Abstract
As the topic of talent development (TD) gets more popularity in practice of organizations and among human resource development (HRD) professionals, the need for understanding the nature and the scope of TD activities increases. The aim of this article is to help this understanding through an integrative review of literature. As part of this article, the definitions of and the perspectives toward talent-related activities in TD literature have been analyzed and a comprehensive definition for TD is suggested. Moreover, four major themes within TD literature have been identified: (a) issues related to career development, (b) the influence of contextual factors, (c) the relationship between TD and attraction and retention of talents, and (d) issues of diversity in the context of TD. Based on our findings, some of the gaps in the literature are presented. The potential actions that HRD researchers and practitioners can take to address these challenges will be suggested and discussed.
Despite the popularity of using the term talent development (TD) in recent years, it is an ambiguous term and its boundaries and scope is not clear. Similar to the term, talent management (TM), TD suffers from the lack of clarity. Human resource development (HRD) scholars have started to use this term in recent years and some research has been conducted on the topic, yet many researchers are not explicit about what TD means.
The literature on talent in organizations has been traditionally focused vastly on TM. The use of term, the war for talent, by McKinsey & Company in 1997 (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001) has made talent a popular term among business leaders. Economic difficulties, globalization, demographic changes of the workforce, and the need for continuous innovation had made TM a strategic issue (Cheese, Gartside, & Smith, 2009). However, the research of TM has long been suffered from lacking a precise definition (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Lewis & Heckman, 2006), theoretical support and development (Collings & Mellahi, 2009), and measurement frameworks for operationalization and identification (Nijs, Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, & Sels, 2014).
Talent is an ambiguous term: While
sometimes it refers to an aptitude or ability in a person . . . sometimes it refers to talented performance by the person . . . [which is the] behavior that goes beyond the ordinary in meeting some criterion of desirability. (McClelland, 1958, p. 1)
Nijs et al. (2014) introduced a working definition of talent:
Talent refers to systematically developed innate abilities of individual that are deployed in activities they like, find important, and in which they want to invest energy. It enables individuals to perform excellently in one or more domains of human functioning, operationalized as performing better than other individuals of the same age or experience, or as performing consistently at their personal best. (p. 3)
By reviewing the literature on TM, Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, and González-Cruz (2013) introduced a framework to capture TM practices. They categorize the current practices into two major approaches, object approach and subject approach. Object approach has to do with talent as characteristics of individuals and considers talent as natural ability, commitment, mastery, or fit. The subject approach focuses on individuals and includes inclusive or exclusive TM practices (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013).
Problem and Purpose Statement
TD has become a popular term in today’s practice. In 2014, American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), the world’s largest association in the field of developing human resources decided to change its name. As claimed in its website, the association changed its name to the Association for Talent Development (ATD) on May 6, 2014 to “better meet the needs and represent the work of this dynamic profession” (“About Association for Talent Development,” 2014). TD along with talent attraction and talent retention has been seen as the three dominant strategies or practices within TM (Thunnissen, Boselie, & Fruytier, 2013). However, TD has not received enough attention in the dialogue among management scholars on the topic of talent. One exception is the “make or buy” debate that is a long-lasting debate in the literature (Cappelli, 2008; Cappelli & Keller, 2014). Pfeffer (2001), as one of the supporters of “make” approach, warns that mere attention to attract and retain but neglect the development of talented employees could harm the organization. Moreover, according to Garavan, Carbery, and Rock (2012), focusing on acquiring talents from external sources is not a successful long-term strategy; instead, organizations should pursue the strategy of developing talent from within, to ensure that employees possess the essential skills and competencies to deploy business strategies. Despite this, external hiring is prevalent among today’s organizations and is highly supported by new institutions, specifically labor market intermediaries (Cappelli & Keller, 2014). As discussed by Cappelli and Keller (2014), “. . . we know remarkably little about the new practices in talent management” (p. 323). We argue that this necessitates further scrutiny on the definition, scope, and status of TD as one of main practices of TM and its potential and actual function. Such scrutiny would help practitioners in the decisions on their talent needs.
As TD draws the attention of organizations and professionals in the field, researchers in academia have started to focus on talents from a developmental perspective (e.g., Caplan, 2013; Cappelli, 2008; Garavan et al., 2012). Kim and McLean (2012) argued the developmental focus of HRD as an important component of TM, which has been increasingly emphasized in human resource management literature (e.g., Collings & Mellahi, 2009).
While there are several literature review articles on TM and its different aspects as listed by Gallardo-Gallardo, Nijs, Dries, and Gallo (2015) (i.e., Cappelli & Keller, 2014; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Dries, 2013; Lewis & Heckman, 2006; Tarique & Schuler, 2010; Thunnissen et al., 2013), there is a lack for a literature review with specific focus on TD. Knowing this, it is time to examine the research on TD to provide a better understanding of the status and the nature of TD. Knowing the status of the field might guide future research and trigger further discussions on this important topic. As one can see while processes such as attainment and retention can best be discussed in management field, developing talent might be of particular interest to HRD researchers and practitioners.
Therefore, this study seeks to critically analyze and review the literature of TD with the purpose of identifying the existing perspectives toward talent and TD and also the way TD has been specified and studied in the existing limited research. The argument is that through a thorough analysis and scrutiny of the previous work on TD, along with the opportunities that HRD as a field provides, we can move closer to a comprehensive understanding of TD to inform future research and practice.
The following research questions guide the current study:
Method
This research follows the guidelines suggested by Torraco (2005) for integrative literature reviews. According to Torraco (2005), “integrative literature review is a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated” (p. 356).
Literature Search and Criteria for Inclusion
Using the databases ABI/INFORM complete from ProQuest and Business Complete and Human Resources Abstracts from EBSCO, a literature search was conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles related to TD. We did not limit our search to any specific time frame and searched the entire selected databases. The search was conducted in December 2014 using the following combinations:
“Talent development” in the title
“Developing talent” in the title
“Talent” in the title and “talent development” in the abstract of the documents
“Talent” in the title and “developing talent” in the abstract of the documents
“Talent” in the title and “HRD” in the abstract of the documents
“Talent” in the title and “Human resource development” in the abstract of the documents
Literature with the focus of generic development was not included in this study. The word “Talent” must be in the title or the abstract. Also, we were specifically interested in development of talents and therefore development concept must be included in the title or abstract of the articles. As the literature on talent is traditionally dominated by issues of talent retention and talent acquisition rather than development, the number of articles with a significant interest in and focus on TD was relatively small. The search resulted in a total of 243 articles. Then, a review of the abstracts of these 243 articles was performed. During this process, if TD was not one of the main focuses of the article or if the setting was not relevant to organizations (i.e., gifted education), the article was excluded. Finally, a total number of 57 articles were identified relevant and within the scope of the research and therefore were downloaded for analysis.
Analysis Process
To analyze the literature, first, the abstracts of the identified studies were reviewed and they were categorized under one of these categories: (a) conceptual, (b) data based (empirical), and (c) normative. This categorization is based on the contributions regarding TM as identified by Iles, Preece, and Chuai (2010). Conceptual articles are articles that attempt to conceptualize TM on the basis of previous studies (Iles et al., 2010). Normative articles are mainly individual experiences and self-report of practitioners. Empirical studies are data driven research (Iles et al., 2010).
After this first level of analysis, 28 articles were identified as normative articles and were excluded. The remaining 29 articles including 16 empirical studies and 13 conceptual papers were completely read. As a result, the definitions of talent and perspectives of authors toward talent were recorded.
For identifying the authors’ stances toward talent, we applied Gallardo-Gallardo et al.’s (2013) framework to the definitions provided by the authors. If the definition was not included in an article or the stance toward talent was not articulated explicitly by the author(s), we judged it based on our interpretations on the way the talent was approached in concept. For articles with critical views toward talent, we considered “critical” as the stance. Finally, if the articles were not clear about the talent as a concept, or it had reviewed different stances without any of them to be the dominant stance, we considered them as “no particular stance.” Other important information such as method, setting, and participants for the empirical research in the literature was also extracted during the review process.
Finally, by using inductive content analysis and open coding approach, the main themes in the literature were identified. We used qualitative content analysis to analyze the literature. Content analysis is a technique for systematic and replicable review of a variety of data to reduce the phenomena or events into categories based on coding rules (Harwood & Garry, 2003; Stemler, 2001). As discussed by Harwood and Garry (2003), it “enables analysis of ‘open-ended’ data to be structured for purposes of diagnosis” (p. 479).
Results
As we mentioned previously, 29 articles met the presented criteria and, therefore, were fully read and analyzed. Based on our review, 15 out of these 29 articles were published in HRD journals. Human Resource Development International with seven articles on the topic is the journal with highest number of publications on the topic. To the surprise of the authors, no article on talent or TD was found in Human Resource Development Review and Human Resource Development Quarterly at the time this research was conducted.
Definitions of Talent-Related Concepts and Perspectives Toward Talent
Table 1 summarizes the definitions of talent-related concepts (i.e., talent, TM, TD, etc.) in reviewed conceptual articles. The definition of talent-related concepts in empirical studies can be found in Table 2. In addition, the participants, settings, and methods used in each article are listed in this table.
Definitions of Conceptual Articles in TD Literature.
Note. TD = talent development; HRDI = Human Resource Development International; TM = talent management.
Definitions, Methods, Settings, and Participants of Empirical Studies in TD Literature.
Note. TD = talent development; HRM = human resource management; HRDI = Human Resource Development International; HRD = human resource development; TM = talent management; HR = human resources; MNC = multinational corporation.
Among the reviewed articles, only four articles included the definition of the term, talent development, explicitly (i.e., Benham, 1993; Chami-Malaeb & Garavan, 2013; Garavan et al., 2012; Ibeh & Debrah, 2011) and the rest of publications have included merely the definitions of talent or TM. Most of TM definitions are process-oriented and refer to activities such as acquiring, development, and retaining of employees (e.g., Kim & McLean, 2012; Oehley & Theron, 2010). Attaining organizational goals such as current and future business needs (e.g., Oehley & Theron, 2010) or organizational strategies on global scale (e.g., Kim & McLean, 2012; McDonnell, Lamare, Gunnigle, & Lavelle, 2010) are some of the determined goals for talent-related activities.
Based on the framework suggested by Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2013), the perspectives of authors on talent were also identified (i.e., inclusive vs. exclusive and also talent as an objective [characteristics] versus subjective [people as talents]). Moreover, for those studies that had critical perspectives (relative to the mainstream of TM research or practice), these stances are also provided in Tables 1 and 2.
Among 29 reviewed articles, 14 articles have taken subjective stance toward talent (including 10 articles with exclusive and four with inclusive views). Five articles have an objective view toward talent describing the characteristics of being a talent rather than talented individuals. Capabilities (Thijssen & van der Heijden, 2003), competencies (Lehmann, 2009; Siikaniemi, 2012; Thijssen & van der Heijden, 2003), and managerial skills (Claussen, Grohsjean, Luger, & Probst, 2014) are some of main characteristics stated in reviewed articles describing talents from an objective perspective. However, some of other definitions with subjective perspective have to do with high-performing employees (McDonnell et al., 2010), high-potential employees (McDonnell et al., 2010), individuals who can make a difference (Stewart & Harte, 2010), people who are able to meet current and future leadership requirements (Rhodes, Brundrett, & Nevill, 2008), and managers in general (Sheehan, 2012). An interesting finding is that subjective-exclusive stance, which has the highest frequency among the empirical studies (seven out of 16), has been identified as the stance of only three of conceptual pieces.
For the rest of articles, the particular stance of the authors is not revealed (five articles) or the authors have taken a critical approach to the topic (five articles). As one would expect, the critical views are either the stance of conceptual pieces (three articles) or qualitative empirical papers. These critical views are further discussed in the next section.
Critical views in TD literature
While most reviewed publications were pursuing the mainstream research and practice in the field, there were studies with critical perspectives from practical, humanistic, or ethical points of views. Iles et al. (2010) discuss TM as a management fashion arguing the lack of clarity of the term and questioning whether it can contribute distinctly to research and practice. On the same line, Guerci and Solari (2012) argue that in most cases, TM is just a new brand for HR activities with no significant change in real practice.
Devins and Gold (2014) point out the inequalities in terms of developmental opportunities and the existing dichotomy of high-skilled high-paid jobs in practice with vast opportunities for training and development and low-skilled low-paid positions with rare opportunities for training and development due to the disappearance of middle-class jobs. Devins and Gold (2014) raise a very important question: “If those identified as talented are the target for talent management, what about those not identified as the talented?” (p. 515). As stated by Devins and Gold (2014),
For those not receiving training, a vicious circle arises where those who need the most training to develop, receive the least training and subsequently lose their motivation to learn as the pay and career gaps with their peer groups widen . . . and this lack of sustainable development can be devastating for individuals, localities, employers, labour markets and entire sectors of economy. (p. 522)
As argued in literature, managerialist and unitarist approaches to talent-related activities, based on the performance and financial goals, are prominent in both literature and professional practices (Devins & Gold, 2014; Thunnissen et al., 2013). Moreover, demotivating effects on those not identified as talented and also the responsibility of organizations toward this group of employees are neglected.
Downs and Swailes (2013) took a radical approach in criticizing the current mainstream of literature on TM, which is built upon scarcity of talent and talent wars. According to them, this approach involves some inherent unethical practices including looking at individuals as means to end rather than as ends (Kantian ethics) or emphasizing on human capital but not human being as the perception of person’s worth. They argue that talent-related strategies are typically an exclusive process with the main focus on a few percent of individuals in organizations known as key employees or stars; despite the fact that “talent exists in all sectors of a workforce, organizational talent programmes usually focus on management and leadership capabilities” (Downs & Swailes, 2013, p. 269). To address this issue, Downs and Swailes (2013) suggested using the capability approach introduced by Sen (1999). In capability approach, individual freedom rather than resources is emphasized and, in contrast with utilitarian ethics and the idea of greater good, it has to do with well-being of each and every individual. However, it does not mean that the individual is a separate and self-interested being but a human who “recognizes and acts in accordance … with other individuals” (Downs & Swailes, 2013, p. 273). These authors still acknowledge “that only some people will have the competence or the desire to make an above-the-norm contribution” (p. 278). It seems that this approach, at least in theory, is able to address some of the critiques related to talent not being inclusive (e.g., Devins & Gold, 2014) and at the same time being distinct from human resource management in its traditional sense, which has been raised in studies such as Dries (2013) and Collings and Mellahi (2009).
And finally, in a different level of argumentation, Glastra and Meerman (2012) critique the field by emphasizing the importance of the systems rather than individuals and argue that the attention to the interaction among the individuals is more crucial.
Main Findings and Outcomes of Empirical Studies in TD Literature
A detailed summary of antecedents and outcomes of the articles with quantitative approach as well as the major questions/purposes and findings of articles with qualitative and mixed methods approaches are provided in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
Major Antecedents and Outcomes in Reviewed Quantitative Studies in TD Literature.
Note. TD = talent development; HRD = human resource development; HR = human resources; HRM = human resource management.
This is a mixed methods study and the quantitative part is reported in this table.
Summary of Research Questions/Purposes and Findings of Qualitative and Mixed Methods Studies in TD Literature.
Note. TD = talent development; IT = information technology; HR = human resources; HRM = human resource management; HRD = human resource development; TM = talent management; MD = managing diversity.
This is a quantitative study but as it is purely descriptive and there is no correlation test, it has been placed here.
The independent and dependent variables of eight articles with a quantitative approach can be seen in Table 3. In most studies, independent variables have to do with TD practices (e.g., training and coaching, leadership development, etc.) and dependent variables are outcomes such as retention, performance, or commitment. Organizational outcomes are assumed to be achieved by applying appropriate HR practices through their influence on positive employees’ behaviors. An exception is the study by McDonnell et al. (2010) who considered TD practices as dependent variables in an attempt to examine the possible influential variables on such practices in organizations.
Understanding TD processes is the main focus of the qualitative and mixed methods studies (see Table 4). It is worth mentioning that the work by Holland, Sheehan, and De Cieri (2007) that had a quantitative approach is also included in Table 4 as the study is not testing any hypotheses and therefore there is no dependent or independent variables to report.
Key Themes in TD Literature
Reviewing the literature, four main themes are identified: (a) issues related to career development, (b) the influence of contextual factors, (c) the relationship between TD and attraction and retention of talents, and (d) issues of diversity in the context of TD. A summary of these themes is presented in Table 5.
Key Themes in TD Literature.
Note. TD = talent development.
Theme 1: Issue related to career development
Studies within this theme have focused primarily or partially on the topic of career development. Employability, promotion and succession planning, the relationship between formal career planning and talent-related systems, and finally, individuals’ responsibility for their career planning are the identified sub-themes that will be discussed in this section.
Sub-theme 1.1: Employability
In general, employability has to do with possessing the capabilities for gaining and maintaining employment (Hillage & Pollard, 1998) and has been framed by individuals who focus on supply aspect in labor market (Nilsson & Ellström, 2012).
The findings and ideas of reviewed articles show some contradictions in terms of employability criteria. For example, against what Lehmann (2009) suggests about the criteria of selection and the importance of generic competencies over specific skills for talents, Thijssen and Van der Heijden (2003) argue that the generic personal and behavioral characteristics are not necessarily able to guarantee the success in terms of employability in long run.
It seems that formal education and certain academic degrees have an important role in TD and definitely contribute to employability of individuals. For example, as argued by Ibeh and Debrah (2011), considering today’s individual-centered career planning and boundaryless careers, business school is the entry for many managerial positions and therefore MBA degrees and “[business] schools are at the center of the talent development process” (p. 43).
Some other researchers discuss the importance of continuous development of employees to maintain their competencies. As it has been stated by Thijssen and Van Der Heijden (2003), “[t]he potential to grow and adapt flexibly, is most valuable in the current labor market. The individuals who are best prepared for jobs nowadays are the ones who continue studying and who adapt creatively to change” (p. 162). Lehmann (2009) states that it is important to develop competencies of talents to help talented employees to manage their own self-development. According to Thijssen and Van Der Heijden (2003),
An employee who knows how to approach and master new situation is more cost effective because time and other resources spent on training can be reduced. . . . [E]mployees who have learned how to learn can greatly assist an employer in meeting strategic goals and competitive challenges. (p. 164)
Sub-theme 1.2: Promotion and career planning
Promotion, discussing what it takes to go up the organization ladder and how an organization can prepare individuals for these moves, and the potential linkage between career planning and talent-related systems was the focus of some of the reviewed articles. Claussen et al. (2014) focus on career development of managers and type of skills that lead to promotion in both middle and senior levels. Lehmann (2009) calls for more sophisticated succession planning and promotion activities arguing the shortage of talent due to the changes in environment and the needed skill sets. Promotion from within has been identified to be more preferred by the organizations that participated in Wang-Cowham’s (2011) study to retain the organizational knowledge. Rhodes et al. (2008) argue that assessment of individual potential is at the center of succession planning and is necessary for developing internal future leaders. In their study, Guerci and Solari (2012) showed that in three out of four cases they studied, formal career planning was not linked to TM system and no structured career steps were reserved for the talent.
Sub-theme 1.3: Individuals’ responsibility for their career planning
Individuals are gradually taking responsibility for their career planning and they have been more self-reliant when it comes to development and employability in recent years. As part of their study, Rhodes et al. (2008) found that it is expected from talented employees to be in charge of their own career development and to take responsibility for their leadership development. However, the changing psychological contract might lead to organizational resistance to invest in career development activities and therefore organizations might not be willing to invest in training and development of employees who might not stay (Holland et al., 2007). It can be argued that as suggested by Ibeh and Debrah (2011), the shift from organization-centered to self-directed individual centered careers by focusing on developing human capital skills and building networks might redefine the role of formal education and educational institutions outside the organizations such as business schools.
Theme 2: The influence of contextual factors
The influence of organizational climate, environment, and culture on talent-related activities was raised in a majority of the reviewed articles and therefore it has been identified as one of the themes.
Sub-theme 2.1: The influence of culture on talent-related activities
New practices such as TD in many organizations can be under a higher level of influence by the culture of the organization. Lehmann (2009) refers to two main concerns in this regard: “how to make employees adjust to new systems and how to change the attitude of the top management towards human resource management” (p. 165). Glastra and Meerman (2012) suggest that TD is not completely cognitive; it also involves social acceptance and the fitness within social contexts. Glastra and Meerman (2012) argued that issues such as strategic coherence, organizational culture, and alignment of relevant players are very important throughout the process of developing talents. Moreover, the importance of culture has been emphasized in some of definitions of talent in reviewed articles (e.g., Nilsson & Ellström, 2012).
Sub-theme 2.2: Necessities of knowledge-based economies
While financial and organizational capital is the most crucial resource in an industrial economy, human capital is the most significant source in the knowledge-based economy. Most studies conducted on TD, explicitly or implicitly, are rooted in resource-based view to the firm, which has to do with the consideration of human as the unique source of competitive advantage (e.g., Holland et al., 2007; Lehmann, 2009). According to Lehmann (2009), in knowledge-based economy, “knowledge workers are key assets, talent is scarce and people are more mobile” (Lehmann, 2009, p. 157). Knowledge workers are motivated by self-expression, career expectations, and in general, fulfilling work content rather than extrinsic motivations such as payment (Lehmann, 2009). Sheehan (2012) argues that the link between the use of TD initiatives and national human capital has not been explored in the literature. Sheehan (2012) empirically shows that the higher the level of human capital of a country is, the higher the rate of return to management development would be.
The traditional top-down structure of communication and command as discussed by Lehmann (2009) is incompatible with participation, teamwork, and individual thinking, which are necessities of knowledge-based economy.
Sub-theme 2.3: TD in global settings
The shortage of talent in global setting has been viewed as a larger issue compared with national level and some attention to developing global talents among reviewed articles is evident (e.g., Conger, 2014; Kim & McLean, 2012). Conger (2014) focuses on developing global leaders as talents who are able “to lead across geographic and cultural boundaries” (p. 198). According to the author, these positions demand a possession of a “broader variety of competencies, skills, and abilities to succeed than their domestic counterparts” (p. 198). Three categories of competencies are introduced by Conger (2014): (a) motivational, (b) skills and knowledge, and (c) mind-set requirements. Among the reviewed articles, researchers such as McDonnell et al. (2010) try to study the issue of succession planning in the global setting due to its unique aspects.
Theme 3: The relationship between TD and attraction and retention of talents
Identifying and examining the relationship between TD and retention of employees is the focus of several reviewed articles. In terms of quantitative studies, the relevant variables such as affective commitment (Chami-Malaeb & Garavan, 2013; Oehley & Theron, 2010), intention to stay (Chami-Malaeb & Garavan, 2013), intention to quit (Oehley & Theron, 2010), and turnover rate (Kucherov & Zavyalova, 2012) were among the dependent variables. The study of retention in the context of TD research is of great importance as organizations are unwilling to invest in employees’ development if they cannot keep them for a reasonable time (Oehley & Theron, 2010). Chami-Malaeb and Garavan (2013) found that TD practices affect the employees’ intention to stay and their commitment. Turnover of talents not only creates costs for substitution of those who leave the company, but also as stated by Thijssen and Van Der Heijden (2003), disrupts other important outcomes such as innovation through damaging collaborations and culture of organization. Changing psychological contract between employee and employer has been discussed in some of articles (e.g., Holland et al., 2007). Lehmann (2009) argues that high rate of turnover among talents discourage companies to invest in training for development, which is also known to influence motivation of the talents. Seeking new challenges, career ambitions, and frustration due to lack of promotion are the main findings of Wang-Cowham’s (2011) study as reasons why HR managers left their previous companies. Interestingly, the pay is not among the main reasons for leaving one’s job.
Employer brand, defined as “qualitative features of the employing company which are attractive to a target audience” (Kucherov & Zavyalova, 2012, p. 88), is one of the related topics to attraction and retention, which was raised in the literature. Employer brand can help organizations to increase the loyalty of employees through providing developmental opportunities. As stated by Kucherov and Zavyalova, “companies with employer brand invest more in the knowledge and competencies of their employees to make them more qualified and loyal and to enable competitive advantage for the company” (p. 102).
Theme 4: Issues of diversity in the context of TD
Diversity as described by Glastra and Meerman (2012) is a term “to describe the appearance of new groups . . . [such as] women and ethnic minorities . . . in the workforce in significant numbers” (p. 106). Diversity was raised in a number of reviewed articles (i.e., Glastra & Meerman, 2012; Holland et al., 2007; Ibeh & Debrah, 2011; Oehley & Theron, 2010; Stewart & Harte, 2010). Citing Murray and Syed (2005) and Orland (2000), the authors argue that lack of attention to diversity in workforce would negatively influence creativity and also the ability of satisfying the expectations of a diverse and highly competitive market (Holland et al., 2007). Glastra and Meerman (2012) provide four main career disadvantages of minority employees: (a) being nominated for positions that are lower than their qualifications, (b) lack of soft skills due to the lack of access to certain work experiences, (c) experiencing difficulties in terms of building networks and mentoring opportunities, and (d) the lack of confidence among minorities.
Citing the work of Cox (1993), Glastra and Meerman (2012) argue that although recruiting minorities has been improved, recognizing minorities as talents and moving them up to managerial levels is still in early stages. According to them, talent and career development processes and rules are usually informal, implicit, and ambiguous.
The shortage of skilled labor supply from minority groups is another issue related to diversity. In their study in the context of South Africa, Oehley and Theron (2010) discuss the issue of diversity in relation to TD. According to Oehley and Theron (2010), organizations have to employ high-performing employees to be successful and at the same time they need to comply with the moral, political, economic, and legal pressure of diversifying their human resources.
Arguing that formal managerial education has an important role in career development of females in organizations, Ibeh and Debrah (2011) studied the female TD practices in business schools in seven African countries. The authors found that the amount of female TD practices was low and not significantly different from the practice of their international counterparts (Ibeh & Debrah, 2011).
The importance of connecting diversity programs and talent-related practices was emphasized by Stewart and Harte (2010). In their case study, Stewart and Harte (2010), found TM and managing diversity to be separated in practice while they believed that conceptually the two have much in common. According to Stewart and Harte (2010), learning and development is a central component for both as achieving the objectives of both has to do with HRD.
Discussion
In previous sections, we introduced the perspectives of authors in regard to talent and TD and discussed the main themes in current TD literature. In this section, first we present the identified gaps and shortcomings of the reviewed literature. Second, we characterize and suggest a definition for TD in HRD based on the reviewed literature and our understanding of the field of HRD.
Gaps and Shortcomings of the Literature
Lack of enough attention to definition of talent in the reviewed literature
Insufficiencies and inconsistencies in definition of and perspectives toward talent are evident in TD literature. The lack of enough attention to the definition of talent and TD in the context of empirical studies is a major challenge. It seems that a number of studies, by taking a minimal approach, have simply named certain groups of employees as talents (e.g., leaders or managers) without discussing how these studies are distinct from studies on leadership or management development. Moreover, there is a lack in communicating the authors’ stances toward talent and articulation of the influence of these stances in the process of inquiry. This makes it rather difficult to build theories and also generalize the findings of the research on topic. As Nilsson and Ellström (2012) discussed, creating an operational definition for talent in field of HRD is necessary because “In the absence of such a definition, HRD practices become ad hoc, and decisions may be based on a weak foundation” (p. 35).
Lack of enough attention to contextual factors
With a few exceptions (e.g., Rhodes et al., 2008; Siikaniemi, 2012), one main gap in the literature is the lack of clarity of the researchers on the role of contextual factors in the specific situation of their study and also the assumptions they made in this regard. Making these assumptions and contextual factors known and well-articulated throughout the research (not just in sampling and under methods section) and trying to make meaningful connections to the contexts and organizations under study (e.g., Sheehan, 2012) would be a great step toward diminishing the ambiguity and confusion that is currently evident in literature. Another issue is the lack of attention to the contextual factors in citing the previous literature in reviewed works. Even in cases where those sources have included the contextual factors with enough details, the authors are not paying much attention to those factors while citing. For example, it can be argued that the tension in the conversation, which was evident in the works of Nilsson and Ellström (2012), Theijsson and Heijden (2003), and Lehmann (2009) on employability and selection criteria, comes from the contextual factors rather than real differences in the mind-set of authors.
Lack of attention to organizational performance and evaluation of talent initiatives
Although many definitions of talent are rooted in human capital theory and the relationship between individual’s skills and knowledge and his or her performance and despite the importance of performance as one of main components of many HRD definitions, only a few of the reviewed articles focus on performance specifically (i.e., Sheehan, 2012). Moreover, among the reviewed articles, there is no article discussing the evaluation of TD activities. As Nilsson and Ellström (2012) discussed, the general critics against lack of evaluative causal studies seems relevant to the area of TD as well.
Lack of sufficient attention to technology
Despite the importance and the vast use of technology in organizations for knowledge management and other related topics to TD, with one exception (i.e., Yoon & Lim, 2010), technology is not generally discussed in the reviewed articles. Yoon and Lim (2010) argue that technologies such as system analytics and data queries can facilitate the TD processes (i.e., developing talent from within, personal career plans, succession planning of critical positions, active performance management strategies) by “locating based on credentials, interests, or content ownership, filtering active contributors to VCoP or KM systems, or examining the concentration of interactions and information flow within networks.” (Yoon & Lim, 2010, p. 723).
Limitations due to the data collection approach
The data collection approaches taken by authors in reviewed articles are limited in some ways. The dominance of HR personnel or program administrators as the mere source of information is an important limitation. Data from individuals who are regarded as talented have been collected in a number of studies (e.g., Claussen et al., 2014); however, considering data collection from multiple sources can create better understanding of the issue knowing the complexity of the topic of talent. Few studies among reviewed articles can be good examples of providing such in-depth understanding (e.g., Glastra & Meerman, 2012; Rhodes et al., 2008).
Toward a Definition of TD From HRD Perspective
As mentioned earlier, only a few researchers explicitly defined TD. These definitions and some of their limitations are listed in Table 6. As one can notice, while these definitions are all bounded in organizational settings, some of the studies we reviewed discussed the topic at societal level. We believe that providing a comprehensive definition for TD is significant as it would help researchers and practitioners in the field to have a common ground to discuss the topic.
Current TD Definitions and Identified Limitations.
Note. TD = talent development.
To develop a definition for TD from HRD perspective, a review on HRD definitions is necessary. HRD has been defined in many different ways. Hamlin and Stewart (2011) reviewed the existing definitions of HRD. A glance at the list of the HRD definitions provided by them shows that there are some definitions that serve the concept of talent and TD in its broader and inclusive meaning better than others (e.g., McLean & McLean, 2001). For example, Harbison and Myers (1964) define HRD as “the process of increasing the knowledge, the skills, and the capabilities of all people in a society” (p. 2). However, some of other definitions of HRD can best fit the workplace bounded definition of talent by focusing on performance and benefits for organizations. For example, Swanson and Arnold (1996), suggest that “the purpose of HRD is improved performance… [and it] should strive directly to the organization’s goal” (p. 13). Reviewing these definitions suggests a great opportunity for placement of talent in the field of HRD in ways that best suit the concept and also best contribute to research and practice of talent (i.e., attention to future job demands (Rothwell & Kazanas, 1994; Werner & Desimone, 2006), capacity and human potential (e.g., Harbison & Myers, 1964; Harrison & Kessels, 2004;), and performance improvement (e.g., Swanson, 1995; Swanson & Arnold, 1996).
According to Hamlin and Stewart (2011), “HRD is . . . any process or activity that helps or enables individuals, groups, organizations or host systems to learn, develop and change behavior for the purpose of improving or enhancing their competence, effectiveness, performance and growth” (p. 213). We believe that this definition can be a good fit for studying TD in HRD as it considers different levels (i.e., individual, organizational, and societal) and also is not limited to any specific work-related interventions such as training.
Based on the reviewed articles and the short review on HRD definitions, 10 characteristics and attributes have been identified which, in our belief, are the characteristics of a comprehensive definition of TD from HRD perspective and should be considered in defining the term. TD (a) should be seen as a comprehensive system (Glastra & Meerman, 2012), (b) is not only a set of activities and processes (Garavan et al., 2012) but also values and socially constructed meanings (Downs & Swailes, 2013), (c) is inclusive but personalized (Devins & Gold, 2014; Guerci & Solari, 2012; Lehmann, 2009), (d) can be discussed beyond organizations (Devins & Gold, 2014; Ibeh & Debrah, 2011), (e) has to do with both interests and capabilities of employees (Nijs et al., 2014; Thijssen & van der Heijden, 2003), (f) should consider the improvement of both individuals and systems (Downs & Swailes, 2013), (g) has to do with both career development and learning (Glastra & Meerman, 2012; Ibeh & Debrah, 2011), (h) should not and cannot be forced on individuals who are not willing to be developed (Downs & Swailes, 2013), (i) is a shared responsibility of individuals and the systems (Downs & Swailes, 2013; Glastra & Meerman, 2012), and (j) is strongly related to and weaved in its context of practice (Kim & McLean, 2012; Nilsson & Ellström, 2012; Siikaniemi, 2012; Stewart & Harte, 2010).
Having these 10 characteristics in mind, we define TD as
a comprehensive system that consists of a set of values, activities, and processes with the aim of improving all willing and capable individuals for the mutual benefit of individuals, host organizations, and society as a whole.
Implications for Practice in HRD
Very few articles are directly focused on the role of HRD in regard to talent-related activities in organizations (e.g., Iles et al., 2010). However, Iles et al. (2010) raised a number of important questions on the role of HRD professionals in TM. Maybe the most critical question they raised is “What is the nature of HRD specialists and external consultants’ involvement in TM adoption, and what is the quality and effect of their involvement?” (p. 140)
Based on the reviewed articles, some implications for practice are presented.
Determining goals, scope, and focus of TD activities
Similar to what is suggested by Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2015), we suggest that HRD professionals should decide on their perspective to talent (i.e., objective/subjective and inclusive/exclusive) and their focus (types of skills: specific technical skills, competencies, or behaviors) considering their specific situation and once decided, they should be consistent. Moreover, there should be a shared understanding of what TD means among the stakeholders. Based on the results of some of the reviewed articles, it is evident that people in different positions have different views of TM in practice of organizations. Rhodes et al. (2008) showed that there was a difference among heads, managers, and classroom teachers of talent characteristics and what it takes to promote to leader positions. As stated by the authors, these differences are important as they might be a sign of “the potential for wasted talent or false leadership identity claims” (Rhodes et al., 2008, p. 324). Moreover, identifying discrepancies in perception of head of HR, HR managers, and line managers of the TD practice, Sheehan (2012) argued that these differences among perceptions can negatively affect the organization.
It is important that the term talent should not be used by professionals merely because it is fashionable, or has been adopted by high-reputation organizations, or to gain a greater credibility for profession (Iles et al., 2010).
Balancing the long-term and short-term needs of organizations
Attention to long-term strategic needs and also considerations of short-term productivity are two main drives for identification and development of talent (Nilsson & Ellström, 2012). Enough attention to both goals and maintaining a balance seems to be of great importance for success of organizations.
HRD by definition has traditionally been concerned about performance and/or personal development. While high levels of performance appraisals are being practiced in organizations (Holland et al., 2007), current review suggest that the attention of organizations to processes for improving performance such as training and development is not sufficient. As stated by Holland et al. (2007) the higher attention to performance appraisals has to do with the monitoring of narrowly defined short-term performance rather than improving the performance in the long term.
An important tension in the workplace is the importance of having enough specific skills to do one’s job and at the same time knowing that today’s positions are not as stable as they once were and therefore the importance of flexible employees who can learn and develop new skills and expertise. HRD should find a way to reconcile the two by finding a balance considering the contextual factors of the organizations. As discussed by Thijssen and Van Der Heijden (2003), analysis of harm before transfer, suitable mobility programs, and implementing proper career management activities involving self-assessment can be a great help to deal with challenges such as employability and experience concentration.
And finally, through analyzing the reviewed articles, the tension between attention to specific skills versus attention to behaviors and competencies is identified. Nilsson and Ellström (2012) state that HRD should shift from a focus on short-term task-based match to a long-term dynamic organizational fit and from a focus on technical skills to behavioral traits and characteristics. Knowing that assessment of generic competences and personal characteristics is a difficult task (Nilsson & Ellström, 2012), this creates a great challenge for HRD professionals.
Creating a considerate and diverse talent culture
The literature on development of minorities portrays a tension between HR as a positive force and HR as a tool for unifying a uniform organizational culture (Glastra & Meerman, 2012). It seems reasonable that HRD as a more human oriented field compared with business and management should take the former position than the latter but the implications of this position is not discussed vastly in the field. Oehley and Theron (2010) suggested that well-integrated and comprehensive organization development interventions should be in place to deal with the complex issue of disadvantaged and underrepresented groups in organizations. Moreover, some attention to the idea of capability approach introduced by Downs and Swailes (2013) as an alternative or modified approach to talent and TD might be beneficial to research and practice of the field in this regard. Finally, as stated by Stewart and Harte (2010), “conceptually, there is potential for HRD to provide the linking mechanism for TM and managing diversity since it is clear from the literature that development is at the centre of both sets of practices” (p. 515). As described by Stewart and Harte (2010), while inclusion and exclusion is a big debate in TM, sameness and difference is the area of debate in managing diversity, and according to them these paradoxes needs to be reconciled in professional practice.
Attending to the strategic role of HRD
TD can be seen as an opportunity to improve the commitment of top managers in HRD as the role of management is fundamental for the success of training and development practices in organizations (Guerci & Solari, 2012). Moving from an undifferentiated approach to HRD toward a segmented approach to the workforce is also suggested by Guerci and Solari (2012). It seems that HRD can be best involved in improving the organization as an employer brand through the functional and psychological attributes of employer brand. Reducing HR costs, improving labor relations, employees’ retention, and improving organizational culture are some of the outcomes of companies with employer brand.
Future Research and Limitations
A major challenge in literature is the lack of sufficient attention to the definition of TD and also unclarified or inconsistent stances toward talent. This makes it rather difficult to build theory and also generalize the findings of the research on topic. We believe that having in mind and articulating what talent and TD in a context means is an important step toward solid and good research and practice on the topic. We suggest that future research should be more attentive to concept of talent in TD and we hope this study would help the researchers in this regard.
Considering the lack of sufficient empirical studies on TD, more data based and context-sensitive research using both quantitative (with the objective of showing the big picture and commonalities) and qualitative (with the aim of showing underlying reasons and processes) approaches are needed. This need was explicitly suggested by some of the authors in the reviewed articles (e.g., Lehmann, 2009; McDonnell et al., 2010; Yoon & Lim, 2010). Moreover, the use of mixed methods design might improve our understanding of TD.
Another important gap in the literature is the deficiency of studies which take into account the data collection from multiple sources in the same study rather than solely focusing on data from talented employees or HR professionals. Considering the complexity and ambiguity of talent, this might lead to a better contribution to research and practice of the field.
Another general suggestion for future research is the consideration of context as an important component of research on the topic to create better understanding of TD in different situations and scopes and prevent over-generalization. For example, Conger (2014) states that usually the assumption exists that a talented employee is able to learn and quickly address contextual challenges. Examining such assumptions in different contexts is a possible venue to pursue by future researchers.
And finally, there are some new ideas introduced in the TD literature (e.g., capability approach by Downs & Swailes, 2013 or TD in the context of non-traditional talent groups by Devins & Gold, 2014). We believe that investigating these ideas further through empirical studies would help theory building on the topic and also support evident-based practice in the field.
The current study is limited in at least three ways. First, this study is a document analysis. In document analysis, the researcher “filters the data through an interpretive lens” (Bowen, 2009, p. 36) and this might lead to less objectivity. Moreover, it is constrained by the availability and quality of the previous research (Bowen, 2009). Second limitation has to do with the scope of the study. One of the main limitations of the research is the limited focus of the study by selecting peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles and leaving out manuscripts such as conference proceedings, which have not been the focus of this review. Third, the inclusion criteria are narrowly focused on the articles that have a significant interest on TD. There might be other articles that have some emphasis on the topic but as development or talent is not the major attention of those publications they are not included in the article. Although this has been deliberately chosen based on the goals and interests of the authors, it definitely has limited the findings of this research.
Conclusion
Considering talent as a mixture of innate and developed abilities, the role of HRD professionals is to help individuals identify their innate talents as well as developing their knowledge and skills based on the identified needs and their interests.
The literature is limited in terms of focus on TD despite its recognition as a main component of TM (Garavan et al., 2012). According to Garavan et al. (2012), there is a debate whether TD is distinct from learning and development. However, as they argued, “there is a scope in talent development,” which is evident in our review as well (p. 14). There are many important questions to be discussed about TD and Garavan et al. (2012) listed some of these concerns under the following dimensions: (a) defining talent for TD, (b) focus on technical or generic competencies or both, (c) whose TD needs and whose responsibility, (d) accelerated or traditionally paced development, and (e) the architecture of TD. There is a need for answering these questions and this study is a step toward such aim. The hope is that this article provides a good foundation for studying TD in HRD to call for more involvement of HRD in the process of TD and TM.
We argue that the approach to development in TD is different from other developmental approaches (e.g., employee development) in ways such as including careful attention to the personalized development of individuals based on their abilities, interests, needs, and motivations. Here, obviously, some of views toward HRD and also some of subcategories of HRD are closer to TD (e.g., national HRD, critical HRD, learning rather than performance as the main focus, etc.). Identifying the individuals’ abilities, interests, potentials, and goals and planning for their development based on these factors is of great importance. TD requires a close connection with overall human capital strategies of host organizations.
Based on the ideas discussed by Kuchinke (2010), HRD can be seen as an alternative value-oriented field to business. Therefore, it might be a safe home for critical discussions toward talent-related activities and the ethical aspects of talent management and development. The kind of TD for being discussed in HRD should be in line with values of HRD and the attempt of this article was to approach the topic of talent in such frame. We hope that this article would bring new insight to the research and practice of TD and related topics such as TM and therefore uniquely contribute to the larger academic and professional discussion on the topic.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.