, 1992

ii) moving away from “gut feelings” and informal or subjective assessments carried

out by untrained management staff an toward the deliberate development of valid

frameworks of leadership potential (Silzer & Church, 2010)

6

iii) embedding procedures relating to the identification of leadership potential in

organisational strategy, as opposed to assuming a short-term, ad-hoc approach

(Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007), and,

iv) getting line management fully engaged in the process, taking into account that

they often feel burdened by tasks they are obliged to fulfill on top of their regular

managerial responsibilities. (Dries & Pepermans, 2008)

Line managers may be reluctant to identify their best people as high potential for fear of

losing them to another department. (McCall, 1998).

Some considerations (Burk et al., 2009; Yarnall, 2011) on the identification of talent are

firstly to ensure that the approach adopted by the organisation is right for the organization

and not just an imitation of current industry trends. Burke et al. (2009) recommend having a

2-5 year strategy that addresses key challenges facing the organisation such as economic

downturn or disruptive technology, issues with implementing business strategy such as

internal resistance and challenges such as mergers, culture change or acquisition. Specific

challenges signal the organisational capabilities and individual competencies that must be

developed or enhanced (this creates the yardstick for identifying and selecting leadership

talent) and determine the target population for development.

Research Methods

This research adopts a constructionist epistemology which holds that meaning is not

discovered, but constructed. Considering the exploratory nature of the research questions, a

case study methodology using in-depth semi-structured interviews for data collection and

document analysis was followed. Three sets of semi-structured interview schedules were

designed for different cadres of employees (HR/TM managers, line managers and talent pool

members) using open ended questioning techniques. These were further amended for better

clarity and focus, following feedback received from a pilot study conducted in a public sector

organisation.

Sampling

To promote a cross-sectional view, targeted participants were HR/TM professionals, line

managers and talent pool members. . Twenty one interviews were conducted in 2013 and

2014. The case study organisations are coded as CivServ, Locgov and RetCo. CivServ and

7

RetCo had been running their talent programmes for over four years while Locgov has run a

programme for just over two years.

Data Analysis

Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions were read and re-read

alongside documentation received from organisations for familiarisation and identification of

themes to aid imputing of coding onto Nvivo. Particular attention was paid to use of words,

recurring words and phrases, and metaphors and aligning these to different interviewees and

contexts as well as documentary sources. Both the interview transcripts and documents

obtained from organisations were imputed into QSR Nvivo where the coding of the data and

further identification of themes was carried out. Thematic analysis using deductive and

inductive approaches was undertaken alongside ‘within case’ and ‘cross-case’ analysis;

searching for ‘patterns’ that show similarities and differences across the cases (Eisenhardt,

1989: 533, 539-540). Findings from each case organisation were analysed separately before a

cross-case analysis was conducted.

Findings

Data analysis was driven by two main questions:

1) How do organisations define talent?

2) What challenges and barriers to reliable and valid talent identification occur and how

are they managed?

Cases suggest that while each construction was biased towards the corporate strategy of each

organisation, each had its own specific talent driver as described below. CivServ was dealing

with a reform agenda which focused on strengthening skills, deploying talent and improving

organisational performance. There was a focus on skill gaps, developing professionalism and

managers for future leadership. A talent pool participant described talent as:

‘looking for qualities that leaders possess and potential to reap very senior leaders’… ‘those

qualities might be ability to work across boundaries…innovate and lead change and lead

change is a huge amount of that’…

Another view was:

8

‘it is about the strength of the profession in the civil service reform agenda’… (Head, Talent

Resourcing).

Locgov’s talent driver was the recently appointed CEO whose vision was to make it the best

local council in UK as well as a drive to develop an internal pool of talent to fill senior roles

due to mass exit of senior colleagues (for succession planning), a mature workforce with 31%

aged 50+ as well as having a more diverse leadership. The OD manager alluded to the driving

theme by defining talent as,

‘somebody demonstrating that they live the behaviours that we want and the values...this is

the most important thing for our CEO.. that our managers live the values..’

‘it is people who have gone above and beyond the day job’…they do something other than

just turning up for work and doing a 9 to 5’,…’have a real passion for what the council is

trying to achieve’… ‘It is everyone in the targeted grade, where we know either because we

have information from people who are going to go on an early leavers program or because

of reshuffling/resourcing…at the minute we know there’s going to be some movement in the

next few years…and where we know there are gaps…’

In RetCo, the talent driver was an overall strategy which was about strengthening capability

at all levels to ensure being world class in managing and developing their talent. There was a

strong emphasis on identifying potential in a consistent way to ensure fairness and

transparency at all levels. In line with this strategy, constructions of talent demonstrated an

understanding of who was considered talent in terms of the tools and processes used for

identifying potential and resonates the identification of talent at ‘all levels’ indicative of an

inclusive approach.

‘Everybody has somewhere to go on the 9 box grid…. everybody is given a position on the 9

box talent metrics… But all of the behaviours apply to all the levels’…. (Talent Advisor)

‘So we would be looking at talent from colleague level up… So our role as talent spotters is

to look for people coming through at all levels…. we do have a robust development program

at all of those levels’. (People manager stores)

So everybody across the organisation at appraisal time is mapped onto the 9 box grid L&D

Manager)

9

Further discussion draws on the three perspectives of talent in the literature, talent as people,

b) talent as positions and c) inclusive talent people.

a) Talent as high performing and high potential

Most constructions of talent fell under this category as talent was seen as, ‘people who have

potential to be kind of future leaders’ (line manager, CivServ).

An organisation development manager in Locgov observed that talent is, ‘Those who have

the ability or potential to be a senior leader… you can classify it is people who have gone

above and beyond the day job’ While a team leader in Locgov viewed talent as, ‘people who

have the ‘up and go about them, who seek to better themselves, see opportunities in

everything and work outside the box…

Interestingly, respondents from HR and talent specialist teams in CivServ and RetCo linked

constructions of talent to the 9 box grid used in identification.

‘it is those who sit on the top line of the 9 box grid’ (Head of Talent Resourcing, CivServ)

‘Our definition of somebody with high potential, they would know that it’s the 9 box grid’

(Talent Advisor, RetCo);

Colleagues are identified as typically in the top 3 boxes Q1, Q2, Q3...who are the highest

performers which would tend to be around 10% generally… (L&D manager, RetCo).

This last construction corresponds with the definition often used with talented and gifted

people namely that talented people are those who ‘have the ability to perform an activity to a

degree that places their achievement within at least 10% of their peers’ (Gagne, 2000).

The 9 box grid not only addressed issues of separating performance from potential which is

an issue in the identification of leadership potential in organisations (Balzer & Sulsky, 1992);

but also provided a valid framework for identifying leadership potential thus eradicating the

informal ‘gut feeling’ and subjective approaches of appraising employees (Silzer & Church,

2010). Findings revealed that performance appraisals were carried out separately from

assessments of potential which were aligned to careers conversations with employees.

Performance and potential ratings are then plotted on the 9 box grid (See Appendix 3 for the

9 box grid used in RetCo).

According to the CIPD , “Organisations must clarify how they define talent, who they regard

as the talented and what their typical background might be” (CIPD, 2007a:2). Having a

10

system that enabled a standardised definition of talent appeared to drive a unified

understanding of the meaning of talent and this promoted a consistent approach to talent

identification. This was aided by a common language used to discuss and evaluate talent.

Additionally and consistent with studies of talent being domain or organisation specific,

definitions of potential and competency frameworks differed between CivServ and RetCo

even though both used the 9 box grid. These differences are shown in Appendix 1.

b) Talent as exclusive positions (viewing right people in key positions as talents):

This view is most aligned to Collings and Mellahi’s (2009) definition of strategic talent

management as, ‘activities and processes that involve the systematic identification of key

positions’. Referencing the talent drivers discussed above, it is implied that all three

organisations define talent by key positions particularly as it relates to identifying successors

for succession planning purposes as this was an important aspect of their talent strategy. For

example the senior HR business partner in CivServ explained that, ‘in CivServ, they are

actually looking for talent in terms of director level… but also looking for the super talented

to get to the Director General level’;

The OD manager in Locgov commenting on talent that observed, ‘it is everyone in the

targeted grades.’ In RetCo, the talent advisor described the process thus,

‘So that means that the exec board are looking at all of our directors and then identifying the

two tier successors for those roles’ …So as for identifying high potentials, identifying

performance risks, risks as in somebody isn’t performing and then ‘gaps’ such as stating that

there is actually nobody that can fit into this role and it is a critical role ‘..

Similarly in RetCo, the L&D manager reiterated the process of identifying key positions in

her role,

‘I made sure for the core roles there were successors in place. I think it ended up being the

high profile critical jobs, we used to call them hot jobs or critical jobs, these are jobs that are

absolutely key to our organisation … they would be the ones we would essentially focus on’

c) Talent as inclusive people: (viewing everybody as talent)

11

Worthy of note is a respondent in CivServ whose construction of talent referenced this

perspective in explaining that talent is, ‘People who have a sense of objective of strategy,

track record for delivery, engaging style, they are inclusive.’ (Deputy Director, CivServ).

Defining talent as people who are inclusive is quite rare within the literature and provides an

avenue for further exploration. It is not to be confused with the philosophy of inclusive talent

management, rather it is a characteristic of talented people. However, looking at the

constructions in line with the talent drivers for each organisation, RetCo stands out as one

that clearly has a more inclusive talent practice because, as an organisation, it sought to

identify talent at ‘all levels’ and not just targeted levels.

Talent Identification Processes.

The processes of identification are presented in Appendix 2. All three organisations used a

pay grade system and appraisals in their identification processes. CivServ and RetCo used the

9 box grid in addition to appraisal.

While RetCo depended only on these two tools for identification and development of

potential alongside rigorous tracking, monitoring, coaching and mentoring processes, the

public organizations subscribed to a nomination, application and selection process for

identifying talent for development programs. Common to all organisations was the idea of

employees with potential and succession planning. In RetCo, those employees who fell into

the top right corner of the 9 box grid (see Appendix 3) i.e. in Q1, Q2 and Q3 are those

identified as potential but each one had different plans. Q1 meant ‘ready now’ meaning that

employees named in this box are ready for promotion and development to their next role. Q2

signified ‘future talent’ ready for development in 6 to 12 months. Employees named in Q3

have potential and are currently in the right role but require further development. Succession

planning in RetCo was done at the same time as talent was identified. This ensured critical

roles had successors at any given time in line with the corporate strategy of the organisation.

12

Managing challenges and barriers to talent identification

This section discusses challenges and barriers to talent identification and how these were

managed.

Performance Appraisal

All three organisations used an appraisal system but in Locgov it was described by two high

potentials as, ‘more about conformance than performance’ and as something that ‘makes no

difference, has no impact, no teeth’. In CivServ and Retco it was a vital part of the

identification process and connected to the 9 box grid used to measure potential. In CivServ,

the challenge was that line managers saw the 9 box tool as another mode of performance

appraisal and could be unclear in their use of both tools. To manage this problem, aside from

the guidelines provided to managers, CivServ encouraged line managers to have careers

conversations and assessment of potential at separate meetings from appraisals to promote

differentiation and to make it less informal to encourage rapport with staff. Similarly, the OD

manager in Locgov spoke about a development workshop for their 2,500 managers on how to

conduct conversations to curtail this problem. RetCo appeared not to have any challenges

with their performance management systems as they had a rigorous process in place which

was captured and monitored electronically and consistent with this was a ‘top 3, bottom 3’

identification process which enabled underperformers to be properly coached and supported.

The 9 box grid

Both CivServ and RetCo used this tool for careers conversations, competency framework and

rating potential. Challenges for both organisations included line managers’ (in)competence in

the use of the tool leading to diverse interpretations and inconsistencies of scoring per

department and dread of having conversations for fear of being misunderstood. Line

managers sometimes saw the tool as another appraisal device and a tick box exercise without

conversing with employees about their aspirations and their potential. To manage this

situation, CivServ and RetCo developed guidelines on scoring with descriptions of

behavioural expectations and HR business partners talked through guidelines with managers

as a way of supporting line managers. CivServ and RetCo also had a talent review board that

further assessed ratings after collation and monitored the progress of talent. However, while

CivServ would only do this monitoring when required, RetCo monitored on a quarterly basis

to support the process. CivServ had appraisal and careers conversations annually while

RetCo had both a mid and end year review which further supported the tracking and

13

monitoring process to promote reliability. RetCo developed those identified as high potential

employees via the tool without further process but in CivServ employees had to apply for

development programs and this only happened if they were nominated by their line manager.

This posed some challenges because being identified as potential did not guarantee

development in a talent scheme. If a person was nominated unsuccessfully, then they had to

wait and reapply, sometimes requiring support from a senior manager.

Nomination Process

Only CivServ and Locgov used the nomination process for identifying talent for the purposes

of development programmes. This was the first stage of talent identification for Locgov as

appraisals were ad hoc in practice. Only those employees who were nominated by line

managers were able to apply for talent schemes and for Locgov, applications required

additional support from line managers. In both cases, there were concerns about favouritism

such that those who did not have good relationships with managers were left out or their

applications not supported. Sometimes line managers were unaware of programmess and so

employees missed out.

In both organisations only those in the targeted grades were approached or received the

notification to apply and this was a barrier to talent identification. In Locgov, there were

cultural challenges as some older managers felt that eligibility should be based on seniority

rather than merit and there was a reluctance to suggest that one employee has more potential

than the other. Also, most people were not aware of the talent scheme due to poor publicity of

the program so talent identified were more from a particular area of the business creating an

imbalanced talent pool. Culturally, there appeared to be a lack of credibility in the talent

scheme in Locgov due to discontinuity of other previous schemes and as a result some line

managers were non responsive when invited to nominate talent from their team. Similarly in

CivServ, some managers did not think the schemes were good enough and so did not put

people forward. As a result of these barriers and challenges, employees felt their eligibility

for development was based on luck and not merit and perceived an unfair system. There did

not appear to be any reference to managing this challenge in CivServ but Locgov took the

applications to an independent review panel involving both external and internal partners to

shortlist candidates.

14

Internal moves

In all cases, lateral moves were a requirement in order to ‘raise one’s profile’ (particularly in

the public sector cases) and to develop versatile skills for applying for future senior positions.

Alhough the prospects were attractive if one was successful, the risks for underperformers

were that they could be removed from the talent pool or labelled unfit for roles and in RetCo

sometimes the move could leave employees earning less and relocating. As a result, most

high potential employees avoided taking these moves, waiting for an appropriate opportunity

which sometimes never came soon enough such that they outlived their cycle on the talent

pool. RetCo managed this challenge through having ‘honest and open’ conversations with

staff and recognises this as a problem. There were no references to tackling this problem in

the public sector.

Resourcing

In CivServ, this challenge was two-fold as the HR business partner complained that

everything had to be done manually on spreadsheet and she had to collate records of over 200

people on her own, being the only person responsible for this task in her department and

secondly she talked about not knowing who was talent across departments as the departments

did not talk to each other. This was well managed in RetCo which had an electronic database

of talent scores which made it easy to identify talent across the organisation and facilitated

assignment of talent to cover roles when required. RetCo called this a‘talent share’ practice

across the various regions.

Retaining Talent/Talent Pool

The two public organizations did did not use talent databases so it was difficult to monitor

talent across the organisation. This was managed to an extent by placing talent in

development schemes which lasted two years but further challenges arose out of this. For

example, false expectations arose as there were no imminent opportunities for promotion, and

sometimes performing stretch assignments under the talent schemes led to people opting out

of the pool as they could not keep pace. To manage this problem, CivServ set up a team to

engage with high potential employees on talent schemes, monitoring their progress and

offering feedback and support. In CivServ, some line managers did not want to develop their

talented employees and would rather give them a promotion so that they could remain in the

department. The head of talent resourcing advised that high potential employees needed to

take ownership of their own development and look for opportunities. RetCo had a proactive

15

measure in place since they had consistent monitoring practice of their talent. They conducted

performance management for underperformers and coaching and mentoring was a cultural

practice and requirement for line managers so that all employees worked under a supportive

environment to promote maximum performance and satisfaction. CivServ introduced an

intervention system whereby talented employees were sent to work in private organisations

for a period of time to develop diverse skills that would make them more competitive. In

Locgov, an early leavers program had been created which offered the large number of older

but more senior managers the option of early retirement and about 1000 staff had accepted

this offer. The OD manager explained that although it was a slow process, they were

seriously working on it and also made it quite clear what the council wanted to do and this

was clearly stated in their internal literature to talent participants.

Fear

In CivServ, there was a fear of departmental underperformance by managers if they released

their talented employees to other departments and also talented employees feared moving to

other departments for fear that bad relationships with new manager may lead to them leaving

the pool. The Head of Talent Resourcing in CivServ stated that this was a challenge which he

had to address and managing it requires managers to have open and honest conversations

with employees as this was one of the main issues amongst line managers. He explained that

his philosophy on talent management is ‘the art of the conversation’ because this was a big

problem in the Civil Service. There was no mention of this challenge in Locgov but in

CivServ this problem was tackled through the biannual career conversation reviews and high

potential employees were made aware of their next career move based on an open and honest

discussion and agreement.

Lack of transparency

In CivServ, high potential employees expressed concerns about the lack of transparency as

sometimes they were not told about their potential rating and didn’t know what their

development plan was unless they asked. One of them described the process of identification

this way, ‘it is done very quietly below the radar’. A high potential employee in Locgov

described herself as being lucky to be on a talent scheme as most of her colleagues were

unaware of the programme. Contrastingly, a high potential employee in RetCo explained that

everyone was given a development plan during the careers conversation which they discussed

regularly on their one-to-one and that further information was online and also promoted

16

during careers days and induction of new employees. It was a transparent system and another

talent scheme participant in the same company explained that the most interesting part of his

experience in RetCo is ‘the honesty’. Managers in RetCo repeatedly emphasised the ethos of

being clear and giving honest feedback.

Poor leadership

The Talent Resourcing manager in CivServ narrated a situation where a high potential

employee wanted to quit her job, because her manager had not communicated a development

plan for her in three years. Although her line manager identified her as high potential and

communicated this to his managers at meetings, he had not had a conversation with her about

her aspirations and development plan. To manage this problem, the Head of Talent identified

the need to, ‘help managers to feel they can have that conversation with somebody they have

classified as high potential’. In Locgov, a team leader complained about his manager refusing

him time to go for development programs stating that ‘there is a disconnect between those at

the top and those in the talent pool’ and how ‘it is important for management to buy into the

status quo as the council has changed but she (his manager) hasn’t’. Although the OD

manager recognised this problem as a cultural issue, she provided no view on how this

challenge was being managed. This issues was not encountered in RetCo due to the

structured and consistent performance and potential assessment systems in place by which

managers were held accountable.

Culture

The OD manager in Locgov explained that a major challenge in implementing the talent

program was, ‘cultural reluctance to suggest one person has potential and somebody else does

not’ as well as the view that ‘you have to have served lots of years in the authority to get to

some position’. In CivServ, the talent resourcing manager talked about the challenge with

line managers to ‘open up their minds’ and the civil service reform agenda was about making

‘leaders’ not ‘managers’. The public sector had a cultural challenge which was not evident in

retail. This was because culturally there was respect for and greater sensitivity to all cadres of

employees. For example, employees were not called ‘staff’ but ‘colleagues’. They also ran an

inclusive and transparent TM practice where all employees were fully engaged and made

aware of development available to them as well as the expected associated leadership

behaviours which were cascaded through a generic leadership framework. All of this

promoted an empowering environment for high performance and opportunities for all.

17

Conclusions

This paper has explored how three organisations constructed views of talent and also

investigated challenges encountered in the processes of identification. Findings revealed that

firstly, all three organisations had talent drivers to which working definitions of talent were

aligned and which created a framework for their talent identification practices. Secondly

constructions were consistent with the three perspectives of talent found in the literature but

while interviewees from the three organisations defined talent under exclusive people and

exclusive positions particularly for succession planning purposes, only the private sector

organisation offered a more inclusive approach that focused on looking for talent across all

levels of employees. The two public sector organisations focused on targeted grades.

CivServ and RetCo used the 9 box grid for talent identification and this enabled a common

language in discussing who their talent was based on definitions of potential and the

criteria/competency mapping provided by the grid. This inferred reliability with the process

of identification in comparison to Locgov which did not and this made it harder to assess the

impact of Locgov’s identification processes, more so as they had only been running their TM

program for two years. Notwithstanding, the definitions of potential and criteria for assessing

potential in CivServ and RetCo were different even though the same tool was used for

identification. RetCo depended on the 9 box grid for identification of talent and also used it

for staff development and progress monitoring through a bi-annual review. Similarly,

CivServ used the tool for identifying potential but the process of development required

further long winded procedures of nomination, application and selection into a talent scheme

which created further challenges for the identification process. As a result, not all employees

identified as talent in CivServ remained in the talent pool if they were not nominated to apply

for talent schemes. These employees had to wait another year for the opportunity to present

again.

We suggest that while the literature is uncomfortable with diverse definitions of talent and

talent management, this study suggests that diverse definitions and operationalisations are

inevitable given the wide of range of strategic drivers and workforce philosophies that occur

in organizations. This is revealed in all three organisations in that they all had talent drivers

which directed talent definition and identification practices. Other challenges to the

identification processes mirrored those found in the literature and though they appeared more

similar than different across the three cases, a remarkable differentiator for RetCo from the

18

other organisations was a defined culture of openness and transparency expressed by all

interviewees in that organisation. This was particularly driven by the more inclusive practice

of looking at talent at all levels by using the same tool for identification up to director level.

Managerial Implications

This study reveals the importance of talent drivers that act as point of reference for an

organisation’s talent practices and which contradicts arguments that organisations adopt

talent as just another fashion imitating their competitors. The use of tools such as the 9 box

grid in addition to appraisal promote consistency and reliability in the definition and

assessment of potential and if utilised efficiently facilitates management and employee

engagement with the careers conversation.

19

Appendix 1: Case Study Organizations and Informants

Case No. of

Employees

Informant Positions TM Role Total

interviews

CivServ

Public Sector

Civil

Service: one

of biggest

bodies

responsible

for social and

welfare

issues

105,000

200 people

in talent

schemes

Senior Manager Talent

Resourcing

Policy owner 6

Senior HRBP (Deputy

Director)

Across Govt.

Resourcing

Mgr. Planning

Mgr. Business Strategy

Deputy Director

Credit Policy Mgr.

Line Mgr/ Hipo

Line Mgr./Hipo

Line Mgr./ Hipo

Line Mgr./Hipo

Locgov

Public

Sector.

One of the

largest local

government

bodies in UK

33,000

37 Hipos in

talent

schemes

Org. Dev. Mgr.

HR & Recruitment Mgr.

Team Leader

Engineer

Snr. Performance

Improvement Mgr.

Project Manager

Principal Service Mgr.

Progression Mgr.

Policy Owner

Line Mgr./Hipo

Hipo

Hipo

Line Mgr./Hipo

Line Mgr. /Hipo

Line Mgr/Hipo

Line Mgr./Hipo

8

RetCo

Private

Sector.

One of the

four biggest

retailers in

UK

180,000

10% of

employees

classified as

talent

L&D Mgr.

Talent Advisor

Payroll Manager

People Service Mgr. &

Regional Mgr.

Team Leader Stores

Graduate Resourcing

Specialist

People Services Mgr.

Hipo Dev.

Records Mgt.

Hipo / Line Mgr.

Line Mgrs

Hipo

Hipo Resourcing

Line Mgr.

7

20

Appendix 2

9 box Grid CivServ Locgov

Definition of

Potential

- Aspiration: Being ambitious, motivated and

flexible and committed and passionate and

goes the extra mile

- Value: Which are honesty, integrity and

impartiality and objectivity

- Ability: This is setting direction and

engaging people and delivering results

- Learning Agility: Can learn new things quickly

and gain mastery in situations that are new,

different and highly challenging

- Aspirations: shows strong desire for higher levels

or responsibility and leadership

- Attitude to commit: Demonstrates high levels of

engagement and ownership in the role and in the

company

Competency

Framework

Star performer, high potential, early promise, strong

performer, solid contributor, future achiever, good

performer, satisfactory contributor and

underperforming

Exceeds on Results/High Potential (Q1), Meets on

Results/High Potential (Q2), Exceeds on Results/Medium

on Potential (Q3), Too New To Rate (Q4), Meets on

Results / Medium on Potential (Q5), Exceeds on

Results /Low on Potential(Q6), Below on Results/Medium

on Potential (Q7), Meets on Results/Low on

Potential(Q8), Below on Results, Low on Potential (Q9)

CivServ and RetCo definitions of potential and competency frameworks used for talent identification as provided by the 9 box grid.

21

Appendix 3: Processes of Identification (Targeted grades are highlighted)

CivServ

Pay Grade Structure

AO (Admin Officer)→EO( officer grade) → HO (Higher Officer)SO → (Senior officer) → →Grade 7 (Emerged grade) →Grade 6 (Higher

senior management Grade) → SCVS Grades: SS1 (Deputy Director) →SS2 (Director Level) → SS3 is Director General →Above SCVS

→CEO, Heads of Government departments

Process:

Performance rating via appraisals (annually) → Career Conversations +9 box Potential rating ( measured by potential indicators and competency

framework above)→development within role or across government depending on rating → nomination for Talent Schemes →application by

employee →selection – →assessment centres → start program or Lobbying of perm secretary for ‘high potential talent scheme’.

Locgov

Pay Grade Structure

AO (Admin Officer) entry level →EO (officer grade) →HO (Higher Officer) →SO (Senior officer) →PO( Principal Officer) → Civil Service

grading & above

Process:

Appraisals →Publicise Talent Scheme via email/networks → Nomination by line manager → application for talent scheme → manager

reference → selection by external & internal panel→ employee notified → start program

22

RetCo

Pay Grade Structure:

Zone D (entry level) →C8 (non-manager) →C10 (middle manager) →Zone B (senior manager) →Zone A (Head of Department) →Director

→Executive Board.

Process:

Performance Appraisal rating & career conversations using 9 box (beginning of year) → data captured electronically for analysis → talent

review and further decision making (who is top talent & who needs to move, those in critical role (succession planning) and need more

motivation and underperformers) → midyear review of performance rating by talent review board → midyear appraisal and career conversation

and above process happens again (using potential definition and competency mapping framework above) → step up program (promotion &

development) or → step on program (development in role) or → performance management for underperformers

23

24

References

Ashton, C. & Morton, L. (2005). Managing talent for competitive advantage: Taking a systematic approach to talent management. Strategic HR Review, 4, 5, 28–31.

Barlow, L. (2006). Talent development: The new imperative? Development and Learning in Organisations, 20(3) 6-9.

Beechler, S. & Woodward, I. C. (2009). The global "war for talent. Journal of International Management, 15, 273-285.

Berke, D., Kossler, M. E. & Wakefield, M. (2009). Building Talent, Developing Effective Leaders Is as Crucial as Ever. Leadership In Action, 29(1), 3-7.

Barrick, M. R. & Zimmerman, R. D. (2009). Hiring for Retention and Performance. Human Resource Management, 48(2), 183-206.

Boudreau, J. W. & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, Talent Segmentation, and Sustainability: A New HR Decision Science Paradigm for a New Strategy Definition. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 129-136.

Boudreau, J. W. & Ramstad, P. M. (2007). Beyond HR: The new science of human capital, Boston, Massachusetts, Harvard Business School Press.

Bryan, I., Joyce, L. & Weiss, C. (2006). Making a market in talent. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 98-109.

Buckingham, M. and Vosburgh, R.M. (2001), The 21st century human resources function. It’s the talent, stupid! Human Resource Planning, 24, 4, 17-23,

Burbach, R. & Royle, T. (2010). Talent on demand?: Talent management in the German and Irish subsidiaries of a US multinational corporation. Personnel Review, 39(4), 414-431.

Byham, W.C., Smith, A.B. & Paese, M.J. (2002). Grow Your Own Leaders: How to Identify, Develop and Retain Leadership Talent. Financial Times/Prentice Hall, London

Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent Management for the Twenty-First Century. Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 79-81.

Chowdhury, S. (2002). The talent era: Achieving a high return on talent, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Chuai, X. (2008). Is talent management just 'old wine in new bottles'?- The case of multinational corporations in Beijing, Teeside University, Teeside.

CIPD (2006). Reflections on talent management, Change Agenda, London: CIPD.

CIPD (2007). Talent: Strategy, mangement, measurement, London: CIPD.

CIPD (2012). Resourcing & Talent Planning Survey Report. London: CIPD

25

Collings, D. J. & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic Talent Management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 304-313.

Collings, D. C., Scullion, H. & Vaiman, V. (2011). European perspectives on talent management. European Journal of International Management 5(5), 453-462.

Corporate Leadership Council (2003). High impact succession management. Available at: www.corporateleadeshipcouncil.com.

Curtis, S., Gesler, W., Smith, G. & Washburn, S. (2000). Approaches to sampling and case selection in qualitative research: examples in the geography of health. Social Science Medicine, 50, 7-8, 1001-1014.

Dell, D. & Hickey, J. (2002). Sustaining the Talent Quest: Getting and Keeping the Best People in Volatile Times, Research Report 1318, The Conference Board.

Dries, N., Pepermans, R., & Carlier, O. (2008). Career success: Constructing a multi dimensional model. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 73, 253-267.

Dries, N., Vantilborgh, T. & Pepermans, R. (2012). The role of learning agility and career variety in the identification and development of high potential employees. Personnel Review, 41(3), 340-358.

Dries, N. (2013). The Psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 23, 272-285.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Reseaarch. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.

Gagne, F. (2000). Understanding the complet choreography of talent development theought DMGT-based analysis. In, Heller, K.A., Monks, F.J., Subotnik, R.F., and Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) International Book of Giftedness and Talent, Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Garavan T. N., Carbery, R. & Rock, A. (2011). Mapping talent development: definition, scope and architecture. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(1), 5-24.

Garrow, V.G. & Hirsh, W. (2008). Talent Management: issues of focus and fit. Public Personnel Management, 37, 4, 389-402

Hartmann, E., Feisel, E. & Schober, H. (2010). Talent Management of western MNCs in China: Balancing global integration and local responsiveness. Journal of World Business, 45, 169 – 178.

Hughes, J. C. & Rog, E. (2008). Talent Management A strategy for improving employee recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality organisations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20, 743-757.

Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E. & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical and Strategic Human Resource Management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 171-188.

Huselid, M. A., Beatty, R. W. & Becker, B. E. (2005). A players or A positions? The strategic logic of workforce management,. Harvard Business Review, 83(12), 110-117.

26

Iles, P., Chuai, X., & Preece, D. (2010). Talent Management and HRM in Multinational companies in Beijing: Definitions, differences and drivers. Journal of World Business, 46(2), 179-189.

Iles, P. (2013). Commentary on "The meaning of 'talent' in the world of work". Human Resource Management Review , 301-304.

Ingham, J. (2006). Closing the talent management gap: Harnessing your employees’ talent to deliver optimum business performance, Strategic HR Review, 5(3), pp 20-23.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1995). Understanding human resource management in the context of organizations and their environment, Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 237−264.

Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E. & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 243-255.

Lepak, D. P. & Snell, S.A. (2002). Examining the Human Resource Architecture: The Relationships among Human Capital, Employment and Human Resource Configurations. Journal of Management, 28 (4) 517-543.

McCall, M.W. Jr (1998). High Flyers: Developing the Next Generation of Leaders. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Makelea, K., Bjorkman, I. & Ehrnrooth, M. (2010). How do MNCs establish their talent pools? Influences on individuals' likelihood of being labelled as talent. Journal of World Business, 45, 134-142.

McCartney, C. & Garrow, V. (2006). The Talent Management Journey, Roffey Park Institute, Horsham.

McCauley, C. & Wakefield, M. (2006). Talent Management in the 21st Century. Journal for Quality and Participation, 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 Business, 45, 150-160.

McDonnell, A. (2011). Still Fighting the "War for Talent"? Bridging the Science Versus Practice Gap. Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 169 -173.

Mellahi, K. & Collings, D. G. (2010). The barriers to effective global talent management: The example of corporate elites in MNEs. The Journal of World Business, 45, 143-149.

Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H. & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Morton, I. (2004). Integrated and Integrative Talent Management: A Strategic HR Framework. Research Report R-1345-04-RR. Conference Board, New York, NY.

27

Morton, I. (2005). Talent Management Value Imperatives: Strategies for Successful Execution. Research Report R-1360-05-RR. Conference Board, New York, NY.

Nottingham Business School (2007). Talent: Strategy, Management and Measurement, London: CIPD.

Pepe, M. E. (2007). The strategic importance of talent management at the Yale New Haven Health System, Organisational Development Journal, 25, 2, Summer, 207-211.

Pichler, S. (2012). The Social Context of Performance Appraisal and Appraisal Reactions: A Meta-Analysis. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 709-732.

Ruderman, M. N. & Ohlott, P. J. (1990). Traps & pitfalls in the judgement of executive potential. Greensborough N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership, 141, 1-34.

Schuler, R. S. & Jackson, S. E. (1999). Strategic Human Resource Management, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Silzer, R. (2010). Identifying and assessing high-potential talent: Current organisational practices. In R. Silzer & B. E. Dowell (Eds.), Strategy-driven talent management: A leadership imperative (pp. 213-280). San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass.

Slan-Jerusalim, R. & Hausdorf, P. A. (2007). Managers’ justice perceptions of high potential identification practices. Journal of Management Development, 26(10), 933 - 950.

Smart, B. D. (1999). Topgrading: How leading companies win by hiring, coaching, and keeping the best people. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall Press.

Srivastava P. & Bhatnagar, J. (2007). Talent acquisition due diligence leading to high employee engagement: case of Motorolla India MDB. Industrial and Commercial Training, 40(5), 253 - 260.

Stahl, G. K., Bjorkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S. S., Paauwe, J. & Stiles, P. (2007). Global talent management: How leading multinational build and sustain their talent pipeline. INSEAD faculty and research working papers.

Swailes, S., Downs, Y. & Orr, K. (2014). Conceptualising inclusive talent management: potential, possibilities and practicalities. Human Resource Development International, 17 (5).

Tansley, C., Harris, L., Stewart, J. & Turner, P. (2007). Talent Management: Strategies, Policies and Practices, London.

Tansley, C. (2011). What do we mean by the term “talent” in talent management? Industrial and Commercial Training, 43(5), 266-274.

Tansley, C., Kirk, S. & Tietze, S. (2013). The Currency of talent management - A reply to "talent mangment and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach". Human Resource Management Review , 337-340.

Thorne, K. & Pellant, A. (2006). The Essential Guide to Managing Talent: How Top Companies Recruit, Train and Retain the Best Employees. London: Kogan Page.

28

Vaiman, V., Scullion, H. & Collings, D. (2012). Talent management decision making. Management Decision, 50(5), 925-941.

Walker, J. W. & Larocco, J. M. (2002). Talent pools: The best and the rest. Human Resource Planning, 25(3), 12−14.

Wright, P. M. & McMahan, G. C. (1999). Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic Human Resource Management. In, Schuler, R. S. & Jackson, S. E. (Eds.) Strategic Human Resource Management, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Yarnall, J. (2008). Strategic Career Management: Developing Your Talent, Elsevier, Oxford.

Yarnall, J. (2009). Talent Pools. People Management, 9, 32.

Yarnall, J. (2011). Maximising the effectiveness of talent pools: a review of case study literature. Leadership & Organisational Development Journal, 32, 510-526.

29