Do You See What I See The Role of Technology in Talent Identification

17447941, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00037.x by University Of Wollongong University of Wollongong Library, Wiley Online Library on [02/11/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
bs_bs_banner
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources (2012) 50, 421–438 doi:10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00037.x
Do you see what I see? The role of

technology in talent identification
Sharna Wiblen University of Sydney Business School, Australia
Kristine Dery University of Sydney Business School, Australia
David Grant University of Sydney Business School, Australia
This paper applies a social constructivist lens to understand more about the ways in which technology
shapes our understanding of talent management, in particular the processes of talent identification.
Specifically, it examines similarities and differences in the identification of talent across a range of
business units at a large professional services firm. The findings show that while objective evaluations
of talent based on data and information were possible using talent-related technology, managers had
subjective and widely different understandings of what constituted talent at the organisation and how
to go about identifying it. These different understandings, based on organisational context, personal
attitudes, behaviours and past experiences, determined the ways in which the technology and the
information it yielded was used. We conclude that the full potential of the talent-related technology
and the talent identification processes were unrealised. We discuss the implications of these findings
for HR and the management of talent more generally.
Keywords: human resources, information technology, social construction of technology, talent

identification, talent management
Key points
1 A critical challenge for management is to create practices that support the identifi-
cation of talent in ways that achieve the best possible outcomes for the organisation.
2 Depending on organisational context and the technological acumen of the manager,
the use of technology to provide access to accurate data, metrics and analytical tools
varies widely in the identification of talent.
3 Talent analytics, metrics and technology are capabilities that HR practitioners need to
develop in order to enhance their strategic contribution to the organisation.
The ‘war for talent’, talent shortages and changes in other demographic patterns has encour-
aged organisations to take a more strategic approach to the management of talent. Indeed,
Correspondence: Ms Sharna Wiblen, Research Associate, Work and Organisational Studies, Uni-
versity of Sydney Business School, Room 203, Institute Building H03, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia;
e-mail: sharna.wiblen@sydney.edu.au
Accepted for publication 6 February 2012.
© 2012 Australian Human Resources Institute

17447941, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00037.x by University Of Wollongong University of Wollongong Library, Wiley Online Library on [02/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50
the importance now attached to managing talent is underscored by the results of a recent
survey of executives from 109 different countries published by the Boston Consulting
Group and the World Federation of People Management Associations. The study found that
identifying, attracting, and retaining talent is now considered to be the most significant
challenge for HR (Strack et al. 2010, 4).
In order to effectively manage talent, management first needs to be able to identify the
skills and personal characteristics that are valued in the context of their organisation and
industry. There is, however, a scarcity of research investigating the ways in which organ-
isations go about achieving this which is somewhat surprising given that talent manage-
ment is identified by HR professionals as being critical to organisational performance and
one of their major challenges. Furthermore, even though there have been significant devel-
opments in HR technology that suggest that there are new ways ‘to organise a firm’s entire
HR function’ (Laumer, Eckhardt and Weitzel 2010, 241), the implications of these new
technologies for talent management have received little attention. In this paper we explore
the role that technology plays in one aspect of talent management: talent identification. In
doing so, we address two key research questions. First, we seek to understand how organ-
isations identify talent and, second, we explore the role of technology in the talent identi-
fication process.
The opening section of the paper reviews the emerging talent management literature
with a specific focus on technology and talent identification. Next we outline our research
design and method of analysis. In the following section we draw on data from interviews
with 42 managers from a large Australian professional services firm in order to show how
the organisation goes about identifying talent and the role of technology in this process. We
analyse the data using a social constructivist lens and find that this process is not as
analytical and scientific as the capabilities of the technology might imply. Rather, manage-
ment’s use of the technology and their interpretation of the information it provides is
shown to be influenced by subjective human judgments about what constitutes talent and
how it can be identified. We conclude with a discussion of these findings and their impli-
cations for HR and the management of talent.
The importance of talent and talent management

The use of the term ‘talent management’ gained momentum and popularity in the late
1990s at a time when significant changes were taking place in labour market conditions.
These changes were highlighted in a McKinsey & Co. 1998 study (Chambers et al. 1998) that
drew widespread attention to the rising demand for talent-intensive skills and suggested
that it was already outpacing supply in several industries and markets. At the same time,
scholars such as Stahl et al. (2007) were arguing that in response to this change ‘talent
management’ was, by the late 1990s, synonymous with human capital management and
suggested it should inform and influence organisational strategy.
Gaining insights into the current and future challenges of the HR profession, a survey
of more than 5500 executives from 109 countries found that ‘most industries and countries
422 © 2012 Australian Human Resources Institute
Sharna Wiblen, Kristine Dery and David Grant
will experience a widening talent gap, notably for high skilled positions and for the next
generation of middle and senior leaders’ (Strack et al. 2010, 4). Further examination of
these results, by country, found that ‘managing talent’ was ranked by the vast majority as
important (Strack et al. 2010, 9). Despite the prevalence of such discourses, national
responses to recent economic events have differed. In contrast to other parts of the world
which sought to downsize their investments in human resources in response to the Global
Financial Crisis (GFC), the salience of the war for talent in Australia has shown no sign of
abating. Reports examining Australia’s national talent context (see Hays 2011; Wilson 2010)
predict that skills shortages, at all organisational levels, will continue to challenge manage-
ment such that ‘the ability to overcome skills shortages and secure top talent will be critical
to business success’ (Hays 2011, 2). Overall, the ability for Australian organisations to
identify their ‘best people’ or ‘talent’ thus continues to be a significant challenge and the
processes and tools deployed are fervently debated. Although the term ‘talent’ is used
frequently, our knowledge and understanding of what it means to individuals and organ-
isations is limited. Collings and Mellahi believe that ‘the topic of talent management
remains underdeveloped’ (2009, 304). Lewis and Heckman have observed that ‘a review of
the literature focused on talent management reveals a disturbing lack of clarity regarding
the definition, scope and overall goals of talent management’ (2006, 139). A further study
by McDonnell et al. (2010) confirms this multiplicity of views about what constitutes talent
within organisations.
In an attempt to provide some clarity around what constitutes talent management we
propose the following three conceptual categories. The first recognises individuals as talent
and involves the identification of individuals who are believed to be high performers (see
Blass 2007; CIPD 2008; Snell 2008). Beechler and Woodward found that this was the
preferred approach to identifying talent at the majority of organisations participating in
their study. These organisations sought to identify ‘stars’ or their top 10–20% of performers,
leading them to describe their overall approach to talent management as displaying an
‘obsessive and exclusive top talent focus’ (2009, 283). The second category views talent in
terms of particular skills and capabilities identified and evaluated by the organisation as
being critical to their operations and strategic direction. This category can include indi-
viduals and cohorts of employees such as knowledge workers, professional services staff
and/ or technical experts (April and Jappie 2008; Blass 2007; CIPD 2006b; Lah 2009) who
are seen to possess attributes and skills considered valuable for the organisation and hard to
replace (CIPD 2006b). The third category considers talent in the form of particular func-
tions, or as Boudreau refers to them, ‘pivotal roles’ (Boudreau 2003, 21). This category
involves the identification of resources and roles that are deemed critical to the strategic
success of the organisation. To identify such functions, organisations need to undertake
systematic analysis of their business (Wiblen, Grant and Dery 2010). In sum, organisations
and their HR functions need to be aware of what individuals, skills and capabilities or roles
they consider talent in order to then undertake talent identification.
The drive to manage talent more effectively has been accompanied by an increased
emphasis on talent metrics as advocated by Boudreau and Ramstad (see 2005a, 2005b). This
© 2012 Australian Human Resources Institute 423
has fuelled the call for talent identification practices to be consistent (Busine and Watt 2005)
and to involve multiple sponsors (not just HR practitioners) at all levels of the organisation
– from the CEO to line management (Beechler and Woodward 2009; Stahl et al. 2007). Iles,
Chuai and Preece (2010) and Stainton (2005) posit that all individuals should go through
the same talent identification process. Supporting practitioner views suggest that the future
of talent management will rest upon the extent to which it is based upon clear criteria,
processes and procedures, robust and focused metrics, coupled with hard conversations
(Wilson 2010). Furthermore, Collings and Mellahi, in an effort to define and enhance the
theoretical underpinnings of strategic talent management, suggest that the critical founda-
tion for a strategic talent management system is the ‘systematic identification’ of key
positions within an organisation (2009, 304). These researchers propose that only through
the systematic identification and subsequent management of talent will organisations be
able to achieve improved performance and sustained competitive advantage.
Despite the positive discourses promoted by talent management advocates, it is import-
ant to acknowledge the concerns of others regarding exclusive driven approaches to talent
identification and management. For example, Gladwell is highly critical of ‘differentiated and
affirmation’ (2002, 29) approaches to talent identification where employees are divided into
hierarchical categories (such as A, B and C employees) and rewarded accordingly. Others
believe that the application of the word ‘talent’, as well as exclusion from talent pools, may be
demotivating for those employees who are not selected to take part in talent management
programs (CIPD 2006b). An exclusive focus on high potentials and top performers can also
damage the morale of the rest of the organisation, cause resentment among peers (Blass and
April 2008; Patel 2002) and, as a consequence, harm its overall performance (Guthridge,
Komm and Lawson 2008) or potentially lead to its eventual demise (Gladwell 2002).
Furthermore, and aside from McDonnell et al.’s (2010) observation that organisations
identify and develop talent via informal and ad hoc means rather than through the systematic
and consistent application of any policy or procedures, we still know very little about the ways
in which organisations define and identify talent (Iles, Chuai and Preece 2010).
Talent management and technology

The array of technology available to organisations and their HR functions continues to
expand and advance in sophistication (Davenport, Harris and Shapiro 2010; Snell 2008),
leading to those such as Frank and Taylor arguing that: ‘as technology infiltrates nearly every
facet of the workplace, implications for talent management may be profound’ (2004, 39).
Bassi and McMurrer share similar views and argue that through the use of human capital
tools, organisations and HR can ‘start gauging how well people are managed and developed
throughout an organisation’ (2007, 2). They advise organisations to use technology to
facilitate the management of employees like other more traditional financial and physical
assets because ‘manag[ing] human capital by instinct and intuition becomes not only
inadequate but reckless’ (2007, 9). More recent research focusing on talent management and
technology has found that HR cannot continue to ‘confine employee data to its silo’
(Davenport, Harris and Shapiro 2010, 57) but rather enterprise systems are required to
gather, analyse and distribute talent metrics throughout the organisation for widespread use
by management. Davenport et al. describe technology as critical to mastering talent metrics
and summarise the functionality required with the acronym Delta: ‘access to high quality
data, enterprise orientation, analytical leadership, strategic targets, and analysts’ (2010, 57).
In sum, a number of compelling reasons as to why organisations should use technology
in talent identification have been identified. These include the capacity of technology to:
• identify talent in a consistent manner across the organisation (Stahl et al. 2007);
• identify employees that organisations want to develop and retain (Lah 2009);
• forecast supply and demand for current and future talent pools (Hewitt’s Human Capital
Consulting and Human Capital Institute 2008);
• establish a unified and accessible talent database (Snell 2008);
• improve decision-making (Lengnick-Hall and Moritz 2003) by providing and producing
information that can establish linkages between human capital assets and the per-
formance of the business;
• produce dynamic, real-time metrics, analytics and data about an organisation’s human
capital assets and hence ‘talent’ (Williams 2009).
Despite considerable growth in the availability and perceived use of technology there is
still very little research that examines the role that technology plays in talent management
and more specifically talent identification. Although several studies and articles address this
phenomenon indirectly (see CIPD 2005, 2006a; Wolfe, Wright and Smart 2006), such
research tends to discuss the role and importance of HR technology more generally and
comprises largely quantitative studies. While these studies are able to highlight trends and
quantify the number of organisations that may use technology for talent management, they
provide little explanation or understandings around how the systems are being used in
organisations and the role that they play in talent identification.
A number of different forms of technology can be used to assist in the management of
talent and these are referred to in a number of ways including: electronic human resource
management (e-HRM), human resource information systems (HRIS) (see Wiblen, Grant
and Dery 2010; Williams 2009), enterprise resource planning systems (ERP), information
systems and social media. Acknowledging that organisations might choose to use one or a
combination of these for the purposes of talent identification, our study refers to HR
technologies in a generic sense focusing on technological capabilities rather than specific
systems. We believe that this approach is appropriate given the currently limited under-
standing of the value of technology to talent management.
Research design and data analysis

We adopted a social constructivist approach to the design of our study, drawing in particular
on the social construction of technology (SCOT) literature in order to help us better analyse
and interpret our empirical data. Such an approach was highly appropriate given the range of
perspectives about what constitutes talent, the complexity of approaches to talent identifi-
cation and the need to understand how key actors interact with technology in the context of
talent identification. Furthermore, the SCOT approach was found to be especially helpful in
that it challenges the idea that technologies and technological artefacts have a pre-given and
fixed meaning. Therefore the opinions of interviewees can only be understood in the context
of individuals and groups comprehending, interpreting, using and engaging with the tech-
nologies (Dery, Hall and Wailes 2006), while also being mindful of the organisational,
industry or national context (Martin 2009). In this respect it is important not only to gather
the views and experiences of employees at any organisation that is the subject of a study, but
also to observe and gather material that provides further insights into the behaviours and
beliefs of the organisation itself. Thus, our research design reflects the need to gather and
observe a wide range of publicly available material and artefacts during the research process
so as to provide a deeper understanding of organisational context.
We undertook an exploratory case study of a professional services firm (hereon referred
to as PSF) which centred around two research questions:
Research question 1: How does the organisation (PSF) identify talent?

Research question 2: What role does technology play in the talent identification
process?
A case study approach is well suited to the study of complex organisational processes
and practices (Allan and Skinner 1991; Berg 2009; Hartley 2000) and was thus considered
appropriate for a study of talent identification where processes were likely to be complex,
involve multiple actors and be highly influenced by organisational context. Specifically, it
enabled us to systematically gather a wide range of data which was important to under-
standing how talent identification occurred at PSF.
We selected a professional services firm for several reasons. First, we believed that
knowledge-intensive organisations, where the capabilities of employees are critical to its
success, would be committed to the identification and management of talent. Second, the
knowledge economy is predicted to increase in importance (Wilson 2010) and, as such,
there is an ongoing commitment to talent management in the professional services indus-
try. Third, knowledge-based professional services firms are more inclined to be intensive
internet and technology users (McDonnell et al. 2010) and thus are more likely to use
technology for talent identification. Fourth, we share the assumptions of McDonnell et al.
(2010) that knowledge-intensive organisations, such as professional services firms, are
potentially more likely to have formalised talent management practices.
In order to familiarise ourselves with PSF and enhance our understanding of its
approach to the identification of talent, we obtained secondary data from a range of
sources. These included internal reports, internal and external presentations, company
websites, and media commentary. Our primary data comprised 42 semi-structured inter-
views with managers who were identified as playing a role in the identification of talent. The
first round of interviews was conducted with members of the HR function. Given the
emergent nature of our research, additional interviewees were then selected as a conse-
quence of reviewing our initial insights and on the basis of their involvement in the
management and identification of talent. Our interviewee selection approach led us to also
interview non-HR managers including business unit managers and senior executives. The
majority of those interviewed were from the HR function (30 out of 42) and it became
apparent that HR managers played an important role in talent identification.
Interviewees were first asked to reflect upon what they thought constituted talent and
the organisation’s management of talent more generally. Then, drawing on their personal
experiences, they were asked to provide insights into the process of talent identification
within their business unit or PSF. If interviewees did not discuss talent identification
voluntarily, additional probing questions were asked. Interviews lasted between 30 and 90
minutes and were conducted over a two-year period (July 2009–11). This interview data
was then transcribed, reviewed by the authors and analysed (Lawler 1998).
Analysis of our data comprised three main stages and was facilitated through the use of
NVivo 8 together with manual coding. In the first stage we read and catalogued our data
according to genre (e.g. interviews, internal presentations, website, organisational reports,
etc.) and by actor (national HR manager, business unit HR manager or business unit
manager) (Orlikowski and Yates 1994; Yates and Orlikowski 2002). In the second stage, the
data and other sources of text were subjected to a detailed and systematic examination and
interpretation using content analysis (Berg 2009). This process involved coding at two
levels. At the first level, we applied a lexicon of terms that emanated from the data itself and
which related to talent and talent identification. It was during this process that the con-
structs of ‘subjectivity’ (the identification of talent based on subjective criteria) and ‘seeing’
(the identification of talent through observed activities and behaviour) were revealed.
While subjectivity reflected the intuitive ‘gut feel’ of managers based on conversations and
debates, ‘seeing’ was a more specific construct reflecting the managers’ perceptions based on
observing employees at work. At the second level we applied a priori constructs (Eisenhardt
1989) which were grounded in the existing literature. For example, we identified statements
that related to defining talent, the practice of talent management, talent identification and
technology. The key themes that emerged from this stage of analysis were explored, dis-
carded and further refined (Miles and Huberman 1994). For instance, we were able to
discard general discussions of talent management and further refine those which dealt with
talent identification. In the third stage, we undertook a process of axial coding (Strauss and
Corbin 1998). This involved the systematic and iterative analysis of our coded and ordered
data seeking to identify relationships and patterns (Eisenhardt 1989). Here we were able to
establish a holistic understanding of the talent identification process and the extent to
which technology plays a role.
Findings: talent identification at PSF

PSF had over 5000 employees located in offices around Australia and in a number of
business units focused on different client offerings. Consequently PSF employees were
categorised as either fulfilling organisational (referred to as ‘national’) or ‘business unit’

roles. Members of the HR function were subjected to similar categorisations with separa-
tion into one of three functional areas: ‘recruitment’, ‘national’ and ‘business unit’. More
specifically, ‘recruitment’ members were responsible for the recruitment and selection of
employees; ‘national’ HR were responsible for centralised human resource and talent func-
tions; and ‘business unit’ were responsible for human resource and talent services for a
specific division of the organisation. Despite functional separation, all of the interviewees
appeared committed to the organisation’s focus on talent management and understood the
potential value of people to PSF’s strategic goals. Such value was verified by several of our
interviewees with one business unit HR manager stating:
Professional services is a very different dynamic when it comes to talent management. Your
traditional organisations may have a product or whatever it is, but our product is our people so
that does put a significant emphasis around that as well.
Recognising that future growth could not be achieved without the recruitment and reten-
tion of talent, interviewees talked explicitly about the organisation’s ‘People Space’
program, the internal brand established by PSF to generate a clear focus and commitment
to talent management.
As part of senior management’s commitment to talent management there had been a
significant investment in an enterprise system that had the functionality to support activi-
ties in this area. Oracle’s enterprise system PeopleSoft had been implemented with the
promise that it could offer ‘best-in-class integrated talent management’ with ‘integrated
talent processes and data’ (Oracle 2011). The functionality of this system centred upon
current and future workforce and recruitment planning, and several administrative HR
activities, such as leave management, hiring and induction of new hires. All managers
interviewed had access to the technology, and it was used to varying extents across the
organisation as different managers interacted with the technology and its capabilities.
Managers also had access to separate performance management software, provided by
SuccessFactors, which was designed to ‘identify your best workers’ (SuccessFactors 2012).
Managers were required to use SuccessFactors for performance management, particularly
in relation to the organisation-wide requirement to rank top performers. Discretion was
applied to the number of employees who were ranked, with some business units ranking
their top 10% while others ranked up to 50%. Each of the business units had the potential
to allocate and track areas for talent development, as well as generate reports regarding
turnover.
Despite the stated commitment to talent, a number of challenges were experienced
during the process of identifying talent. The organisation did not have a firm-wide
approach to talent identification, and hence the responsibility for the identification of talent
was left with the individual HR managers and the senior members within each business
unit. The lack of consistent guidelines, criteria or methods to direct this process meant that
each of the different business units were left to self-determine whether it was particular
individuals, particular skills and capabilities, or roles that were to be deemed as important.
Thus the perceived role of technology varied. The majority of both HR and business unit
managers sought to identify talent based on subjective evaluations facilitated through
conversations and observations, rather than using the objective metrics potentially pro-
vided by PeopleSoft or SuccessFactors. One HR manager explained that there were two
schools of thought about talent management at PSF. The first, but less popular, focused on
the use of metrics and technology and was based on a conscious desire to conduct talent
management and HR management activities in a structured manner through the use of
technology. By contrast, the second and more dominant perspective sought to avoid over-
engineering and gave more currency to subjectivity and the ability to ‘see’ talent. It was this
second school of thought which appeared to have greater salience in the organisation. We
explore these two contrasting approaches further in the next two sections.
The role of technology

Our first finding was that despite PSF providing both HR and business units with processes
and technology to facilitate the identification of talent, the use, and perceived role of the
technology varied across the organisation. This was confirmed by the majority of our
interviewees, whether fulfilling a human resources or business unit role. For example, one
national HR manager observed that while there was a technology tool available to managers
to assist with the identification of talent, there were ‘probably 100 different variations on
how it is being applied’. Overall, managers expressed reservations about the use of the
technology and favoured more subjective evaluations of talent.
Despite these concerns, two business units did report using the available technology and
believed that it was able to minimise the influence of subjectivity and the units were able to
be more transparent about their talent identification processes. One business unit, which
was sales focused and provided client services on a consulting basis, had an established
definition of talent and a well-articulated process for talent identification that had been in
place for six years. In order to evaluate an employee’s performance and potential, this
business unit would apply a series of predefined ‘SuccessFactors’ based on technical exper-
tise, marketable skills (that could be sold to clients), management capabilities, capacity to be
an inspiring leader, ability to generate revenue, client satisfaction and behaviours consistent
with their culture. The resultant evaluation was then translated, through the technology
into talent management metrics. Both the HR and business unit manager believed that the
technology made it possible for such metrics to be gathered, managed and analysed. These
technologically enabled processes made it possible for employees to be ranked and evalu-
ated as talent with transparency and objectivity. While both financial and people manage-
ment metrics were gathered, it was accepted that it was not possible to be identified as talent
without meeting the financial criteria.
The HR manager in the second business unit, which provided a financial advisory
service for clients, recognised that the creation and management of financial metrics for
their clients had encouraged them to generate individual performance metrics and associ-
ated talent management reports. Employees within this business unit were not only con-
sidered to be comfortable with the translation of people-related activities into metrics, but
insisted upon it. Metrics were gathered and analysed based on a range of financial measures
(utilisation, revenue, budget, etc.) together with people-based metrics (employee engage-
ment, women in leadership roles, job performance feedback from clients, partners and
directors, performance review compliance rates, management of staff, team diversity, and
behaviours consistent with their culture). Again, as with the client services unit, while
people metrics were gathered, it was recognised that financial performance metrics carried
the most weight.
Other interviewees in this business unit used technology in a manner that enabled them
to rank employees based on metrics, and then use this information to make projections
about the future potential of employees for promotion into particular roles. These employ-
ees were in effect then being identified as talent. The value of the technology was to ensure
that employees were evaluated in a consistent and rational manner and those longitudinal
records of performance could be maintained and accessed electronically. When asked to
reflect upon how this process worked, the HR manager said:
So we use that as a talent identification [tool]. Essentially it ranks people because you get five
points for each criteria and out of that, you get a total of 25 and then you can pretty much draw
a line under whatever percentage you want to particularly focus on and identify as top talent.
However, while some interviewees could see the possible potential for technology to be
used in talent identification, they believed it to have a limited role. One of the hurdles to
technology adoption appeared to be the lack of a consistent firm-wide definition of ‘talent’
and thus the consistent application of standard criteria when seeking to identify talent was
considered to be problematic. The second reason centred upon the inability for the appli-
cation of the technology to be objective and value free as the data itself was often subjective
and the results generated also required interpretation. A third, and perhaps more compel-
ling reason, was based on the desire to stay away from the identification of talent clones. In
other words, interviewees wanted to be able to recognise diversity in individuals and
believed that relying solely on metrics to evaluate an employee’s performance and/or
potential could result in a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to talent. Table 1 provides examples of
interviewee comments on the role of technology in talent identification.
The role of subjectivity and ‘seeing’

Our second finding was that decisions about whether an employee was considered to be
talent were more commonly based on subjective evaluations. Many interviewees com-
mented that they were able to ‘see’ talent. That is, business unit managers, in combination
with their HR managers, could accurately evaluate whether someone was deemed as talent
by observing their activities and behaviour. The role of ‘seeing’ talent was at times combined
with more objective and formally measured techniques, often generated by the technology.
The extent to which subjectivity and ‘seeing’ played a role in identifying talent varied
across PSF but was a consistent theme across our interviews. For example, members of the
HR function, whether fulfilling a national or business unit role, explicitly referred to
subjectivity as both the preferred and adopted method for talent identification. Similar
Table 1 The role of technology in talent identification

Role of technology Quotes Actor
To provide a technological The organisation does provide a technology Business unit
solution that is used tool, system and process about how we should HR manager
organisation-wide and identify talent, but the use of this system and
which promotes accuracy process differs across the organisation.
and consistency re: talent We have an organisation consistent National
management performance management/ review system HR manager
which is provided by SuccessFactors.
To enable consistent ... enables the consistent evaluation of National

performance evaluation performance and potential of all employees HR manager
and ranking of employees across the organisation.
in relation to talent We use technology to evaluate and then rank Business unit
employees. We are seeking to identify 30% of manager
individuals as talent.
We use a performance management tool, Business unit
facilitated through a technology platform, to HR manager
evaluate all employees within the business.
The results generated by this tool enable
employees to be ranked. Top ranking
employees are considered as talent.
This system is used to score individuals with a Business unit
mark out of 25 and then rank individuals. A HR manager
certain percentage is then identified as top
talent. This percentage changes according to
the demands and needs of the business.
To generate HR metrics The technology enables us to ‘have a boatload of Business unit

regarding talent metrics’ about an individual’s performance. HR manager
Italic denotes interviewees’ quotes.
views were consistently expressed by the business unit managers we interviewed within the
organisation. Although the CEO and senior management team were committed to the use
of technology for talent management activities, several of the HR managers described the
CEO as one who valued the proven abilities of managers to ‘see’ talent:
[The CEO] has a view that any partner should be able to identify talent like that [and she clicks
her fingers]. As in they can just see it. They just know it. (Business unit HR manager)
I expect my leaders in each of the individual businesses to tell you who the talent is ... (National
HR manager)
We can identify what are some of the characteristics but he is very conscious his partners should
know who the talented people are ... (Business unit HR manager)

The importance of having the ability to ‘see’ talent was a consistent and prominent
theme that emerged from our interview data. This finding suggests that interviewees
assumed that talent was a construct that could be observed and hence the identification of
talented employees could be achieved through observing talent in action. Furthermore,
there was an expectation that existing managers would have a set of competencies that
enabled them to see, observe and identify talented individuals based on their own personal
experiences.
Those people that have risen to the top have tended to have an intrinsic insight into what it takes
to get there so they are able to see these traits or behaviours or abilities in others. So they tend
to overlay their own experience when they are actually identifying who we think are in the upper
echelons of potential. (Business unit HR manager)
Many of our interviewees commented that the identification of talent via subjective
means was facilitated through conversations and debates. For example, HR managers
described how they encouraged, organised and conducted meetings involving themselves
and business unit leaders to identify which employees were believed to be talent. As a first
step these HR managers would require their respective business unit leaders to devise a list
of employees whom they personally believed could be considered as talent. This list was
generated by seeing and observing employees as they conducted their daily business activi-
ties. The second step involved bringing the business unit leaders together to discuss and
debate the employees named on their lists. The ability to discuss and debate talent was
valued by the organisation as it enabled a multiplicity of views to be expressed about the
performance and potential of an employee. Further value was derived from the ability to
constantly redefine and update the requisite skills and capabilities and meaning of ‘talent’ in
response to changes in the business environment. This process minimised the propensity to
generate ‘clones’ and adopting a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to talent identification. The
benefit of this approach was presented in direct contrast to the use of technology, where
interviewees raised concerns around the potential for an employee’s performance and
potential to be decided by one individual – the user of the technology. By deploying a more
discursive process, a more rounded evaluation of an employee was thought to prevail as per
the quotes in Table 2.
Discussions and conclusions

The aim of this research was twofold. First, we wanted to explore the way in which talent
was identified. Second, we wanted to examine the role of technology in this process. The
findings from our case study suggest a wide variation in the use of technology in the talent
identification process, with most of the decisions about who was talent being based on a
variety of subjective opinions that were generated through conversation and debate. While
on the one hand the organisation provided all business units and managers with access to
both PeopleSoft and SuccessFactors to assist with the more objective evaluation of an
employee’s performance and potential, on the other, the majority of managers (including
Table 2 The role of subjectivity in talent identification

Role of subjectivity Quotes Source
Subjectivity is Talent identification is subjective. Business unit
an important HR manager
part of talent ... there is a lot of subjectivity, a lot of autonomy of National recruiting
identification. the different leaders and who they feel talent is. manager
... the process of identifying, the gut feel piece comes National
in, the process isn’t robust.. HR manager
Talent can be CEO believes that any partner should be able to Business unit
identified identify talent like that. As in they can see it. They HR manager
through ‘seeing’. just know it.
Partners should be able to evaluate talent through Business unit
observation. HR manager
People within the business should be open to seeing Business unit
talented people. manager
... that by the end of today you will be able to see the Business unit
top 10% and the stella talent. manager
A multiplicity of Talent is identified through conversations between National

views and debate HR and partners at business unit levels. HR manager
is important to Talent identification still affected by subjective Business unit
identifying talent. conversations between partners and HR. HR manager
Talent identification is not random but it’s more of a National
they say let’s get together at a table and talk about HR manager
the individuals in the service line and yeah talent,
no not talent and that sort of thing.
But it still comes back to having a discussion ... having Business unit
a discussion by the people, with the right people, HR manager
who expert in people who can then identify who
those people are.
So really I would not say that we have the best but we Business unit
have got them talking about talent and we have got HR manager
them thinking about what that looks like.
Italic denotes interviewees’ quotes.
the CEO) and business units appeared to support a more subjective and complex process of
‘seeing’ talent.
The talent identification processes at PSF were thus in stark contrast to those recom-
mended by Busine and Watt who argue that ‘the identification process needs to be relatively
simple, but must use consistent criteria across the organisation’ (2005, 231). Without such
consistency, objective and transparent decisions about whom and what constitutes talent
cannot be made. Overall, it appears that many HR and business unit managers at PSF
believed that intuition and gut-feeling were of more value in identifying talent than the
more structured and analytical processes that were available using the technology. Manag-
ers therefore attributed little value to the more data-driven decision-making processes of
talent identification available through SuccessFactors and, even where this technology was
used, it was generally applied to the generation of employee rankings which could later be
refuted by conversations and debates based on more subjective evaluations. Those instances
where the technology did influence talent identification tended to be in business units
where metrics were central to business processes and thus framed the dominant discourses.
As discussed earlier in this paper, the social construction of technology (SCOT) lens
enables us to identify a variety of perspectives about the role and use of technology. The
SCOT lens is particularly valuable in this case as we examine the ways that individuals and
groups comprehend, interpret, use and engage with the talent management technology
(Dery, Hall and Wailes 2006). We suggest that the potential for the technology to provide
consistency in the talent identification process is influenced by the organisational context as
this shapes users’ expectations and behaviours. While the metrics available through the use
of the technology provide a valuable reference to inform talent identification, their use
typically forms one stage in a process that is largely dominated by subjective-based judg-
ments on the parts of those involved in identifying talent. Mäkelä, Björkman and Ehrnrooth
(2010) describe this as an online/offline two stage process, one that is susceptible to the
biases of the cognition processes of the decision-makers. The decision-makers in the talent
identification process are influenced by a range of factors that determine who they identify
as being critical to adding value to their business. These are often self-serving (Mellahi and
Collings 2010) and more aligned to the immediate needs of the business unit rather than a
more systematic, corporate approach to talent identification. At the same time, groups
within the organisation may have differing interpretations of the technology in terms of its
importance and its capabilities and these may come to influence the way in which it is used
(Dery, Hall and Wailes 2006; Strohmeier 2009; Thomas 1994). It would therefore seem that
while organisations invest in the technology associated with more objective, systematic and
consistent approaches to talent management, it has a limited role in delivering these desired
outcomes. The talent identification processes in PSF were largely based on the more sub-
jective processes of ‘seeing’ talent as managers responded to the discourse and behaviours of
an organisation heavily influenced by a CEO who valued these attributes in the leadership
team. Even when technology was used to apply greater objectivity and conformance to
talent identification processes, these decisions were readily contested by the more ad hoc
and subjective processes supported across the organisation. Thus the role of technology is
contested and marginalised as decision-makers made both individual and collective sense
of their environment.
The study findings have significant implications for HR practitioners as they demon-
strate that there are both opportunities and challenges associated with the use of technology
in talent identification. Examining and understanding the talent identification process at
PSF and the role that technology plays in this process led us to appreciate how the use and
perceived role of technology was constructed and the extent to which this was influenced by
the organisational context, as well as the attitudes, behaviours and experiences of the HR
and business unit managers that we interviewed. Accordingly, organisations, as well as their
HR practitioners, need to appreciate the diverse ways that employees and managers will
likely apply the same technology. More specifically, there is a need to recognise that the
manners in which managers interact with the technology can influence the role and value
that they believe it has for undertaking talent management activities including talent
identification. Although we found that the HR function did have an essential role to play in
the identification of talent at PSF, we question whether their participation in this process
could be considered as strategic. Given that our study found that the preferred method of
talent identification was based on subjective evaluation, we also question whether members
of the HR function had the knowledge and training necessary to exploit the potential of the
technology to produce more informative and meaningful data.
In our view, talent analytics, metrics and technology are key capabilities that organisa-
tions will require of HR practitioners in the future. It is these capabilities that members of
the HR profession should seek to develop if they want to enhance their strategic contribu-
tion to talent identification. Furthermore, if the talent identification processes at PSF and
potentially other organisations continue to be facilitated through conversation and debate,
then the role of HR in this process cannot be assured, as the skill of ‘seeing’ could potentially
be supplied by any manager.
Our study points to a number of possible future avenues of research which have
implications for how HR practitioners might think about, and go about identifying talent.
One such avenue would address the argument put forward by Collings and Mellahi (2009)
who believe that the systemic identification of talent can be a source of sustained competi-
tive advantage and improved organisational performance. Our interviewees did not report
that the lack of systematic talent identification across PSF, nor the limited use of technology,
hindered performance, and as such, they neither contradicted nor affirmed this line of
argument. Further research is therefore needed that specifically considers the relationship
between different approaches to talent identification and organisational performance. In
particular, what are needed are more studies that test the claims of those such as Boudreau
and Ramstad (2005a). Such studies would demonstrate whether technology can generate
performance metrics which are then used to identify talent and the potential benefits of that
approach.
The importance attributed to talent identification is likely to become even more sig-
nificant as the competition for skilled employees increases. Managing talent in a manner
which is not only beneficial, but also potentially a source of competitive advantage will
require organisations to be proactive. In order to manage talent, organisations first need to
define what they mean by this categorising of employees and future employees. Whether the
categories are constructed in terms of individuals, skills and capabilities or roles, the ability
to identify talent using accurate data and metrics would enable management to make more
informed and effective decisions. While technology has a potential role in talent identifi-
cation it is likely to be used to varying extents depending on the organisational context and
the skills and experiences of the management team. The critical challenge for management
would seem to be around creating practices that support these identification processes in
ways that achieve the best possible outcomes for the organisation.
Sharna Wiblen is a research associate at the University of Sydney Business School. Her current
research interests focus upon the potential for technology, including human resource information
systems, electronic human resource management and social media to inform and benefit talent
management and human resource management. She is currently working on a doctorate exploring
talent management in Australian organisations.
Kristine Dery is a senior lecturer in work and organisational studies at the University of Sydney
Business School. Her current research examines the impact of mobile technology on the nature of
work and individual work–life balance expectations as well as the alignment between human
resources and information systems. Her work has been published in a range of management and IS
journals.
David Grant is professor of organisational studies at the University of Sydney Business School. His
research interests include examining the impact of ICT-related changes on work and organisation in
Australian workplaces. His work has been published in a range of management and organisation
journals.
References
Allan GA and CJ Skinner (1991) Handbook for research students in the social sciences. Falmer Press,
London.
April K and AA Jappie (2008) Global talent warfare: Line managers are still the determinant. Journal
for Convergence 9(1), 40–43.
Bassi L and D McMurrer (2007) Maximizing your return on people. Harvard Business Review 2007,
1–10.
Beechler S and IC Woodward (2009) The global ‘war for talent’. Journal of International Management
15(3), 273–285.
Berg BL (2009) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, 7th edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
Blass E (2007) Talent management: Maximising talent for business performance. Executive summary
November, 1–12. Chartered Management Institute & Ashbridge Consulting, London.
Blass E and K April (2008) Developing talent for tomorrow. Develop 1, 48–58.
Boudreau JW (2003) Sustainability and the talentship paradigm: Strategic human resource manage-
ment beyond the bottom line. CAHRS Working Paper 03-21.
Boudreau JW and PM Ramstad (2005a) Talentship and the new paradigm for human resource
management: From professional practices to strategic talent decision science. Human Resource
Planning 28(2), 17–26.
Boudreau JW and PM Ramstad (2005b) Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new
HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource Management 44(2),
129–136.
Busine M and B Watt (2005) Succession management: Trends and current practice. Asia Pacific Journal
of Human Resources 43(2), 225–237.

Chambers E, M Foulton, H Handfield-Jones, SM Hankin and EG Michaels III (1998) The war for
talent. McKinsey Quarterly 3, 44–57.
CIPD (2005) People management and technology: Progress and potential. Chartered Institute of Person-
nel and Development, London.
CIPD (2006a) HR and technology: Beyond delivery. Change agenda. Chartered Institute of Personnel
and Development, London.
CIPD (2006b) Reflections on talent management. Change agenda. Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development, London.
CIPD (2008) Talent management: An overview. July 2008. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Devel-
opment, London.
Collings DG and K Mellahi (2009) Strategic talent management: A review and research agenda.
Human Resource Management Review 19(4), 304–313.
Davenport T, J Harris and J Shapiro (2010) Competing on talent analytics. Harvard Business Review
88(10), 53–58.
Dery K, R Hall and N Wailes (2006) ERPs as ‘technologies-in-practice’: Social construction, materi-
ality and the role of organisational factors. New Technology, Work and Employment 21(3), 229–241.
Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review
14(4), 532–550.
Frank FD and CR Taylor (2004) Talent management: Trends that will shape the future. Human
Resource Planning 27(1), 33–41.
Gladwell M (2002) The talent myth: Are smart people overrated? New Yorker July 22, 28–33.
Guthridge M, AB Komm and E Lawson (2008) Making talent a strategic priority. McKinsey Quarterly
1, 49–59.
Hartley JF (2000) Case studies in organizational research. In G Symon, C Cassell and R Dickson (eds)
Qualitative methods in organizational research and practice, 208–229. Psychology Press, Hove.
Hays (2011) Bridging the skills gap. Research and insights that can impact on your world of work 2011.
http://www.hays.com.au/prd_consump/groups/hays_common/@au/@content/documents/
digitalasset/hays_029430.pdf
Hewitt’s Human Capital Consulting and Human Capital Institute (2008) The state of talent manage-
ment: today’s challanges, tomorrow’s opportunities. Human Capital Institute and Hewitt Associ-
ates. http://www.hci.org/files/portal-upload/hci/hciLibraryPaper_79300.pdf
Iles P, X Chuai and D Preece (2010) Talent management and hrm in multinational companies in
Beijing: Definitions, differences and drivers. Journal of World Business 45(2), 179–189.
Lah TE (2009) Using talent supply chain management to overcome challenges in the professional
services market. Workforce Management 88(3), s. 2.
Laumer S, A Eckhardt and T Weitzel (2010) Electronic human resources management in an
e-business enviornment. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 11(4), 240–250.
Lawler J (1998) Choosing a research approach: Matching questions with methodologies. In J Lawler
(ed) Writing qualitative research, 69–80. Hampden Press, Sydney.
Lengnick-Hall M and S Moritz (2003) The impact of E-HR on the human resource management
function. Journal of Labor Research 24(3), 365–379.
Lewis RE and RJ Heckman (2006) Talent management: A critical review. Human Resource Manage-
ment Review 16(2), 139–154.
Mäkelä K, I Björkman and M Ehrnrooth (2010) How do MNCs establish their talent pools? Influences
on individuals’ likelihood of being labeled as talent. Journal of World Business 45(2), 134–142.

Martin G (2009) Driving corporate reputations from the inside: A strategic role and strategic dilemas
for HR? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 47(2), 219–235.
McDonnell A, R Lamare, P Gunnigle and J Lavelle (2010) Developing tomorrow’s leaders: Evidence of
global talent management in multinational companies. Journal of World Business 45(2), 150–160.
Mellahi K and D Collings (2010) The barriers to effective global talent management: The example of
corporate élites in MNEs. Journal of World Business 45(2), 143–149.
Miles MB and AM Huberman (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Oracle (2011) Press release: Oracle unveils Peoplesoft enterprise human capital management 9.1 and
Peopletools 8.50. Oracle.
Orlikowski WJ and J Yates (1994) Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 39(4), 541–574.
Patel D (2002) Managing talent. HRMagazine 47(3), 112.
Snell A (2008) The future of talent management. Workforce Management 87(20).
Stahl GK, I Bjorkman, E Farndale, SS Morris, J Paauwe, P Stiles, J Trevor and PM Wright (2007) Global
talent management: How leading multinationals build and sustain their talent pipeline. INSEAD
Working Papers Collection No. 2007/34/OB. Fontainebleau, France.
Stainton A (2005) Talent management: Latest buzzword or refocusing existing processes? Competency
and Emotional Intelligence 12(4), 39–43.
Strack R, J Caye, S Lassen, V Bhalla, J Puckett, E Espinosa, F Francoeur and P Haen (2010) Creating
people advantage 2010: How companies can adapt their HR practices for volatile times. Boston
Consulting Group, Boston, MA. http://www.bcg.de/images/file61338.pdf
Strauss AL and JM Corbin (1998) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory, 2nd edn. Translated by Juliet M Corbin. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Strohmeier S (2009) Concepts of E-HRM consequences: A categorisation, review and suggestion.
International Journal of Human Resource Management 20(3), 528–543.
SuccessFactors (2012) Successfactors: Employees performance reviews. http://www.
successfactors.com/performance-reviews/
Thomas RJ (1994) What machines can’t do: Politics and technology in the industrial enterprise. University
of California Press, Berkeley.
Wiblen S, D Grant and K Dery (2010) Transitioning to a new HRIS: The reshaping of human
resources and information technology talent. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 11(4), 251–
267.
Williams H (2009) Job analysis and HR planning. In M Thite and MJ Kavanagh (eds) Human resource
information systems. Basics, applications, and future directions, 251–276. Sage Publications Inc, Los
Angeles, CA.
Wilson P (2010) People@Work: The future of work and the changing workplace: Challenges and issues for
Australian HR practitioners. Australian Human Resources Institute, Sydney.
Wolfe R, PM Wright and DL Smart (2006) Radical HRM innovation and competitive advantage: The
Moneyball story. Human Resource Management 45(1), 111–126.
Yates J and WJ Orlikowski (2002) Genre systems: Structuring interaction through communicative
norms. Journal of Business Communication 39(1), 13–35.

Do You See What I See The Role of Technology in Talent Identification

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Do You See What I See The Role of Technology in Talent Identification

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

17447941, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00037.x by University Of Wollongong University of Wollongong Library, Wiley Online Library on [02/11/2022].

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources (2012) 50, 421–438 doi:10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00037.x

Do you see what I see? The role of

Keywords: human resources, information technology, social construction of technology, talent

© 2012 Australian Human Resources Institute

The importance of talent and talent management

Talent management and technology

Research design and data analysis

Research question 1: How does the organisation (PSF) identify talent?

Findings: talent identification at PSF

categorised as either fulfilling organisational (referred to as ‘national’) or ‘business unit’

The role of technology

The role of subjectivity and ‘seeing’

Table 1 The role of technology in talent identification

To enable consistent ... enables the consistent evaluation of National

To generate HR metrics The technology enables us to ‘have a boatload of Business unit

© 2012 Australian Human Resources Institute 431

Discussions and conclusions

Table 2 The role of subjectivity in talent identification

A multiplicity of Talent is identified through conversations between National

436 © 2012 Australian Human Resources Institute

© 2012 Australian Human Resources Institute 437

438 © 2012 Australian Human Resources Institute

You might also like