Journal of World Business 54 (2019) 82–92

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of World Business

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwb

Global talent management: A life cycle view of the interaction between T

human and social capital
⁎
Bret Crane , Christopher J. Hartwell
Utah State University, Huntsman School of Business, Management Department, 3555 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-3555, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: We present a theoretical model that describes the interaction between social and human capital and the different
Global talent management forms that such an interaction may take – positive and negative. Extending the concepts of stocks and flows of
Human capital knowledge, this model evaluates social capital flows against human capital stocks. When we compare these flows
Social capital to the value of human capital, we are able to better understand how these resources can interact with each other,
influence global talent development, and change over time. We discuss the implications for practices in global
talent management in selecting, developing, and harnessing talent.

1. Introduction Cowham, 2011). Others have urged researchers to consider TM as a

Existing conceptualizations of global talent and talent management
have a tendency to be human capital centric and focus on the target, or
whom should be considered talented (Al Ariss, Cascio, & Paauwe, 2014;
Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014; Nijs, Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, & Sels,
2014; Sonnenberg, van Zijderveld, & Brinks, 2014). For example,
Tarique and Schuler (2010) describe global talent management (GTM)
as the practices “that attract, develop, and retain individuals with high
levels of human capital” (p. 124). Other views label talent as “generic”
(Lewis & Heckman, 2006) or “unique” (Lepak & Snell, 1999), taking for
granted the composition of talent and how that composition is derived.
Further, when talent development is considered, it usually consists of
examining the individual characteristics of executives that enable their
placement in global talent positions (e.g. Caligiuri, 2006; Caligiuri &
Tarique, 2009; Mendenhall, Reiche, Bird, & Osland, 2012). These the-
ories of talent focus excessively on human capital and fail to address the
relational dimensions of talent (Al Ariss et al., 2014; Tarique & Schuler,
2010). The prevalence of GTM research that primarily focuses on
human capital largely mirrors the abundance of organizations that
employ a human capital centric approach to talent management (TM)
(Cross, Opie, Pryor, & Rollag, 2017).
In recent years, GTM scholars have begun to advocate that inter-
national human resource management (IHRM) processes and tools in-
clude a greater focus on social capital. Some have suggested that IHRM
should play a stronger role in managing social capital, developing the
social capital and boundary-spanning roles required for businesses to
operate on a global scale (Farndale, Scullion, & Sparrow, 2010; Wang-
relational construct (e.g., Al Ariss et al., 2014) and have highlighted the
benefits of accumulating social capital through international assign-
ments (Reiche, 2012). These scholars recognize the importance of social
capital for GTM in facilitating knowledge transfer and improving co-
ordination across global units (Bozkurt & Mohr, 2011). Although firms
value human and social capital, without a clearer understanding of how
these two forms of capital interact, those responsible for managing ta-
lent may not be able to optimize their effects. For example, firms may
identify high performers or subject matter experts but fail to encourage
the development of the requisite social capital to help disseminate the
value of their human capital throughout units of the multinational
enterprise (MNE). The “globalization of talent brings with it a re-
quirement to create new [human resource management] tools, methods
and processes necessary for coordination and global integration”
(Farndale et al., 2010 p. 162).
Given the human capital centric views of the past and the im-
portance of social capital in IHRM practices in the present, there is a
need for greater integration of social and human capital in our theo-
rizing and practice – to understand better the relationship between
social and human capital and how they interact to influence individual
and organizational outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to elaborate
the concept of global talent management in terms of both social and
human capital, and, using a life cycle model, to present a theoretical
framework that elucidates the interaction between social and human
capital. In so doing, we move beyond focusing solely on individuals to
include social context and processes (Collings, Mellahi, & Cascio, 2018).
We also call attention to the definition of GTM - the practice of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bret.crane@usu.edu (B. Crane), chris.hartwell@usu.edu (C.J. Hartwell).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2018.11.002
Received 14 February 2018; Received in revised form 12 November 2018; Accepted 14 November 2018
Available online 24 November 2018
1090-9516/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
B. Crane, C.J. Hartwell
attracting, retaining and developing talent - that suggests a life cycle
approach to GTM, considering talent at various stages. However, the
GTM literature is largely silent on the evolution of talent within an
MNE. Indeed, management practices among MNEs tend to take an “ad
hoc or haphazard approach” (McDonnell, Lamare, Gunnigle, & Lavelle,
2010) or focus on senior positions in headquarters or subsidiaries
(Collings, Scullion, & Dowling, 2009; Farndale et al., 2010; Torbiorn,
2005), with little attention to their development or the mechanisms for
becoming a star employee (Wang-Cowham, 2011). Understanding ta-
lent at various stages in the life cycle is critical in developing more
robust GTM systems and programs, and examining the relationship
between social and human capital may be useful in understanding the
evolution of talent. We are in need of broader mechanisms for identi-
fying and developing talent throughout MNEs and perhaps earlier in the
talent pipeline.
In the resource-based view of the firm (RBV), scholars have ad-
vocated that the combination of resources within the firm can generate
unique capabilities. Black and Boal (1994) suggest that a firm’s re-
sources may include three types of relationships: compensatory, en-
hancing, and suppressing. This argument is consistent with Amit and
Schoemaker (1993), who claim that socially complex resources can
magnify or diminish each other. Alchian and Demsetz (1972) assert that
the output of some resources is not equivalent to, but greater than, the
sum of the resources, suggesting a multiplicative effect. Leveraging the
work of these scholars, we explore the idea that different human and
social capital stocks and flows can create unique combinations and
generate valuable capabilities as well as potential constraints for or-
ganizations.
In this article, we first review current TM conceptualizations and
situate our definition among them. Next, we explain how human and
social capital interact, yielding different consequences relative to an
employee’s ability to contribute to firm performance. We then present a
dynamic model that helps practitioners and scholars understand how
these interactions can change over time. Finally, we highlight the im-
plications for global talent management.
2. Theoretical Foundations
2.1. Defining talent and global talent management
TM is a concept that business practitioners have identified as critical
for organizational success, yet there is little consensus on how TM, or
even talent, is defined (Thunnissen, Boselie, & Fruytier, 2013). One
difference among definitions is whether talent refers to personal char-
acteristics, such as knowledge or competencies (an object approach), or
to people themselves (a subject approach) (Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, &
González-Cruz, 2013; Thunnissen et al., 2013). Much of the TM lit-
erature implicitly defines talent using the subject approach, such as
“skilled individuals” (Al Ariss et al., 2014, p. 176), “competent in-
cumbents” (Collings & Mellahi, 2009, p. 304), “key employees” (Festing
& Schäfer, 2014, p. 263), or “employees considered to be talented”
(Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014, p. 193). In contrast, our research takes
an object approach by conceptualizing talent in terms of personal
characteristics and social resources. Specifically, we define talent as the
combined human capital and social capital that an individual possesses.
While this diverges from other definitions of TM, there is precedent in
the literature for equating talent with capital (see Tansley, 2011), and
even today, some use the terms talent and capital synonymously (Dries,
2013; Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013).
Our definition of talent also deviates from object approaches that
tend to focus solely on human capital, such as innate abilities, learned
skills, or high potential (Tansley, 2011), where TM is typically viewed
as the selection, integration, development, and retention of such human
capital (Collings & Scullion, 2008; Farndale et al., 2010). In other
words, talent itself is generally viewed in terms of human capital, while
TM implicitly includes aspects of social capital (e.g., training,
83
Journal of World Business 54 (2019) 82–92
socialization, leadership). Conversely, our definition of talent includes
both the human and social capital of an individual, making social ca-
pital a component of talent itself. We argue that competitive advantage
can be realized by expanding the concept of talent to include social
capital (Hitt & Duane, 2002) and by expanding the concept of GTM to
include the development and governance of employees’ human and
social capital throughout their life cycle within the MNE.
2.2. The human capital and social capital components of talent
Human capital is a critical resource for firms and is associated with
firm performance (Crook, Todd, Combs, Woehr, & Ketchen, 2011;
Pfeffer, 1996). It represents the knowledge, skills, and capabilities of
individuals and is created by “changes in persons that … make them
able to act in new ways” (Coleman, 1988). It also includes judgment
and intelligence (Barney & Wright, 1998) and can be assessed by ex-
amining the person’s education, experience, and identifiable skills
(Harrison, Hitt, Hoskisson, & Ireland, 2001). Indeed, the value of
human capital can vary by person, or by the extent that human capital
provides value for the firm through specific skills, knowledge, and ex-
perience that directly contribute to desired organizational outcomes.
Human capital in an MNE can be firm specific or location specific
(Morris, Snell, & Björkman, 2016).
Whereas human capital is a quality within an individual, social
capital is created between individuals (Burt, 1997). Some argue that
social capital is a resource embedded in relationships (Tsai & Ghoshal,
1998), developed through changes in relationships (Coleman, 1988),
and reflected in the value of these relationships (Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998). Social capital is of particular importance to MNEs because it can
facilitate coordination of activities across borders (Kostova & Roth,
2003). Individuals who participate in expatriate/repatriate positions
possess significantly more social capital than individuals who do not
participate in global mobility programs (Mäkelä, 2007). Even short-
term international assignments can be effective in developing social
capital (Bozkurt & Mohr, 2011). Managing global talent pools through
mobility can foster relationships that increase the contribution of in-
dividuals to the MNE (Collings, 2014), and international relocation of
talent enables access to host-unit knowledge that can improve knowl-
edge transfer (Reiche, 2012). However, unless these relationships are
managed, they can decay over time. While prior research elucidates the
importance of social capital for GTM, it does not explain the forms in
which social capital can interact with human capital to influence de-
sired outcomes.
A great deal of research has explored social and human capital as
distinct concepts (e.g., Crook et al., 2011; Hitt, Bierman, Shimizu, &
Kochhar, 2001; Morris et al., 2016; Taylor, 2007), but evidence sug-
gests that social capital can directly influence development of human
capital because network ties are conduits for information, power,
technology, and access to new markets (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Crosier,
Webster, & Dillon, 2012). For example, at an MNE operating in Ukraine,
a new employee who lacked cultural, political, and operational
knowledge leveraged the relationships of existing staff to learn his role
requirements and make connections to important in-country stake-
holders. In another firm, a manager noticed that new associates strug-
gled with the knowledge requirements of the job. As a result, this leader
implemented a mentor program to help new hires acquire the requisite
knowledge, skills, and experience to be successful (Kouzes & Posner,
2006). In these examples, access to information and resources through
others helped to increase the value of human capital, or the capability
of human capital to contribute to firm performance.
Similarly, the value of human capital can influence the creation of
social capital. When individuals possess sought-after knowledge, skills,
or experience, they may have an advantage in developing or accessing
valuable social networks (Granovetter, 1973; Levin & Cross, 2004).
Moreover, there is evidence that talented individuals are successful
because of their ability to develop, manage, and adapt their social
B. Crane, C.J. Hartwell
networks during different stages of their career (Cross et al., 2017). To
help distinguish human capital from social capital, it is useful to con-
sider the former as stocks and the latter as flows (Dierickx & Cool, 1989;
Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). Using the analogy of a bathtub, social
capital represents the flows, or the water, entering or exiting the tub
whereas human capital can be considered as the stocks, or the amount
of water in the tub at a given point in time. Hence, social capital re-
presents the transfer of information, knowledge, resources, energy, and
power to and from individuals, while human capital can be viewed as
the accumulation of an individual’s information, knowledge, and ex-
perience. It is important to note that flows and stocks of capital are fluid
and subject to change over time.
2.3. Seekers and providers
Critical to understanding social capital flows in the context of our
research are theories that consider individuals as either seekers or
providers of information, knowledge, and resources (Fiske, 1991;
Grant, 2013). Although individuals are likely to engage in seeking and
providing resources via their social network, there is evidence that
these exchanges are unlikely to be equitable (Flynn, 2003; Galbraith,
1989); scholars have found that individuals have tendencies towards
either seeking or providing behaviors (Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, &
Ames, 2006; Goffman, 1972). Some individuals will be oriented toward
providing more resources (e.g., information, knowledge, energy) than
they receive while others are oriented toward receiving more resources
than they provide. For example, individuals early in their careers may
be more likely to seek out information and resources. Seeking is critical
in assimilating to new environments, learning job-specific skills, and
developing the knowledge required to contribute to the organization. In
contrast, more-seasoned employees may tend to be providers. These
individuals may have a body of knowledge sought after by others, and
they can provide institutional expertise or guidance to other employees.
These experts can amass social capital inflows, such that their in-degree
centrality in a social network is exponentially higher than that of
average performers (Oldroyd & Morris, 2012). In other words, their
expertise attracts numerous seekers of the knowledge, expertise, or
information they can provide. Hence, while the pattern of social capital
flows can be weighted in one direction (seeker versus provider), such an
orientation is not fixed within an individual and may change over the
course of a career.
Other scholars have highlighted seekers and providers through the
concept of gatekeepers. Allen (1970) found that technological gate-
keepers – a relatively small number of individuals who acquired
knowledge from external contacts and disseminated the information
internally within a firm – distributed most information about scientific
developments. These gatekeepers played a significant role in translating
external information into relevant context-specific insights (Whelan,
Teigland, Donnellan, & Golden, 2010), increasing project performance
(Katz & Tushman, 1981; Tushman & Katz, 1980).
While this idea of social capital flows is intuitive, it has been ex-
plored only at the organizational level. Gupta and Govindarajan (2000)
evaluated flow patterns among business units and found that context
determined whether each unit more often provided or received
knowledge. Similarly, Mäkelä, Björkman, and Ehrnrooth (2009) theo-
rized the outflows and inflows of knowledge from MNE units based on
staffing practices. Rather than plying the business unit lever, we explore
patterns of social capital flows at the individual level with a structur-
alist approach (Burt, 1997; Cummings & Cross, 2003), acknowledging
that structure may have more explanatory power than personal attri-
butes of members in the system and that one can understand organi-
zational outcomes by looking at the overall relationship patterns (Brass,
1995).
84
Journal of World Business 54 (2019) 82–92
2.4. The interaction of social and human capital
An RBV perspective is useful in our theorizing because of its insight
into resource orchestration, or the role of managers in effectively
building, structuring, and leveraging resources within a firm (Sirmon,
Hitt, Ireland, & Gilbert, 2011) as well as the paths and sequence of the
evolution of resources (Barney, Ketchen, & Wright, 2011). RBV scholars
have advocated that the combination of valuable and unique resources
within the firm can generate unique capabilities (2011, Barney, 1991;
Barney et al., 2011; Wernerfelt, 1984). For example, IHRM activities
may supplement, substitute, or interact in positive or negative ways
with each other (e.g., Delery, 1998). Black and Boal (1994) suggest that
a firm’s resources may include three types of relationships: compensa-
tory, enhancing, and suppressing. In other words, a resource can
compensate for the lack of value of another, other resources are sy-
nergistic and mutually enhance one another, and still other resources
can suppress the value of certain resources. This argument is consistent
with Amit and Schoemaker (1993) who claim that socially complex
resources can magnify or diminish each other. In addition, Alchian and
Demsetz (1972) posit a multiplicative effect of resources, where jointly
they are more productive than expected. Leveraging the work of these
scholars, we suggest that the interaction between human and social
capital can be compensatory, enhancing, multiplicative, or suppressing.
When we compare the patterns of social capital (i.e., flows) to the value
of human capital (i.e., stocks), we are able to better understand how
these resources interact, that they are dynamic in nature, and that they
may be useful in predicting organizational outcomes.
Below, we elaborate on the following four interaction effects be-
tween social capital flows and human capital stocks (see Fig. 1): (1)
when social capital flows are largely inward (i.e., seeker) and the value
of human capital is low, social capital can compensate for the em-
ployee’s human capital; (2) when inward capital flows are coupled with
high-value human capital, social capital can enhance the value of the
employee’s human capital; (3) when social capital flows are largely
outward (i.e., provider) and the value of human capital is high, social
capital can multiply the value of human capital; lastly, (4) when social
capital outflows are coupled with less valuable human capital, social
capital can suppress the value of the employee’s human capital.
2.5. Compensatory (Social capital inflows and low human capital)
A compensatory relationship exists when the presence of one re-
source obviates the need for another. Here, we draw on the work of
Black and Boal (1994) who choose compensatory to describe how some
resources interact, such as how effort may compensate for a lack of skill
but cannot completely substitute for it. A compensatory relationship
between social and human capital is based on the theory that social
capital is appropriable or convertible (Bourdieu, 1985; Coleman, 1988)
and can be changed into other forms of capital (Adler & Kwon, 2002).
As it relates to social and human capital, whom an employee knows and
what those individuals know from other connections in their social
network can help compensate for the employee’s lack of knowledge,
skills, or experience.
Transactive-memory (or distributed-knowledge) systems clarify
how such a relationship is possible. These systems are composed of
individuals that form a group information-processing system (Argote &
Ren, 2012; Wegner, 1987). Individuals hold specialized knowledge, and
others can access knowledge by engaging the appropriate individual.
Group members facilitate this by knowing who knows what, fostering
trust in expertise, and anticipating others’ behavior (Ren & Argote,
2011). The increased specialization reduces the cognitive load of each
individual and provides the group with access to greater breadth and
depth of knowledge (Hollingshead, 1998). Starbuck (1992) states that
experts often describe themselves as “memory cells,” preserving in-
formation that others find difficult to preserve.
The compensatory nature of social capital can be useful to
B. Crane, C.J. Hartwell
Fig. 1. Interaction Effects of Human and Social Capital in Organizations.
newcomers to an MNE – particularly when organizations focus on at-
titudes or cultural fit and less on skill during the selection process
(Meyer, Hecht, Gill, & Toplonytsky, 2010; Murphy, 2012; Rivera,
2012). Whether at headquarters (HQ) or a local unit, these individuals
may lack human capital because of inexperience or underdevelopment.
At a minimum, they lack the institutional knowledge necessary to na-
vigate the organization, an understanding of unique processes or sys-
tems, and company-specific product and customer information. By
creating ties to knowledge experts in these domains, seekers can ac-
celerate their development. For example, a marketing professional new
to a local MNE unit may rely on others within the marketing depart-
ment to understand local consumer preferences, pricing strategies, and
packaging requirements. Inflows from social capital can compensate for
deficiencies in individual human capital in the short term and increase
the employee’s ability to acquire knowledge and contribute to the firm
in the long term.
Proposition 1. Social capital can compensate for human capital, such
that individuals with low-value human capital and strong social capital
inflows will outperform individuals with low-value human capital and
weak social capital inflows.
2.6. Enhancing (social capital inflows and high human capital)
An enhancing relationship suggests that the presence of one re-
source magnifies the impact of another (Black & Boal, 1994). Enhancing
connotes that one resource has achieved a certain threshold in value. In
other words, social capital can enhance elements of human capital only
as they have demonstrative value. For example, individuals may
achieve a level of expertise in a given field and, at the same time, that
expertise can be enhanced by the knowledge of others within their
network. Furthermore, learning and development are enhanced by the
absorptive capacity of the recipient (Knott, 2003; Szulanski, 2000),
such that receiving higher-level knowledge requires having a base of
lower-level knowledge (Cohen & Levinthal, 2000).
In terms of flows and stocks, in an enhancing relationship the in-
flows of social capital increase an existing threshold of human capital.
Similar to causal complementarities that represent a relationship where
one type of capital contributes to the development of another type
(Ployhart, Nyberg, Reilly, & Maltarich, 2014), individuals with valuable
human capital leverage such capital to increase access to information,
knowledge, and resources through their social networks. Baron and
Markman (2000) argued that this was true of entrepreneurs who
85
Journal of World Business 54 (2019) 82–92
possessed skills such as reading others accurately, adapting to various
social situations, and being persuasive. These, in turn, facilitated access
to monetary capital, customers, and relationships, and improved the
likelihood for success of a new venture.
Other researchers have suggested that high-performing individuals
utilize personal networks to extend their abilities and continually learn
and develop, and that these individuals distinguish themselves by
creating networks that include others with complementary skills and
expertise (Cross & Thomas, 2008). In an MNE, human capital is en-
hanced as individuals form ties and relationships to members of other
units with complementary skills or abilities. For example, when de-
veloping a new product in one country, an individual’s local knowledge
is enhanced by supply chain, marketing or financial expertise at HQ.
Similarly, expatriates that return to HQ have enhanced their human
capital through relationships at the country level. Through these social
capital inflows from across the organization, the individual is able to
increase his or her contribution and performance. Unfortunately, many
firms do not leverage the repatriation process and the relationships
created to build on their employees’ human capital (Dowling, Festing, &
Engle, 2008; Farndale et al., 2010).
Here, it is important to distinguish a compensatory relationship
from that of an enhancing relationship. Whereas a compensatory re-
lationship describes how the presence of one resource can replace the
absence of another (as in flows entering an empty bathtub), an en-
hancing relationship describes how social capital can grow and develop
high-value human capital (as in flows entering a tub with water already
in it). In other words, a compensatory relationship may substitute for a
lack of knowledge, skills, or abilities in the same domain. In contrast, an
enhancing relationship may exist through social capital flows from
complementary domains. For example, developing a relationship with
and learning from a regulatory expert who understands local laws en-
hances the knowledge of an individual who has expertise in the MNE’s
core product offering and capabilities. In similar fashion, social capital
inflows from individuals working in strategy, regulatory affairs, or
operations will enhance an individual’s work in finance or accounting.
The resulting enhanced human capital will increase an individual’s
personal performance as well as contribution to the firm.
Proposition 2. Social capital can enhance human capital, such that
individuals with high-value human capital and strong social capital
inflows will outperform individuals with high-value human capital and
weak social capital inflows.
B. Crane, C.J. Hartwell
2.7. Multiplicative (social capital outflows and high human capital)
The idea of a multiplicative effect was identified by Alchian and
Demsetz (1972), who argued that resources that are combined might
result in output that is greater than the sum of each part. Recently,
Ployhart et al. (2014) argued that “interaction complementarities”
allow combined resources to produce improved outcomes compared to
two resources applied separately. For example, the output of a team
consisting of five members cannot be calculated by adding the knowl-
edge, skills, and abilities of all its individuals. It may be more appro-
priate to calculate the output of the team through a multiplier or an
additional factor. In the following section, we describe how social ca-
pital can have a multiplicative effect on human capital.
Employees that possess valuable human capital can provide unique
knowledge and expertise to an organization and play an instrumental
role in its success. These individuals are critical in certain types of or-
ganizations (e.g., professional services) where most of the organiza-
tion’s knowledge is embedded within the employees (Engeström,
Brown, Engeström, & Koistinen, 1990; Starbuck, 1992). Leveraging
these knowledge assets and replicating them throughout other units can
be a key component of the firm’s strategy (Winter ö Szulanski, 2001).
However, due to the tacit nature of knowledge, search costs, and the
constraints of contextualized learning (Kogut ö Zander, 1992;
Szulanski, 2000), knowledge and resources that are embedded in one
individual may not easily transfer throughout the organization.
Learning complex routines and information can require face-to-face
interactions (Lane ö Lubatkin, 1998), and even when codified sources of
knowledge are appropriate and available, people prefer to turn to other
people for information. This tendency, coupled with the challenges of
knowledge transfer, can limit an organization’s ability to develop and
exploit its core competencies.
An understanding of the interaction between social and human ca-
pital may elucidate how firms can alleviate the constraint of resource
diffusion. Valuable human capital can represent a resource stock, and
the social capital flows can act as conduits for sharing these valuable
resources throughout an organization. Returning to the bathtub ana-
logy, the water from one individual’s tub flows out to the tubs of other
members of the organization through the individual’s social network.
When expatriates develop richer, more trusting relationships across
borders, this will “create more opportunities for knowledge sharing,
and have a multiplying effect by spreading ties more effectively across
new units” (Farndale et al., 2010, p. 165).
When the value of individual human capital is high and social ca-
pital flows are weighted outward to other employees, the expertise of
that individual can be transferred throughout his or her individual so-
cial network across an MNE and can have a positive impact on others
within the organization. In a market-based view of knowledge, con-
tingent on the value of the resource being transferred, knowledge may
be amplified beyond the social network of the individual, influencing
others in the organization by virtue of an extended social network.
Through these extended networks, individuals that receive valuable
information from an expert are likely to share that information, as
appropriate, with others in their social networks. In this case, the im-
pact of an expert’s human capital is multiplied as it cascades throughout
the organization. If the recipients contextualize and appropriately apply
the transmitted knowledge, it can have a positive impact on their per-
formance. This interaction effect can be a significant benefit to orga-
nizations that understand how to structure and harness a synergistic
combination of resources, and may be especially desirable in the con-
text of valuable and finite human capital holders (i.e., stars, experts,
gurus).
The highest-performing employees create disproportionate value for
the firm (Barney, 1991; Lepak ö Snell, 1999). For example, in profes-
sional services firms, top performers are responsible for a significant
portion of the firm’s revenues and constitute the firm’s core knowledge
assets (Eccles ö Crane, 1988). In another study Zucker, Darby, and
86
Journal of World Business 54 (2019) 82–92
Armstrong, (1998) found that top performers in the biotech industry
published 22 times the number of articles as average performers. This is
consistent with research by Groysberg (2010), who found evidence of
disproportionate contributions of top performers to company perfor-
mance among computer programmers, inventors, and employees in
other complex jobs. While every job contributes in some way to the
function of an organization, relatively few employees account for
above-average firm performance (Boudreau ö Ramstad, 2007). As a
result, we theorize that a multiplicative effect will have positive con-
sequences for firm performance.
Proposition 3. Social capital outflows across an MNE can multiply the
value of a star’s human capital, increasing firm performance.
2.8. Suppressing (social capital outflows and low human capital)
Thus far, we have addressed the ways in which social capital can
positively interact with human capital. However, scholars have argued
that interactions among resources can also be negative in nature (Ennen
ö Richter, 2010; Ployhart et al., 2014). A suppressing relationship oc-
curs when the presence of one resource reduces the value of another
(Amit ö Schoemaker, 1993). Indeed, scholars are concerned with the
dark side of social capital and the negative impact that it may have on
organizations (Pretty, 2003). We make the case that social capital can
suppress, or diminish, the value of human capital.
Experts with high-value human capital face unique challenges in
maintaining cutting-edge knowledge and preserving valuable human
capital. Knowledge is temporal and is subject to depreciation and loss
(Boone, Ganeshan, ö Hicks, 2008; Darr, Argote, ö Epple, 1995). This is
because what may be cutting-edge knowledge today may not be so
tomorrow. Lepak and Snell (1999) argue that valuable human capital
can be appropriated over time, making it more generic and less valu-
able. The pace of technology, innovation, and change requires that
knowledge be constantly updated and replenished. Expertise also im-
plies a degree of specialization that can reduce versatility, limit flex-
ibility, and act as a blinder to relevant opportunities and learning. Some
experts are resistant to new ideas because disruptive ideas can threaten
their status. Thus, some experts have much to lose from social and
technological changes.
Due to their network centrality, experts are likely to receive an
abundance of requests and questions (Oldroyd ö Morris, 2012). In-
formation-processing theory helps us understand how social capital can
suppress human capital. Due to cognitive constraints, individuals can
reach a point where they are not able to process more information.
Beyond this point, additional requests can prove to be a liability (Eppler
ö Mengis, 2004), significantly constraining individual performance
(Chewning ö Harrell, 1990). Experts may also become bottlenecks in
the organization (Cross ö Parker, 2004) or attend to building relation-
ships at the expense of building skills and knowledge (DeLong, DeLong,
Gabarro, ö Lees, 2007). Thus, overburdened experts are likely to de-
crease in individual performance, in turn decreasing the performance of
the firm.
Social capital flows can represent an additional challenge for expert
employees in maintaining and refreshing knowledge. When individuals
are sought out for their expertise as providers, their social capital flows
becomes weighted outward. Due to their focus on providing knowledge
and information to others, these experts may lose the time and ability to
seek out new knowledge to maintain their individual human capital.
Starbuck (1992) asserts that when the number of individuals seeking to
interact with an expert increases, the expert’s individual performance
may decrease, and when an organization forces individuals with rare
skills to spend more time coordinating, communicating, and observing
bureaucratic routines, it can lessen the value of the individual’s human
capital. With finite time and resources, the outflows of social capital
may limit the potential inflows of social capital that initially helped to
create unique and valuable human capital. For example, an expert at
B. Crane, C.J. Hartwell
HQ may be flooded with requests from several sites, jeopardizing his or
her ability to keep crucial expertise up to date. These requests may limit
the expert’s ability to create new ties at other operational sites that
could provide additional information and resources. In our bathtub
analogy, more water is flowing out of the tub than is flowing into it. As
a result, due to social capital outflows, the value of human capital may
decrease over time.
Proposition 4. With limited social capital inflows, high social capital
outflows across an MNE can suppress the value of a star’s human capital,
decreasing firm performance.
In the preceding propositions, we describe four ways in which
human and social capital can interact, and highlight the beneficial and
sometimes negative consequences of these interactions for the firm. We
propose that interaction between human capital stocks and social ca-
pital flows can be substitutive, enhancing, multiplicative, and sup-
pressing. These interactions, and the conditions under which these in-
teractions are likely to occur, suggest that the relationship between
human and social capital is dynamic and can evolve.
2.9. The dynamic life cycle of managing talent
We now propose a dynamic model that may reflect the life cycle of a
position or career within an MNE (see Fig. 2). This is consistent with the
idea of dynamic capabilities, where specific routines can modify social
and human capital in ways that promote individual renewal and firm
success (Collings, 2014; Teece, Pisano, ö Shuen, 1997). Although the
explicit assumption of dynamic capabilities is change, the literature is
largely silent on how these intangible assets change over time.
We leverage life cycle theories in organizations (Haire, 1959;
Kochan ö Barocci, 1985) and human development (Bogin, 1999;
Tanner, 1990) that elaborate on the natural cycle of growth, maturity,
and decline. Although individuals occupy a position in our model at a
moment in time, they are likely to move from one quadrant to another
throughout the tenure of their position or throughout their career. For
example, as others have suggested (Carstensen, 1991), individuals’
preferences for their network varies over time. We assert that one po-
sition in this framework may naturally lead to an adjacent position or
configuration of human and social capital, and that some employees
may experience each quadrant as they progress within an organization
or a career.
Fig. 2. Evolutionary Cycle of Talent.
87
Journal of World Business 54 (2019) 82–92
The career literature offers insight into the development of an in-
dividual’s career path, and such career development is directly applic-
able to our model of human and social capital interactions. Super
(1957, 1980) and Savickas (2002) outline four major stages of adult
career development. The first stage is exploration, in which individuals
gain information about themselves and about potential occupations and
organizations in order to assess their suitability for different vocations
and ultimately choose a long-term career path. The second stage is es-
tablishment, in which the individual stabilizes into a chosen career path,
and possibly workplace, and this career becomes more central to the
individual’s self-identity. Third is the management stage, wherein an
individual’s focus turns to sustaining the established career and
managing continued growth, typically through updating current
knowledge and innovating to overcome new challenges presented by
changing work (e.g., technology, global competition). The final career
stage is disengagement, in which individual learning and career growth
decelerate and the individual begins to withdraw emotionally and/or
physically from the career.
These career development stages are often viewed as occurring in a
linear sequence over the space of a career, such that a young adult
begins with exploration (ages 14–24), moves to establishment (ages
25–44), management (ages 45–64), and ends with disengagement (age
65 and older). However, more-recent conceptualizations recognize that
individuals may cycle through phases multiple times within a career
(Savickas, 2002). For example, an individual, through exploration, may
study to be an accountant and take an accounting job upon graduation.
During the establishment phase, however, the individual may come to
the realization that accounting is not a good career fit, thus skipping the
management phase, moving quickly through a disengagement phase,
and cycling back to the exploration phase to seek a new career path.
Specific to an MNE, an employee may join an organization, explore
various career paths within the organization, and establish a chosen
path that includes multiple job rotations with sites in multiple coun-
tries. However, if these rotations vary widely in expectations, culture,
communication, or resources, it may be difficult for the individual to
manage sustainable career growth, leading to frustration and potential
disengagement. The following paragraphs and propositions in this
section relate to how the human and social capital interactions pro-
posed earlier coincide with progression through these various career
stages.
Initially, when an employee enters a new career path or
B. Crane, C.J. Hartwell Journal of World Business 54 (2019) 82–92

organization, he or she is in the exploration stage, with task knowledge

Beware of “experts” who have not kept their

encouraged throughout onboarding, even for

Ensure that skills trainings are available and
KSAs up to date. Assess job-related KSAs in

them and that encourage them to develop

and skills – components of human capital – that are relatively low.

Place employees on teams that challenge

skills, but also facilitate continuous learning to employees, even experts, to ensure that

new skills and update antiquated KSAs.

and fostering effective communication).

Using the evolutionary approach, this phase is the birth phase.

constituent skill development occurs.

Monitor the skill development of all
addition to network characteristics.
Individuals with low human capital are novices and will turn to others
to learn how to perform effectively. In other words, these employees
will leverage a social network to compensate for their lack of expertise
or experience in their chosen domain (lower left quadrant of Fig. 2).
Suppressing (Atrophy)

high-level employees. Inflows of social capital are vital to the development of the newcomer’s
human capital. Over time, employees learn the requirements of the
career or position and become more proficient in job duties and do-
Incorporate participation in social and human capital development (both as learner and as teacher) into reward structures, performance evaluation, and promotional criteria.
mains of expertise (lower right quadrant of Fig. 2). Thus, they transition
out of the exploration career stage, into the establishment (or growth)
stage. In this phase, they are less dependent on others to compensate for

Emphasize the high value placed on developing both human and social capital throughout the organization (e.g., recognition programs, continuous improvement,
what they lack, and instead a tendency toward inflows of social capital
Utilize experts to share knowledge and skills, as

tackle broad organizational problems and opportunities. foster further knowledge and skill development.
Place experts on teams where they can mentor
training facilitators, mentors, expatriates, etc.
knowledge and skills, mentoring others, and

stimulates accelerated growth. Here, individuals begin to distinguish

Encourage experts to share knowledge and

and coach others, as well other teams that

Encourage the sharing of information throughout the organization, including formal codification of knowledge and direct interpersonal communication.
themselves and develop a reputation within the organization. Their ties
keep knowledge and skills up to date.
demonstrated track record of sharing
Recruit and select employees with a

to others in complementary domains throughout an MNE help them to

see important issues and collaborate to address them, thus transitioning
to the maturity career stage. As reputation grows, so do requests for
assistance. As more individuals turn to these experts for advice and
Multiplicative (Expert)

information, social capital flows will recalibrate to reflect more out-

continuous learning.

flows (upper right quadrant of Fig. 2). The increase in requests can be
overwhelming and stifle their ability to manage their network effec-
tively. With time, the balancing and then shifting of social capital flows
from inflows to outflows may curtail the individual’s growth trajectory
and usher in conditions for this maturity, or management, phase.
Next, as social capital outflows replace inflows (upper left quadrant
should focus on relationship-building (e.g., building ties,

that allow employees with various types of expertise to

of Fig. 2), individuals may lose important sources of new knowledge

Foster cross-functional and multinational work groups
questions or group exercises) that measure how well

and innovation. Their expertise has a limited shelf life and without
Utilize assessments (e.g., past-behavioral interview

Develop formal and informal mentoring and training, to encourage and facilitate knowledge-sharing and
applicants apply learning from others. Compare

sufficient sources of renewal and regeneration, individual human ca-

pital may atrophy (the final phase). The strain of demands from social
ties can increase the likelihood of burnout and turnover. Often the most
sought-after employees experience the lowest satisfaction and engage-
applicants’ professional networks.

ment (Cross et al., 2017). As top performers are overwhelmed, the value
of their individual human capital decreases and has a suppressing effect
on organizational human capital. Due to the strain of social capital’s
relationship-building across levels, functions, and countries of the organization.
Enhancing (Proficient)

weighting toward outflows, and the accompanying burnout, suboptimal

Organizational implications of global talent management focusing on human and social capital.

solutions may cascade through their social network and inhibit the
performance of teams and individuals. These are symptoms of the dis-
engagement career stage.
Finally, the individual may return to a compensatory position
within our framework. With expertise waning, the individual may now
rely more heavily on whom they know rather than what they know to
In addition to content-based orientation, socialization
intelligence) may be more important than currently

add value to the organization. These individuals are no longer con-

Place novices on teams where they can learn from
building effective social capital (e.g., emotional

sidered experts, but they understand how to navigate an organization in

Competencies that may signal the potential for

high-performing experienced employees and

order to find needed information. Social capital inflows now compen-

sate for their lack of relevant human capital (lower left quadrant).
These individuals cease to be knowledge experts and shift their focus to
develop their own human capital.

playing the role of enabler and facilitator, delegating and deferring to

knowledge experts in the organization.
Compensatory (Novice)

Proposition 5. During the novice stage, social capital inflows will

mentoring, cohorts).

compensate for an employee’s low-value human capital.

Proposition 6. During the growth stage, social capital inflows will
held KSAs.

enhance an employee’s high-value human capital.

Proposition 7. During the maturity stage, social capital outflows will
multiply a star’s valuable human capital.
Proposition 8. During the atrophy stage, social capital outflows will
Training & Development
Recruitment & Selection

diminish the value of a star’s human capital.

Organizational Culture
Knowledge Sharing
Management
Performance
Compensation &
Socialization

3. Implications for GTM

Teamwork
Table 1

This model, based on a life cycle view of GTM that focuses on

human and social capital, presents a number of important

88
B. Crane, C.J. Hartwell
organizational implications, some of which may run against conven-
tional wisdom. A summary is found in Table 1. We argue that organi-
zations need to take a more holistic approach, considering the stage-
specific needs of talent and the interactions between human capital and
social capital flows at each stage. The relative balance of social capital
outflows versus inflows can have consequences for the development
and impact of human capital. Our framework also suggests the need for
more stage-specific strategies for selecting and managing talent across
an enterprise. While conceptualizing talent as human or social capital
has its merits, the interaction between social and human capital yields
further important insights for GTM.
3.1. Recruitment & selection
We begin with recruiting and selection, which often focus on com-
petencies and skills that translate into one’s ability to perform a job
upon hire. Our model suggests that, particularly for entry-level posi-
tions, organizations should consider recruiting and selecting candidates
with strong interpersonal networks and/or the potential for developing
such, as effectively building social capital will compensate for missing
human capital in the short term while also accelerating the develop-
ment of human capital in the long term. While individual human capital
(knowledge, skills, and abilities) are typical selection criteria, an in-
dividual’s social network, particularly across borders and cultures, may
be a better indicator of successful short-term development and long-
term success. In part, this is because the assessment of a potential hire’s
current network may serve as a predictor of the candidate’s ability to
grow their network within an MNE. Tools like LinkedIn can provide
some insight into the strength of a candidate’s network, as can carefully
crafted interview questions and reference checks. More research is
needed to identify valid measures of one’s social network, to under-
stand the differential effects of the strength of one’s network on new-
comer performance, and to develop predictors of one’s propensity to
establish networks across borders and cultures.
3.2. Socialization
The socialization of new employees generally focuses on job-related
content (e.g., orientation, job training), though more comprehensive
models suggest the higher-order need of developing relationships as
well (e.g., Bauer, 2010). Our model suggests that a focus on developing
relationships is also a critical component of orienting new employees
(Cable ö Parsons, 2001; Jones, 1986). Whereas training on content can
yield limited retention of information, training on how to be a seeker
and increasing social capital inflows can help employees develop an
enduring source of growth and development.
3.3. Training & development
Training on the importance of developing strong social capital is
necessary but insufficient. Following orientation and short training
programs, companies normally ask employees to focus on their in-
dividual contribution and performance. Working in an individual
function as a newcomer can make it difficult to build relationships
across an organization that enable the development of social capital.
Organizations should consider ways to encourage new employees to
connect with others in their same domain. The creation of employee
cohorts that meet regularly can help new employees connect to others
who have similar needs and experiences. Although such programs en-
tail an expense, cohorts that first meet at an MNE’s HQ can increase a
sense of belonging and develop cohort members’ ties to employees
across units. When meeting with individuals across the organization,
newcomers should be coached to encourage inflows by asking questions
about other employees’ roles, responsibilities, and challenges. Beyond
initial orientation, organizations should develop formal or informal
mentoring programs, social gatherings, and other relationship-building
89
Journal of World Business 54 (2019) 82–92
activities that encourage interaction among employees at different le-
vels in the organization and across different geographical units. In order
to develop social capital and promote fluid operations and coordination
across business sites, it is imperative that the company facilitate op-
portunities for employees throughout the organization to meet and
work with one another.
3.4. Compensation and performance management
When high-potential employees underperform, managers tend to
look for a cause in the context of motivation, fit, or skill set. As per-
taining to performance management, our framework highlights another
explanatory mechanism and the importance of measuring and re-
warding employees’ efforts and results related to building social capital,
as appropriate to their stage of development. Our framework highlights
the importance of another explanatory mechanism and highlights the
importance of measuring and rewarding the efforts and results relating
to building social capital – dependent on the employee’s stage of de-
velopment. In particular, at the expert stage, organizations can en-
courage development of human and social capital internally by facil-
itating and encouraging cross-pollination of thoughts and ideas in
departments and functions throughout the organization (e.g., awards
for developing ideas or process improvements that span various func-
tions) and across business units in different countries (e.g., expatriate
assignments). Other opportunities to manage experts might include
facilitating and encouraging outside developmental opportunities and
collaborations within complementary domains of expertise (e.g., con-
ferences, workshops, or professional association membership). These
new social ties can help experts refresh and enhance their knowledge.
MNEs can incorporate participation in these internal and external social
capital exercises into reward structures, performance evaluations, or
promotion criteria.
While protecting expert employees from poaching may be a natural
instinct and part of a retention plan (Gardner, Munyon, Hom, ö
Griffeth, 2018), these GTM tactics might unwittingly induce atrophy.
Other organizations, conferences, and industry forums – particularly in
complementary domains – can be a vital mechanism for keeping experts
renewed and at the top of their game, while also introducing new
knowledge to the organization (Inkpen ö Tsang, 2005). This is parti-
cularly important in the case of experts with few internal peers at the
same level or doing the same work. Developing and maintaining social
ties with peers outside the organization can bring human capital to
individuals that they cannot gain within the organization itself (Burt,
1997). Thus, MNEs should encourage and provide resources for parti-
cipation in these expert-status-sustaining activities. The experts also
need encouragement and support to say “no” to invitations to share
expertise when these opportunities create undue strain on their own
growth ability. In order to enable their own continued contribution and
development, employees may need to pare back some of their outflows-
focused social ties or distance themselves or disconnect from them. At a
minimum, coaching can help these employees manage their commu-
nication practices and technology use to reduce the potential for
burnout.
3.5. Teamwork
Another area to consider entails the development of teams within
the organization and the facilitation of effective teamwork. One im-
plication of our model is that teams made up of novice, proficient, and
expert employees will better propagate human capital and establish
stronger social capital networks across employee levels. In the case of
novices, well-designed teams enable them to learn from the experts and
to develop their own human capital. For the experts, this provides an
opportunity to mentor and coach others, sharing their own human ca-
pital and further developing their social capital. It may also provide an
opportunity for experts of an older cohort (but novices to new
B. Crane, C.J. Hartwell
technology) to gain new knowledge and skills from proficient em-
ployees of a younger cohort that are natives of newer technology.
A second implication relating to teamwork is that the creation of
cross-functional or multinational work groups will allow employees
with a diverse set of skills to come together and share their personal
human capital with each other, thus increasing the human capital of the
team through the exercise of social capital and disseminating human
capital throughout the organization. In doing so, these teams can utilize
their cumulative human capital to tackle broad organizational problems
and opportunities adeptly while also generating broader buy-in, which
facilitates organizational growth and development (Brass,
Galaskiewicz, Greve, ö Tsai, 2004; Keller, 2001). While cross-functional
or multinational teams may increase conflict within the team, open,
collaborative communication can mitigate such negative effects
(Lovelace, Shapiro, ö Weingart, 2001). Similarly, maintaining social-
capital ties between groups within an organization is likely to increase
group performance and facilitate the transfer of human capital between
such groups (Hansen, 1999; Oh, Chung, ö Labianca, 2004).
3.6. Knowledge sharing
Our conceptualization of GTM relies upon knowledge sharing
within an organization, or the utilization of social capital to increase
the organization’s human capital. In addition to knowledge sharing
related to teamwork (as noted above), our view of GTM also highlights
the importance of effective interpersonal communication and re-
lationships throughout an MNE in order to facilitate knowledge transfer
between employees in multiple countries. Whereas the formal codifi-
cation of knowledge is widely considered important practice for
knowledge transfer and management, face-to-face communication and
personal connection are needed to build employees’ informal social
networks. Such personal interaction is done using a richer commu-
nication medium better suited for sharing complex knowledge and
ideas (Szulanski, 2000) and enacting and sharing soft skills such as
persuasion (Roghanizad ö Bohns, 2017).
3.7. Organizational culture
Finally, the organizational culture should place a high value on
developing both human and social capital throughout the organization,
such as through formal employee recognition programs, modeling
continuous improvement, fostering open communication within the
organization (upward, downward, and horizontal), expatriate assign-
ments, and even encouraging communication with entities outside of
the organization.
3.8. Contribution to careers
Our research also builds upon and contributes to the careers lit-
erature. This literature highlights the importance of social capital (e.g.,
peer relationships, mentorship) for successful career development
(Gibson, 2003; Kram ö Isabella, 1985; Peluchette ö Jeanquart, 2000;
Zhang, Liu, Loi, Lau, ö Ngo, 2010), but the rationale tends to focus on
personal support, professional support, or access to resources and in-
formation. Little is described regarding how this social capital can in-
fluence the development of an individual’s human capital. Similar to
the GTM literature, our research adds to the careers literature by ex-
plaining the various forms that the interaction between human and
social capital can take in the process of a career life cycle.
3.9. Future research
Our model raises important questions for future research. Given the
centripetal forces in the recurring career life cycle (See Fig. 2), what
other implications exist for managing the interaction of social and
human capital in each of these quadrants? At the expert stage, can
90
Journal of World Business 54 (2019) 82–92
individuals return to a state approaching an equilibrium of flows, and
what can organizations do to help facilitate this change? When human-
capital value is high, how does the organization set up structures, sys-
tems, and incentives to cascade the knowledge of a star employee and
more fully realize a multiplicative effect? Future research is also needed
to understand the qualities of human capital that develop effective
networks across borders and cultures. It is clear that quality relation-
ships enhance the development of social capital. What is less clear is
how these relationships are developed and sustained, particularly in an
MNE.
Still other researchers have focused on complementary relationships
at both higher and lower levels of analysis (Ennen ö Richter, 2010).
These studies explore how phenomena at the individual level – such as
experience, knowledge, and intelligence – interact with phenomena at a
higher level – such as structure, process, and environment. While this
research is promising, scholars have called for more work to understand
the interactions and relationships between variables at multiple units of
analysis and how varying combinations can produce varying outcomes,
particularly with respect to human capital (Ployhart et al., 2014). Fu-
ture work could further define the capital necessary to operate within
an MNE (e.g., political capital, cultural capital) and how these forms of
capital interact with social and human capital.
4. Conclusion
An MNE’s success largely depends on its ability to transfer knowl-
edge and capabilities across multiple units. The interaction between
social and human capital influences employee development and
knowledge transfer in critical ways. Yet, there is a general lack of un-
derstanding of how relationships and social capital should influence the
practice of GTM. Our model contributes to the growing interest in GTM
by examining how talent develops over time and how changes in talent
are a function of the interaction between human and social capital. As a
consequence, our work suggests that firms need to “look inward” to
evaluate, develop, and deploy human resources into diverse teams, with
a keen eye on resources that can be instrumental in generating and
integrating new knowledge. Traditional approaches to evaluating
human and social capital as firm-specific resources have largely ignored
how these resources are nested in, and configured with, one another.
Extant theory has also failed to address how the subsequent outcomes
of these interactions relate to performance. By exploring social and
human capital and their relationship, our theoretical framework helps
elucidate how various interactions, configurations, and relationships
should inform and improve the practice of GTM. Our work suggests that
GTM requires encouraging the right human and social capital config-
uration at the right time. By understanding these interactions, firms can
employ GTM practices that develop desired bundles of social and
human capital through selection and development, improve individual
and team performance, facilitate organizational learning across bor-
ders, and thereby help create sustainable competitive advantage.
References
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The
Academy of Management Review, 27, 17–40. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2002.
5922314.
Al Ariss, A., Cascio, W. F., & Paauwe, J. (2014). Talent management: Current theories and
future research directions. Journal of World Business, 49, 173–179. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.001.
Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic or-
ganization. The American Economic Review, 62, 777–795.
Allen, T. J. (1970). Communication networks in R & D laboratories. R&D Management, 1,
14–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1970.tb01193.x.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic
Management Journal, 14, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140105.
Argote, L., & Ren, Y. (2012). Transactive memory systems: A microfoundation of dynamic
capabilities. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1375–1382. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-6486.2012.01077.x.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
B. Crane, C.J. Hartwell
Management, 17, 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108.
Barney, J. B., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Wright, M. (2011). The future of resource-based
theory: revitalization or decline? Journal of Management, 37, 1299–1315.
Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human
resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37, 31–46.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199821)37:1<31::AID-HRM4>3.0.
CO;2-W.
Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2000). Beyond social capital: How social skills can en-
hance entrepreneurs’ success. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 14, 106–116.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.2000.2909843.
Bauer, T. N. (2010). Onboarding new employees: Maximizing success. SHRM foundation's
effective practice guideline series. Alexandria, VA: SHRM. http://www.shrm.org/.
Black, J. A., & Boal, K. B. (1994). Strategic resources: Traits, configurations and paths to
sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 131–148.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250151009.
Bogin, B. (1999). Patterns of human growth, Vol. 23. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Boone, T., Ganeshan, R., & Hicks, R. L. (2008). Learning and knowledge depreciation in
professional services. Management Science, 54, 1231–1236. https://doi.org/10.1287/
mnsc.1070.0849.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2007). Beyond HR: The new science of human capital.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14,
723–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901885024002001.
Bozkurt, Ö., & Mohr, A. T. (2011). Forms of cross‐border mobility and social capital in
multinational enterprises. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(2), 138–155.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00147.x.
Brass, D. J. (1995). A social network perspective on human resources management.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 39–79. https://doi.org/
10.2307/2392937.
Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks
and organizations: A multilevel perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 47,
795–817. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159624.
Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly,
42, 339–365. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393923.
Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit.
Personnel Psychology, 54, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.
tb00083.x.
Caligiuri, P. (2006). Developing global leaders. Human Resource Management Review, 16,
219–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.009.
Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2009). Predicting effectiveness in global leadership activities.
Journal of World Business, 44(3), 336–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2008.11.
005.
Carstensen, L. L. (1991). Selectivity theory: Social activity in life-span context. In K. W.
Schale (Vol. Ed.), Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics: Vol. 11, (pp. 195–217).
New York: Springer.
Chewning, E. G., Jr., & Harrell, A. M. (1990). The effect of information load on decision
makers’ cue utilization levels and decision quality in a financial distress decision task.
Accounting Organizations and Society, 15, 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-
3682(90)90033-Q.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (2000). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on
learning and innovation. In R. L. CrossJr., & S. B. Israelit (Eds.). Strategic learning in a
knowledge economy (pp. 39–67). . https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7223-8.
50005-8.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American
Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943.
Collings, D. G. (2014). Integrating global mobility and global talent management:
Exploring the challenges and strategic opportunities. Journal of World Business, 49,
253–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.009.
Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and research
agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.hrmr.2009.04.001.
Collings, D. G., Mellahi, K., & Cascio, W. (2018). Global talent management and perfor-
mance in multinational enterprises: A multilevel perspective. Journal of Management.
Collings, D. G., & Scullion, H. (2008). Resourcing international assignees. In M. Dickman,
C. Brewster, & P. Sparrow (Eds.). International human resource management: A
European perspective (pp. 87–106). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Collings, D. G., Scullion, H., & Dowling, P. J. (2009). Global Staffing: A review and
thematic research agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
20(6), 1253–1272. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190902909806.
Crook, T. R., Todd, S. Y., Combs, J. G., Woehr, D. J., & Ketchen, D. J., Jr (2011). Does
human capital matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital
and firm performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 443. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0022147.
Crosier, B. S., Webster, G. D., & Dillon, H. M. (2012). Wired to connect: Evolutionary
psychology and social networks. Review of General Psychology, 16, 230. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0027919.
Cross, R., Opie, T., Pryor, G., & Rollag, K. (2017). Connect and adapt: How network
development and transformation improve retention and engagement in employees’
first five years. Organizational Dynamics, 47, 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2017.08.003.
Cross, R. L., & Parker, A. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how
work really gets done in organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Cross, R., & Thomas, R. J. (2008). How top talent uses networks and where rising stars get
trapped. Organizational Dynamics, 37, 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.
2008.02.001.
91
Journal of World Business 54 (2019) 82–92
Cummings, J. N., & Cross, R. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and their
consequences for performance. Social Networks, 25, 197–210. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0378-8733(02)00049-7.
Darr, E. D., Argote, L., & Epple, D. (1995). The acquisition, transfer, and depreciation of
knowledge in service organizations: Productivity in franchises. Management Science,
41, 1750–1762. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.41.11.1750.
Delery, J. E. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: Implications
for research. Human Resource Management Review, 8, 289–309. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S1053-4822(98)90006-7.
DeLong, T., DeLong, T. J., Gabarro, J. J., & Lees, R. (2007). When professionals have to
lead: A new model for high performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive
advantage. Management Science, 35, 1504–1511. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.
12.1504.
Dowling, P., Festing, M., & Engle, A. D. (2008). International human resource management:
Managing people in a multinational context. London, UK: Thomas Learning.
Dries, N. (2013). The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda.
Human Resource Management Review, 23, 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.
2013.05.001.
Eccles, R. G., & Crane, D. B. (1988). Doing deals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Engeström, Y., Brown, K., Engeström, R., & Koistinen, K. (1990). Organizational forget-
ting: An activity-theoretical perspective. In D. Middleton, & D. Edwards (Eds.).
Inquiries in social construction: Collective remembering (pp. 139–168). Thousand Oaks,
CA, US: Sage.
Ennen, E., & Richter, A. (2010). The whole is more than the sum of its parts – Or is it? A
review of the empirical literature on complementarities in organizations. Journal of
Management, 36, 207–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309350083.
Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of
literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related dis-
ciplines. The Information Society, 20, 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01972240490507974.
Farndale, E., Scullion, H., & Sparrow, P. (2010). The role of the corporate HR function in
global talent management. Journal of World Business, 45, 161–168. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.012.
Festing, M., & Schäfer, L. (2014). Generational challenges to talent management: A fra-
mework for talent retention based on the psychological-contract perspective. Journal
of World Business, 49, 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.010.
Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations:
Communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, market pricing. New York: Free
Press.
Flynn, F. J. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and
frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. The Academy of
Management Journal, 46, 539–553. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040648.
Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., Amanatullah, E. T., & Ames, D. R. (2006). Helping one’s way
to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps
whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1123–1137. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1123.
Galbraith, J. K. (1989). The exchange of favors in the market for commitments. The spread of
economic ideas127–140 Cambridge.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & González-Cruz, T. F. (2013). What is the meaning of’
talent’ in the world of work? Human Resource Management Review, 23, 290–300.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.002.
Gardner, T. M., Munyon, T. P., Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2018). When territoriality
meets agency: An examination of employee guarding as a territorial strategy. 2018
Journal of Management, 44, 2580–2610. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206316642272.
Gibson, D. E. (2003). Developing the professional self-concept: Role model construals in
early, middle, and late career stages. Organizational Science, 14, 591–610. https://doi.
org/10.1287/orsc.14.5.591.16767.
Goffman, E. (1972). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Penguin.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology,
78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469.
Grant, A. (2013). Give and take: A revolutionary approach to success. New York: Penguin.
Groysberg, B. (2010). Chasing stars: The myth of talent and the portability of performance.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational cor-
porations. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 473–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/
(SICI)1097-0266(200004)21:4<473::AID-SMJ84>3.0.CO;2-I.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing
knowledge across organizational subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,
82–111. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667032.
Haire, M. E. (1959). Modern organization theory. Oxford: Wiley.
Harrison, J. S., Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland, R. D. (2001). Resource com-
plementarity in business combinations: Extending the logic to organizational alli-
ances. Journal of Management, 27, 679–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/
014920630102700605.
Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. (2001). Direct and moderating effects
of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A re-
source-based perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 44, 13–28. https://
doi.org/10.2307/3069334.
Hitt, M. A., & Duane, R. (2002). The essence of strategic leadership: Managing human and
social capital. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 3–14. https://doi.org/
10.1177/107179190200900101.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1998). Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 659–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.
B. Crane, C.J. Hartwell
74.3.659.
Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer.
Academy of Management Review, 30, 146–165. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2005.
15281445.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279. https://doi.org/10.
2307/256188.
Katz, R., & Tushman, M. (1981). An investigation into the managerial roles and career
paths of gatekeepers and project supervisors in a major R & D facility. R&D
Management, 11, 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1981.tb00458.x.
Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product de-
velopment: Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 44, 547–555. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069369.
Knott, A. M. (2003). The organizational routines factor market paradox. Strategic
Management Journal, 24, 929–943. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.315.
Kochan, T. A., & Barocci, T. A. (1985). Human resource management and industrial relations:
Text, readings, and cases. Boston: Little Brown.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the
replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1287/
orsc.3.3.383.
Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2003). Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-
macro model of its formation. Academy of Management Review, 28, 297–317. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.9416356.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2006). The leadership challenge, Vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships
in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 110–132. https://doi.
org/10.5465/256064.
Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational
learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)
1097-0266(199805)19:5<461::AID-SMJ953>3.0.CO;2-L.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of
human capital allocation and development. The Academy of Management Review, 24,
31–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.1580439.
Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating
role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50, 1477–1490.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1030.0136.
Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human
Resource Management Review, 16, 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.
001.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new
product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779–793. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3069415.
Mäkelä, K. (2007). Knowledge sharing through expatriate relationships: A social capital
perspective. International Studies of Management & Organization, 37, 108–125. https://
doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825370305.
Mäkelä, K., Björkman, I., & Ehrnrooth, M. (2009). MNC subsidiary staffing architecture:
Building human and social capital within the organisation. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 20, 1273–1290. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09585190902909814.
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(2), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.015.
Mendenhall, M. E., Reiche, B. S., Bird, A., & Osland, J. S. (2012). Defining the “global” in
global leadership. Journal of World Business, 47, 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jwb.2012.01.003.
Meyer, J. P., Hecht, T. D., Gill, H., & Toplonytsky, L. (2010). Person–Organization (cul-
ture) fit and employee commitment under conditions of organizational change: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 458–473. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jvb.2010.01.001.
Meyers, C. M., & van Woerkom, M. (2014). The influence of underlying philosophies on
talent management: Theory, implications for practice, and research agenda. Journal
of World Business, 49, 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.003.
Morris, S., Snell, S., & Björkman, I. (2016). An architectural framework for global talent
management. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(6), 723–747. https://doi.
org/10.1057/s41267-017-0103-y.
Murphy, M. A. (2012). Hiring for attitude: A revolutionary approach to recruiting and selecting
people with both tremendous skills and superb attitude. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, J. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 32, 242–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/
259373.
Nijs, S., Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & Sels, L. (2014). A multidisciplinary review into
the definition, operationalization, and measurement of talent. Journal of World
Business, 49, 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002.
Oh, H., Chung, M., & Labianca, G. (2004). Group social capital and group efectiveness:
The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 860–875.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20159627.
Oldroyd, J. B., & Morris, S. S. (2012). Catching falling stars: A human resource response to
social capital’s detrimental effect of information overload on star employees.
Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 396–418. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.
0403.
Peluchette, J. V., & Jeanquart, S. (2000). Professionals’ use of different mentor sources at
various career stages: Implications for career success. The Journal of Social Psychology,
140, 549–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540009600495.
Pfeffer, J. (1996). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the work
92
Journal of World Business 54 (2019) 82–92
force. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Ployhart, R. E., Nyberg, A. J., Reilly, G., & Maltarich, M. A. (2014). Human capital is
dead; long live human capital resources!. Journal of Management, 40, 371–398.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313512152.
Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science,
302(5652), 1912–1914. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1090847.
Reiche, B. S. (2012). Knowledge benefits of social capital upon repatriation: A long-
itudinal study of international assignees. Journal of Management Studies, 49,
1052–1077. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01050.x.
Ren, Y., & Argote, L. (2011). Transactive memory systems 1985–2010: An integrative
framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of
Management Annals, 5, 189–229. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.590300.
Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service
firms. American Sociological Review, 77(6), 999–1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0003122412463213.
Roghanizad, M. M., & Bohns, V. K. (2017). Ask in person: You’re less persuasive than you
think over email. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 223–226. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.10.002.
Savickas, M. (2002). Career construction: A development theory of vocational behavior.
In D. Brown (Ed.). Career choice and development(4th edition). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass pp. 149-205.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to
create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of
Management, 37, 1390–1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385695.
Sonnenberg, M., van Zijderveld, V., & Brinks, M. (2014). The role of talent-perception
incongruence in effective talent management. Journal of World Business, 49, 272–280.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.011.
Starbuck, W. H. (1992). Learning by knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of Management
Studies, 29, 713–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00686.x.
Super, D. (1957). The psychology of careers. New York: Harper.
Super, D. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal o
Vocational Behavior, 16, 282–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(80)90056-1.
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of sticki-
ness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 9–27. https://doi.org/
10.1006/obhd.2000.2884.
Tanner, J. M. (1990). Foetus into man: Physical growth from conception to maturity.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tansley, C. (2011). What do we mean by the term "talent" in talent management?
Industrial and Commercial Training, 43, 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/
00197851111145853.
Tarique, I., & Schuler, R. S. (2010). Global talent management: Literature review, in-
tegrative framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of World Business,
45, 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.019.
Taylor, S. (2007). Creating social capital in MNCs: The international human resource
management challenge. Human Resource Management Journal, 17, 336–354. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2007.00049.x.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic man-
agement. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)
1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z.
Thunnissen, M., Boselie, P., & Fruytier, B. (2013). Talent management and the relevance
of context: Towards a pluralistic approach. Human Resource Management Review, 23,
326–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.004.
Torbiorn, I. (2005). Staffing policies and practices in European MNCs: Strategic sophis-
tication, culture-bound policies or ad-hoc reactivity? In H. Scullion, & M. Linehan
(Eds.). International human Resource management: A critical text (pp. 47–68).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm
networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 464–476. https://doi.org/10.2307/
257085.
Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980). External communication and project performance: An
investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26, 1071–1085.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.26.11.1071.
Wang-Cowham, C. (2011). Developing talent with an integrated knowledge-sharing
mechanism: An exploratory investigation from the Chinese human resource man-
agers’ perspective. Human Resource Development International, 14, 391–407. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.601573.
Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind.
In B. Mullen, & G. R. Goethals (Eds.). Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New
York: Springer.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5,
171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207.
Wernerfelt, B. (2011). Invited editorial: The use of resources in resource acquisition.
Journal of Management, 37, 1369–1373. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206310371693.
Whelan, E., Teigland, R., Donnellan, B., & Golden, W. (2010). How Internet technologies
impact information flows in R&D: Reconsidering the technological gatekeeper. R&D
Management, 40, 400–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00610.x.
Winter, S. G., & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12,
730–743. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.6.730.10084.
Zhang, L., Liu, J., Loi, R., Lau, V. P., & Ngo, H. (2010). Social capital and career outcomes:
A study of Chinese employees. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 21, 1323–1336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.483862.
Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. (1998). Geographically localized knowledge:
spillovers or markets? Economic Inquiry, 36, 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-
7295.1998.tb01696.x.