The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm

Talent
Talent management meta review: management
a validity network meta review

schema approach
Lenna V. Shulga 3943
School of Travel Industry Management, University of Hawai’i at Manoa,
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, and Received 31 October 2018
Revised 17 February 2019
Accepted 22 April 2019
James A. Busser
William F. Harrah College of Hospitality, University of Nevada,
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to critically assess the state of substantive, methodological and
conceptual development of talent management (TM) within hospitality and business research and to identify
gaps, examine debates and provide hospitality research direction.
Design/methodology/approach – After identifying 545 articles from 22 peer-reviewed journals from
Google Scholar using “talent management,” only articles directly related to TM (n = 149) were analyzed using
the validity network schema (VNS). The advantage of the VNS approach is in-depth analysis of the three
research domains – substantive, methodological, and conceptual – and evaluation of the pathways between
domains emerging in a unique hospitality TM perspective.
Findings – Substantive domain TM discourse analysis identified 12 general and 5 hospitality-related topics.
The resulting research framework depicted how global trends, organizational, employee-specific factors and
organizational-management tactics affect (1) organizational, (2) personal, (3) societal, and (4) customer
outcomes. Methodological domain analysis revealed business TM research in the mature stage, while
hospitality TM research is in the embryonic stage of development. TM researchers predominantly used
observational, descriptive and industry-specific data, advancing the field with associated research
frameworks. Conceptual domain analysis uncovered opportunities to advance theoretical foundations and test
causal relationships.
Originality/value – VNS analysis identified the importance of conceptual, methodological and
substantive domains of TM research. The comprehensive TM research framework was proposed with
eight research pathways to guide future hospitality studies. This paper advances the unique hospitality
industry-specific scholarship and practice, focused on employee well-being rather than solely
organizational gain.
Keywords Discourse, Research agenda, Talent management, Validity network schema
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Since the 2008 recession, the hospitality industry posted seven consecutive years of growth
in room supply and demand (Ricca, 2018), including an all-time high (up 86 per cent since
2011) of new hotel construction projects in the global pipeline (Slowey, 2018). However, high International Journal of
turnover rates of talented employees and lack of proactive talent management programs Contemporary Hospitality
Management
may hinder the future growth of hospitality organizations (Cobb, 2011). Randy Smith, co- Vol. 31 No. 10, 2019
pp. 3943-3969
founder and chairman of STR, acknowledged that industry expansion may be impeded by © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
global labor issues: DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2018-0876
IJCHM There’s a complete mismatch in terms of the jobs that need to be filled and the skillset of the
unemployed. [. . .] I do think that unless we get this resolved, it’s going to put a strain on our
31,10 ability to find top-notch service, to find people to get our hotels to function (Ricca, 2018, www.
hotelnewsnow.com).
In support, Gallup reports that companies fail to select the “candidate with the right
talent for management position 82 per cent of the time” (Beck and Harter, 2018).
3944 Furthermore, the USA Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a decrease in the employee life-
cycle within a single organization to an average of four-years (Shepard, 2018), which is
potentially even shorter for hospitality employees, signifying an early departure of
talented employees.
In response to these pressing HRM industry needs, researchers should tap into the
academic knowledge accumulated in the Talent Management (TM) literature to develop a
comprehensive hospitality specific TM approach and research agenda. Hence, the purpose
of this paper is to:
 critically assess the state of conceptual, methodological and substantive
development of TM; and
 identify gaps, examine debates and provide hospitality research direction.

Although, several TM literature reviews have been published in recent years (Barron,
2008; De Boeck et al., 2018; Hughes and Rog, 2008; Meyer and Xin, 2017; Scott and Revis,
2008; Watson, 2008), this paper offers a unique perspective of TM research pathways
based on the validity network schema (VNS) (Figure 2, Grewal and Levy, 2007). Thus, the
TM field of study is advanced with an experiential, well-being oriented approach to
hospitality.

Validity network schema methodology and talent management application

Google Scholar and the Hospitality and Tourism Index were searched with “talent
management,” identifying 545 articles in 22 peer-reviewed journals representing Hospitality
Management, Human Resources, Employee Relations and Organizational Behavior from
2006 to 2018 (Figure 1). Lewis and Heckman (2006) offered the first critical review of talent
management and served as the starting point. Two researchers followed the guidelines of
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Moher
et al., 2009) and only articles specifically focused on TM (n = 149) from 16 peer-reviewed
journals were examined. Articles largely represented five categories: conceptual (n = 49);
literature reviews (n = 10); qualitative research (n = 56); quantitative research (n = 25); and
mixed methods research (n = 9). The majority of TM-focused articles were published in
business journals (n = 134) and 15 articles in hospitality journals (Table I).
Next, the validity network schema (VNS) was used to analyze the 149 articles (Grewal
et al., 2016; Bringberg and McGrath, 1985). VNS included in-depth analysis of the three
research domains: substantive, methodological, and conceptual. VNS organizes the field of
study and explains the validity trade-offs by establishing research pathways among
domains (Figure 2) (Bringberg and McGrath, 1985). The center of the three domains
represents a unique perspective of the field (Grewal and Levy, 2007), specifically how TM is
applied in hospitality. Researchers use the VNS to identify theoretical, empirical, or
experimental pathways for a future research agenda (Grewal et al., 2016). Each
pathway includes two domains as applied to the unique industry perspective. For
example, on the theoretical path, a researcher can combine theories from the conceptual
domain with the knowledge of the TM topic from the substantive domain to bring
 Identification
Talent
Records identified through
database searching with management
duplicates removed (ntotal = 545
including nhospitality = 53)
meta review

3945
Screening

Records Excluded: TM not a

Records screened (ntotal = 545
focus (ntotal = 388 including
including nhospitality = 53)
nhospitality = 35)
Eligibility

Full-text articles assessed for Full-text articles excluded: TM

eligibility (ntotal = 157 including not studied (ntotal = 8 including
nhospitality = 18) nhospitality = 3)

Figure 1.
Included

Eligible studies (ntotal = 149 PRISMA TM

including nhospitality = 15) literature search
flowchart

Research methods and # of studies % of studies # of studies % of studies

approaches (business) (business) (hospitality) (hospitality)

Conceptual 44 32.8 5 33.3

Literature reviews 7 5.2 3 20.0
Qualitative* 50 37.3 6 40.0
Interviews 40 5
Ethnography 2
Case study 21 1
Focus group 3 1
Secondary data 8 1
Quantitative 25 18.7 0 0.0
Survey 22
Secondary data 1
Experimental design 1
Gamification 1
Mixed methods 8 6.0 1 6.7
Table I.
TOTAL 134 15 Comparative
overview of TM
Note: *Includes mix of qualitative methods literature

forward research frameworks, propositions, and hypotheses. Accordingly, if

researchers decide to follow the experimental research pathway, the study is grounded
in a solid foundation using theory or framework from the conceptual domain, then
select a study method or technique from the methodological domain to examine the
IJCHM Conceptual
31,10

3946 Unique Hospitality

Perspecve

Figure 2. Methodological Substanve

VNS research Empirical Path: Leading to Observaons
domains and
pathways
Sources: Adapted from Grewal et al. (2016)

theory in the industry TM context. By choosing a certain research pathway the

researcher must address the validity trade-off (e.g. an internal validity in the case of
observational empirical path) (McGrath and Brinberg, 1983).
Analysis of the substantive domain was performed from two distinctly different
standpoints:
(1) to identify and describe the TM general and hospitality-specific discourse; and
(2) to identify and organize the main constructs used in current TM research.

Similarly, the methodical domain examines methods and research techniques used in the field.
Noticeably, research techniques are contingent on the availability and accessibility of data,
sampling, and the relative novelty of the topic. Finally, the conceptual domain examines
theories and conceptual frameworks that may explain the phenomenon through the substantive
domain, support how and why various concepts are linked, leading to anticipated outcomes,
which can be tested through research pathways resulting in a future research agenda.

Talent management: substantive domain

Talent management discourse
To identify the existing TM discourse, in the first iteration both business and hospitality
manuscripts were combined and analyzed to define key points of discussion present in each
manuscript and a literature set as a whole. Next, discussion points were grouped and
organized to represent a continuum on which researchers and practitioners can assume to a
certain extent extreme positions (Grewal and Levy, 2007). Finally, the most recent articles
representing each debate were reviewed to gage the most current state of the discussion. As
a result, 12 overarching debates representing TM substantive domain emerged. In the
second comparative iteration, using the same approach, just the hospitality TM articles were
reviewed to identify five unique hospitality TM discourse.
Defining talent management. The conceptual and empirical articles unequivocally noted
that TM lacked a clear definition (Bolander et al., 2017). TM emerged in 1990 after McKinsey
introduced a “war for talent” as a trend affecting the global economy (Michaels et al., 2001). In
2006, Lewis and Heckman argued that TM should not be used as a substitute for HRM or
succession planning, yet, TM represents a set of organizational tactics to manage high
potential, high performing employees. Advancing the Lewis and Heckman (2006) argument Iles
et al. (2010) defined TM as a study of workforce differentiation. Furthermore, to distinguish TM
from HRM Schiemann (2014) introduced the talent life-cycle that added attracting, retaining, Talent
and recovering the talent pool to the well-established HRM functions of recruiting, on-boarding, management
training, maximizing performance, developing, and succession planning.
The substantive domain analysis revealed the most frequently used definition in the
meta review
literature (n = 67) is by Collings and Mellahi (2009, p. 305):
Talent Management is activities and processes that involve systematic identification of key
positions which differentially contribute to the organization's sustainable competitive advantage, 3947
the development of talent pool of high potential and high performing incumbents to fill these roles
and the development of a differentiated human resource architecture to facilitate filling these
positions with the best available incumbents and to ensure the continued commitment to the
organization.
In comparison, hospitality researchers (n = 5) mainly used an industry-related definition of
TM by the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2006, p. 3):
Talent management is the systematic attraction, identification, development, engagement,
retention, and deployment of those individuals with high potential who are of particular value to
an organization.
However, Baum (2008) followed by Deery and Jago (2015) argued that hospitality and
tourism TM has unique aspects such as emotional, aesthetic, and information processes that
require a different understanding when compared to other industries. Baum (2008, p. 720)
defined TM as an:
[. . .]organizational mindset that seeks to assure that the supply of talent is available to align the
right people with the right jobs at the right time, based on strategic business objectives.
D’Annunzio-Green (2008) argued that TM is a holistic approach operationalized through
HRM interventions to strengthen the organizational capabilities of a hospitality company.
Understanding and operationalizing talent. Researchers argued the conceptualization of
talent as a construct. Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2013) broadly categorized talent: talent-as-
object and talent-as-subject. Talent-as-object identifies talent as a natural ability, mastery,
commitment and fit (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013). Ulrich and Smallwood (2012) defined
talent as multiplicative: talent equals competence multiplied by commitment and
contribution, inferring that having natural ability as a talent is not sufficient to fully reach
its potential. Talent-as-subject positioned TM as an organizational tactic categorized as
exclusive (talent as high-performers, high-potentials) and inclusive (talent as all employees
of the firm) (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013).
The VNS analysis showed that talent including talent pool or talent mix was one of the
most prevalent topics (n = 144). Figure 3 visually represents the talent operationalization
frequency for the reviewed articles (Mariani et al., 2018). The most frequently used
identification of talent was managerial talent (n = 35), which included top-level managers,
executive, leadership (global and strategic) leadership talent. Hospitality researchers
likewise focused their attention mainly on managerial talent (n = 9).
However, this perspective parallels the leadership development and career management
research, and, therefore, may fail to advance the conceptual or substantive TM development.
De Vos and Dries (2013) offered a discussion of differences between the TM and career
management literature. Advances in leadership development and career management
tactics might advance TM. However, substituting leadership development and career
management with “talent management” may cause re-branding of existing lines of research
leading to incremental or limited development of TM as a substantial and independent
approach.
IJCHM
31,10

3948
Figure 3.
TM literature
operationalization:
word-cloud of talent
pool/talent mix

Innate vs acquired talent. Talent’s fundamental nature-nurture discourse (Gallardo-Gallardo

et al., 2013) revolves around the basis of talent: whether an individual has a gift, natural
extraordinary ability, or achieves mastery through deliberate practice. The proponents of
innate talent infer that it cannot be taught or learned, and, thus cannot be managed, just
enabled (Buckingham and Vosburgh, 2001). On the other hand, Ericsson et al. (2007)
concluded that talent is almost always acquired, through deliberate practice and learning
from experience.
Meyers et al. (2013) detailed this discourse, and proposed that an organization position
itself on a continuum from fully innate to fully acquired talent. To advance the argument
Myers and van Woerkom (2014) proposed to characterize talent as stable or being
developed. Furthermore, if talent is stable, TM practice should focus on the identification
and selection of talent. However, if talent is acquired TM practice should be devoted to
practice, experience, and development.
Talent scarcity vs freedom of capabilities. Talent scarcity and war for talent is based on
the idea of a talent shortage (usually innate talent or gifted individuals) and that companies
should fight to acquire such employees (Srinivasan and Chandwani, 2014). Alternatively,
freedom of capabilities (CA) is an idea of an abundance of talent waiting to be uncovered and
developed (Downs and Swailes, 2013). Five principles of CA are: individual’s talent
identification, expansion of one’s capabilities without restriction of other’s capabilities, all
individuals count and exist in relation to each other, external and internal talent pools to be
considered and focus on development of capabilities not one’s performance.
Hired vs home-grown. Although connected to talent scarcity, this TM discourse
continues research linked to the HRM approach of external vs internal recruitment.
Proponents of talent acquisition examine skill shortage, war for talent, global mobility,
talent poaching and emerging economies (Ulrich and Dulebohn, 2015) and the costs
associated with talent acquisitions and relocation (Garavan, 2012). Supporters of internal
talent development discuss the positive influence of organization-led and self-initiated
development, knowledge-sharing, leadership development programs on organizational
commitment and intention to stay with the organization (Chami-Malaeb and Garavan, 2013).
Hospitality scholars point to potential incongruence between talent and organizational
expectations, where home-grown talent is developed only to be stopped by “perceived
promotional ceilings and imagery of “filling dead men’s shoes” (Maxwell and MacLean,
2008, p. 825).
Contextual vs transferrable. Talent transfer centers on what happens when a talented Talent
employee changes organizations (Meyers et al., 2013; Dries, 2013). The transferrable view is management
based on the belief that talented people will display talent under any conditions or
circumstances (Dries, 2013). Alternatively, the contextual position is that talented employees
meta review
are most effective when there is recognition and support, through interaction between
employees, investment in development programs and climate supportive of gender equality
hence, talent is conditional on its environment (Moeller et al., 2016; Böhmer and
Schinnenburg, 2016). In support, Conger and Fishel (2007) demonstrated that on-boarding, 3949
coaching and mentoring improved talent performance during mergers, acquisitions, and
promotions.
Exclusive vs inclusive. One of the most researched areas, the exclusive approach,
postulates that the talent pool should consist of high-performers, high-potentials, A-players,
rainmakers, and star employees, who should be allocated disproportionately more resources,
and who will generate higher return on investment for the company (Dries, 2013; Gallardo-
Gallardo et al., 2013). On the other side is an inclusive approach that views all employees
within the organization as talent, thus, resources should be available and distributed equally
among all employees (Gelens et al., 2013; Swailes et al., 2014). Advancing the discourse,
Meyers and van Woerkom (2014) proposed differentiating talent based on exclusivity vs
inclusivity and developable vs stable nature of talent. Swailes et al. (2014) offered a TM
typology: exclusive talent management; elite talent management; capability talent approach;
and fully inclusive talent management.
Talent vs non-talent. Exclusive TM, researchers examined employee differentiation
tactics and consequences. Organizations may divide workforce into A-players star
employees, B-players and C-players. One perspective is that all positions within the
organization should be filled with A-players; another perspective is that it’s unreasonable
and wasteful to put talented employees into non-strategic or pivotal positions (Minbaeva
and Collings, 2013). Advancing this discourse, researchers examined formal talent
identification vs self-identification and incongruences that emerge (Sonnenberg et al. 2014).
Gelens et al. (2013) studied justice perceptions of employees formally identified as high-
potentials vs those who were not, and found that continuity and transparency improved job
related employee outcomes. Malik and Singh (2014) conceptualized that talent identification
influences B-players trust, commitment, and motivation, as well as perceptions of high-
potential organizational programs. King (2016) demonstrated potential negative outcomes
that accompany employees identified as talent, such as risk of altered expectations.
Pivotal positions vs positions-for-talent. Collings and Mellahi (2009) argued that the first
stage of successful TM is to identify pivotal positions strategically crucial for sustainable
firm competitive advantage and fill those positions with the most talented employees. For
instance, Bharwani and Talib (2017) focused on hotel general managers as pivotal positions
in the industry and identified four sets of competencies necessary for this talent pool to be
effective: cognitive, functional, meta, and social. Nonetheless, Michaels et al., 2001 proposed
that from the talent scarcity standpoint, the company should start by identifying star
performers in the field, and then acquire this talent to develop firm’s competitive advantage.
An emerging literature based on the capabilities approach (Downs and Swailes, 2013)
advocated that to achieve the true potential of the firm, it must uncover existing talent
embedded within the organization and acknowledge, support, and create strategic positions
for such talent.
Expatriate vs inpatriate. This prominent discussion is based on the demands of multi-
national companies (MNC) for global expansion into emerging markets, internalization vs
localization, and the convergence – divergence argument (Sparrow, 2012; Ayentimi et al.,
IJCHM 2017). Moeller et al. (2016) identified status inconsistencies among global talent and
31,10 inpatriates, providing suggestions on building inter-unit social capital to reduce structural
incongruences. Vaiman et al. (2015) described effective ways to use expatriates that are
increasingly available in host countries. In hospitality, Xu et al. (2018) through in-depth
interviews with luxury hotels in China, acknowledged that hotel MNC used expatriates as
general managers to maintain company policies and standards, but involved local
3950 inpatriates for middle and second-in-command managerial positions to assist with
localization.
Multinational corporations vs small-medium enterprises. Recent discussion revolves
around TM practice implementation in MNC and SME. Krishnan and Scullion (2017) argued
that MNC TM tactics might not be suitable for SMEs owing to informal HR procedures,
greater instability, shorter organizational cycles, difficulties identifying key positions due to
faster organizational growth and lack of formal talent identification procedures. Festing and
Schäfer (2014) acknowledged that SMEs favored a more inclusive TM approach when
compared to MNCs. However, when hospitality HR managers were interviewed,
D’Annunzio-Green (2008) revealed that hospitality SMEs focus on exclusive TM because of
limited availability of resources. Stokes et al. (2016) compared MNC and SME TM tactics in
international expansion into emerging markets, and concluded that while MNC used more
formalized TM processes, SME relied on collaboration with local partners, combination of
inpatriates and short-term expatriate visits, resulting in dual cultural-facing organizational
practices.
Ethical discourse. First to formally identify the ethical “dark side” (p. 267) of TM, Downs
and Swailes (2013) recognized an intrinsic moral issue in the exclusive and elitist approach
to TM, which potentially impedes the effectiveness of tactics. Based on the rhetoric of “war
for talent” and “differentiated human resource architecture” (Collings and Mellahi, 2009,
p. 304), TM tactics lack social and ethical dimensions, which may lead to elevating external
candidates at the expense of existing employees, overcompensation, prioritization of the
individual rather than team, and failure to identify and improve deteriorating employee
moral that affects the performance of employees at large (Downs and Swailes, 2013). Talent
identification is prone to subjective bias, gendered nature of managerial talent, and personal
factors (Festing et al., 2015). Exclusive TM practices may result in organizational self-
interest, dehumanization, lowering one’s self-efficacy and subduing the opportunity to
thrive (Downs and Swailes, 2013). In support of Gelens et al. (2013) study on employee
perceptions of TM fairness, Kontoghiorghes (2016) identified that talented individuals are
attracted to ethical high performance organizational cultures and have stronger intention to
stay with such organizations.

Hospitality-specific talent management discourse

Hospitality industry attractiveness. The prevalent narrative in hospitality TM research is the
industry’s poor image and, thus, unattractiveness for talented individuals (Baum, 2008;
Hughes and Rog, 2008). Authors note long hours, emotional exhaustion, poor work
conditions, low pay, work-family spill over, focus on minimizing costs, provisional
employment, lack of job security, and low-status nature of hospitality work (Deery and Jago,
2015; Hughes and Rog, 2008; Baum 2008). Zopiatis et al. (2014) acknowledged the inhuman
reputation of the industry with hospitality not perceived as a long-term career, rather the
employment of necessity.
Another view of the industry is built on flexible work hours, diverse clientele and workforce
including opportunities for women and fast-track career development (Zopiatis et al., 2014;
D’Annunzio-Green, 2008). Watson (2008) highlighted industry similarities with family values,
emphasizing social interaction and cooperation. Thus, D’Annunzio-Green (2008) called for Talent
better employer branding. Walsh and Taylor (2007) found that challenging work significantly management
improved talented employee commitment to the industry; hence, “no amount of money or
benefits will hold them in what they conclude to be a dead-end job” (p. 179).
meta review
Hospitality industry structure. The unique hospitality industry structure leads to specific
TM challenges. First, Watson (2008) identified a lack of industry coherency and, therefore,
fragmented approach to TM, owing to multiplicity of organizational types, sizes, ownership,
and geographical spread. Next, vertical and horizontal ownership (organizations managing 3951
more than one sector of the industry) imposes dissimilar requirements on managerial talent
within the same organization. Gannon et al. (2010) discussed complex ownership-
management relations, which create barriers to the talent flow and challenges with
managerial talent training. For instance, multinational hotel companies hinder local
ownership in recruitment, training, and development of appropriate managerial talent.
Further, HR executives may face additional barriers in selecting the most talented mangers
for their units. Talented employees may find it difficult to advance through the multitude of
ownership-management structures that might be reluctant to give up local talent. Finally,
Walsh and Taylor (2007) discussed increased talent mobility specific to hospitality as the
“hobo effect” (Walsh and Taylor, 2007, p. 165). In other words, talented individuals might be
committed to the industry, but not the company. Satisfied employees may leave the
company for another job and actualize the self-directed career TM tactic.
Nature of hospitality talent management. Interestingly, Watson (2008) advanced an
argument regarding the complex and volatile nature of the hospitality industry. Opposite to
mundane views of hospitality jobs (Baum, 2008), hospitality management is presented as a
multifaceted and continuous balance between reactive and active nature of the business.
Handling issues that are related to prediction, anticipation, and satisfaction of human needs in
the fast-passed hospitality environment, at the time and point of service delivery might be the
most challenging job that exists. Therefore, hospitality industry management is less systematic
and more unpredictable, hence, requiring a unique approach to TM (Slattery, 2002).
Hospitality technical vs managerial skills. Related to the topic of TM competencies, this
discussion considers the skills that hospitality talent should possess to be effective (Baum,
2008). Researchers acknowledged, that traditionally the industry was based on a vocational
philosophy (Watson, 2008). For instance, food and beverage skills were a must for a hotel
general manager (Riley, 2005) in addition to technical and operational skills, such as
customer care and quality standards (Connolly and McGing, 2006). However, Maxwell and
Watson (2006) redirected the focus to managerial skills; TM skill bundles including soft/
interpersonal skills, emotional and aesthetic labor (Baum 2008).
Diversity in hospitality talent management. Maxwell and MacLean (2008) acknowledged
that hospitality TM is highly influenced by changing demographics, ageing workforce and
shortage of younger talent, although hospitality has profound experience in managing
diversity (Maxwell and MacClean, 2008). Barron (2008) and Scott and Revis (2008)
conceptualized talent as young graduates entering the profession. Deery and Jago (2015)
focused on retaining Generation Y workers, who value work-life balance, autonomy, and job
security.
The other area of diversity discourse in hospitality TM is the approach to migrant
workers. On one hand, the industry increasingly recruits migrants, as a solution to skill
shortage and limited budgets (Zopiatis et al., 2014). On the other, researchers revealed that
hospitality employers were unwilling or unable to fully use migrant employee talent (Baum
et al., 2007). Focusing on authentic travel experiences might be barriers for migrants
working front-of-the-house positions (Baum et al., 2008); unwillingness to invest in training
IJCHM and development of international staff might impede migrant talent career advancement
31,10 and future promotions (Baum et al., 2007). Hence, many talented migrant employees and
employees from diverse backgrounds are at risk of being overlooked (Bianchi, 2000).
Zopiatis et al. (2014) demonstrated that migrant employees’ are a very self-motivated
workforce. Baum (2008) called for more inclusive talent management in hospitality to
uncover existing talent within diverse industry personnel.
3952 These various unique hospitality TM conditions, thus, serve as important factors,
influencing various hospitality TM tactics and outcomes. Overall, the hospitality TM
discourse mainly revolves around barriers to talent or TM: industry attractiveness, complex
structure, volatile nature, skills shortage, and diversity. However, the number of unresolved
issues emerges as the tourism and hospitality industry increases its impact on the global
economy and new business models reveal new pathways for hospitality TM research across
all three VNS domains.

Research framework: antecedents and consequences of talent management tactics

The research framework (Figure 4) structures the TM substantive domain differently than
the TM discourse, specifically mapping the existing concepts and constructs extracted
from the entire set of literature, including business and hospitality, into the nomological

Global trends Organizaonal outcomes

Globalizaon/Internalizaon Compeve Advantage

/Localizaon
Demographics
Diversity
Global Mobility
Knowledge-based economy
Emerging Economies
Talent/Skill Shortage
Sustainability
Industry Reputaon
Organizaonal factors
HRM pracces
MNC/SME
Company Age
Company Reputaon
Corporate Governance
Collaborave Partnerships
Retenon
Performance
Knowledge Sustainability
Org. Capital
Corporate Reputaon
Org. Capabilies
TM organizaonal taccs Job-related employee Personal outcomes
outcomes
Talent Approach Well-being
Talent Pool / Talent Mix Psychological Contract Work-life Balance
Objecve-Subjecve
Talent Idenficaon Commitment
Atudes Success (Failure)
Talent Aracon Stress
Job Sasfacon
Talent Poaching Insecurity
Engagement
Differenal Treatment Emoonal Exhauson
Trust
Talent Support Burnout
Turnover intenon
Talent-Value Generaon Percepons of Jusce
Commitment to Talent Parcipaon Societal outcomes
Connuity OCB

Employee-specific factors Talent Recovery CSR

Community
Talent Aributes Embeddedness
Competency Ethical Paradigm
Movaon
Self-Iniaon Customer Outcomes
Agility
Creavity Customer Sasfacon
Resilience Loyalty
Capacity Trust
Availability Commitment

Figure 4. Notes: MNC – multinational corporation; SME – small and medium-sized enterprise; OCB –
Antecedents and organizational citizenship behavior; CSR – corporate social responsibility; TM –
consequences of TM talent management; ---- proposed TM outcomes; italics – concepts also discussed in hospitality
organizational tactics
TM literature
network of TM tactics. To further understand the TM substantive domain key constructs Talent
were first broadly organized into three sets that explore antecedents, tactics, and management
consequences. Next, each set was subdivided based on the meaning of constructs and their
relationship to TM tactics. Furthermore, TM tactics were categorized as HRM-generic and
meta review
TM-unique and the consequences-set was reviewed. Thunnissen et al. (2013) proposed a
multi-level multi-value approach to TM and organized TM consequences into
organizational, personal, and societal outcomes. Additional analysis exposed that a group of
outcomes was previously conceptualized and categorized as potential mediators (or
3953
moderators) leading to ultimate TM outcomes (De Boek et al., 2018). The contextual analysis
of this sub-group revealed that the constructs reflected the employees’ response or appraisal
of TM tactics; thus, this group was defined as job-related employee outcomes.
Because TM is overwhelmingly based on conceptual and qualitative research, many of
the proposed constructs and interrelationships should be tested further to provide evidence
of causal relationships. A large number of manuscripts proposed constructs only once (n =
111), therefore, were rolled into a broader construct. For example, in employee-specific
factors, talent attributes included talent-as-object characteristics (Gallardo-Gallardo et al.,
2013); competency included meta, cognitive, functional, social, global, leadership, task-
related, and intercultural competencies (Bharwani and Talib, 2017); agility included change-,
people-, results-, learning-, and mental- flexibility (Dries et al., 2012; Sparrow, 2012; Stokes
et al., 2016). TM tactics combined talent philosophy, RBV, inclusive/exclusive, best-practice
and best-fit, strength-based, capabilities approach, fast-track, balanced approach,
humanistic, substantive or symbolic, interventions-based, and structured (Meyers and van
Woerkom, 2014; Downs and Swailes, 2013; Guerci and Solari, 2012; Conger and Fishel, 2007).
Finally, talent support was identified as any TM tactic that sustained and nurtured talent
within the organization, such as distinct compensation and reward (extrinsic and intrinsic)
bundles, resource allocation, talent learning and development, coaching, mentoring,
assessment, feedback, career advancement, and stimulating project assignments (Jonsson
and Thorgren, 2017; Naim and Lenka, 2018; Gelens et al., 2013).
There appears to be a consensus on three points within the substantive domain:
(1) TM has the potential to positively influence firm’s performance and is a key
component of firm competitive advantage.
(2) Global trends such as globalization, demographics shifts, increase in talent
mobility and diversity influence the development and implementation of TM
tactics.
(3) Talent pool is a distinct tool that frames the TM tactics chosen by the company.

However, the division between HRM practices and TM tactics is still unclear, as the majority
of researchers explore traditional HRM concepts in the TM domain. Finally, employee
specific factors that affect TM tactics, and ultimately organizational, personal and societal
TM outcomes are still largely under-researched.

Talent management: methodological domain

Von Krogh et al. (2009) proposed four stages in the evolution of a phenomenon: embryonic,
growing, mature, and declining. Dries (2013) acknowledged that TM research reached the
growing stage. This study identified 106 out of 149 articles that represented conceptual and
qualitative manuscripts, clearly describing the current conceptual and substantive
knowledge of the topic. Business TM researchers predominantly gathered observational,
descriptive, and industry-specific data, advancing the field with associated conceptual
IJCHM frameworks (Table I). Hospitality methodological domain represented ten articles (excluding
31,10 five conceptual manuscripts): six qualitative, one mixed methods, and three literature
reviews. Thus, it is reasonable to propose, that hospitality TM research might be in the
embryonic stage, limited by the quantity of empirical-based research and lacking
quantitative research.
Qualitative studies (n = 56) were the largest category of empirical TM research, using
3954 in-depth interviews of HR managers (n = 45) and executives (n = 41) with small (4) to
large (120) sample sizes. Thematic content analysis was the prevalent data analysis
technique (n = 38). Overall, hospitality qualitative research (n = 6) followed the pattern of
business TM qualitative studies: in-depth or semi-structured interviews of HR mangers
and managerial talent, further using thematic analysis, including nodes and comparative
analysis.
The majority of mixed-method studies were represented by a two-study format (n = 9).
Qualitative in-depth interviews of HR managers (n = 6), sample sizes ranging from 17-401,
with content analysis combined with surveys (n = 9) of talented employees, sample sizes
ranging 60-444, and analyzed with regression and cluster analysis. In hospitality, Walsh and
Taylor (2007) surveyed Cornell University hospitality alumni as talented employees (n =
401) with both open-ended and closed-ended questions, addressing self-directed careers,
industry and organizational commitment, as well as turnover intention.
The majority of quantitative studies (n = 25) used surveys (88 per cent) of talented
individuals (68 per cent), followed by HR managers (28 per cent), sample sizes ranging 22-
4,811. To reach respondents as talent, two research teams interviewed HR managers first to
identify those who were labeled “talent” and “non-talent,” as well as their immediate
supervisors, and then requested employees anonymous survey participation by sending
different links to each group (Dries et al., 2012; Gelens et al., 2013). Regression-based analysis
(51 per cent), exploratory factor analysis (28 per cent), and structural equation modeling (20
per cent) was mainly used. Claussen et al. (2014) used innovative gaming observations to
analyze 7,003 promotions to middle management and 3,147 promotions to senior
management (gaming observations were not included in the sample size calculations). Five
studies used control variables, such as gender, age, education, tenure, job/responsibility
level, and industry.
The majority of the literature reviews (n = 10) performed thematic analysis, number of
articles ranging 6-358. De Boeck et al. (2018) conducted a comparative review of 43
qualitative and quantitative articles, concluding that it is pre-mature to conduct a TM meta-
analysis. Hospitality researchers performed thematic analysis focused on Generation Y
students, as talent (Barron, 2008), and critical reviews of strategic TM in hospitality, which
included both academic and industry publications (Hughes and Rog, 2008), and
management development as a TM strategy (Watson, 2008).
To sum up, the current TM methodological sphere is dominated by qualitative
research. As a result TM research has amassed a large amount of contextual field data
that needs to be empirically tested to increase the generalizability of findings. Another
limitation of qualitative research is the inability to examine causal relationship among
constructs, thus more quantitative studies are critical to examine causality proposed in
TM frameworks. An interesting challenge is to identify talented-employees sample to
study. It appears that managerial talent: mid- and top-level managers described as high-
performers/high-potentials were defined as a sampling frame in the majority of studies.
Therefore, research is needed on talented employees beyond leadership development and
succession planning. Specific to hospitality, more empirical evidence using both
qualitative and quantitative methods is essential. Studies should be focused on exploring
both hospitality HR managers’ approach to TM and hospitality talent, beyond Talent
managerial talent. management
meta review
Talent management: conceptual domain
Researchers have noted that TM lacks a unique conceptual foundation having borrowed
theories, frameworks, and concepts from HRM, organizational behavior, and psychology
(Dries, 2013). Remarkably, 47 papers were missing a theoretical foundation. Furthermore,
despite five hospitality-focused TM frameworks, only two articles based the conceptual
3955
development on a theoretical foundation: push-pull theory of migration (Zopiatis et al., 2014),
best-fit and resource-based view (Gannon et al., 2015). Nonetheless, the conceptual domain in
the business TM research is more theoretically-driven using social exchange theory (SET)/
psychological contract (n = 21), institutional theory (n = 12) often combined with resource-
based view (RBV) (n = 10), “best practice” and “best fit” (n = 2), human capital theory
(n = 5), social capital theories (n = 5) and signaling theory (n = 5), including a number of
frameworks described below.

Social exchange theory and psychological contract

SET, one of the most prominent theories in organizational behavior, describes the
mechanism of social interactions: when one individual provides service to another he or she
expects the same in return (Blau, 1964). SET consists of three main components: reciprocity
of exchange, resources involved in the exchange and relationships built through the
exchange (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). TM researchers adopt SET in two main areas:
talent reactions to TM practices and talent psychological contracts.
Using SET, Swailes and Blackburn (2016) identified stronger reciprocity among
employees who were labeled as talent, than non-talent. Chami-Malaeb and Garavan (2013)
identified that organizational investment in talent and TM practices led to affective
organizational commitment and intention to stay, including Generation Y employees (Naim
and Lenka, 2018). Gelens et al. (2013) proposed that for talent to achieve trust and
commitment to the organization, talent-organization, talent-supervisor, and talent-coworker
relationships must be established.
SET papers (14) explored talent’s psychological contract, representing one of the most
prevalent frameworks used in TM research. Psychological contract is defined as employee’s
“belief, shaped by the organization, regarding reciprocal obligations” (Rousseau, 1995, p. 9).
Festing and Schäfer (2014) proposed that organizational TM tactics affect both development
of individual’s psychological contract (relational or transactional), and the extent to which
the contract is breached or fulfilled. Interestingly, psychological contract research was
focused on the beginning stages of talent’s relationship with the organization, such as high-
potentials, new employees, trainees (Jonsson and Thorgren, 2017), and recent expatriates
(McNulty and De Cieri, 2016). King (2016) warned of the over-simplification of the exchange
relationship between talent and organization, and called for deepening the knowledge of
how talent’s psychological contract differs from other employees.

Institutional theory and resource-based view (RBV)

Used to explain inclusive-exclusive and multinational-local TM discourse, institutional
theory and RBV were often applied to contrast or compliment TM tactics. Institutional
theory postulates that organizations seek acceptance or approval from socially-constructed
environments/stakeholders (Jackson and Schuler, 1995) and, as a result, organizations tend
to adopt the same TM “best practice” tactics. Dimaggio and Powell (1983) noted that
organizations follow a set of institutional rules: coercive (e.g. law regulations), mimetic (e.g.
IJCHM competition) and normative (e.g. corporate social responsibility, code of ethics). For example,
31,10 using institutional theory, Krishnan and Scullion (2017) proposed that coercive, mimetic,
and normative rules have more influence on TM tactics in multinational large organizations
than small and medium-size organizations.
RBV is concerned with achieving and sustaining organizational competitive advantage,
postulating that talent is a resource that is rare, valuable and difficult to imitate (Barney,
3956 2002). Therefore, to achieve and sustain competitive advantage, TM should develop,
acquire, leverage, and protect the value derived from talent, as an organizational resource or
asset (Gannon et al., 2015). RBV provides the foundation for talent scarcity leading to
exclusive TM tactics (Lewis and Heckman, 2006; Martin et al., 2011). Consequently, RBV
leads companies to adopt unique TM tactics, to achieve competitive advantage (Martin et al.,
2011). Institutional theory and RBV approach were applied together to understand the
development of reputation capital that can be used to attract, acquire and retain talented
employees (Martin et al., 2011). In addition, multi-national organizations used the RBV
approach with expatriates, while local subsidiaries more likely used institutional theory
(Beamond et al., 2016).
Advancing both institutional theory and RBV researchers noted the “best fit” approach
to TM practices or contingency perspective (Garavan, 2012; Krishnan and Scullion, 2017).
Gannon et al. (2013) examined RBV, best practice, and best fit frameworks to compare eight
international hotel organizations, and discovered that only three applied a unique RBV
approach. They acknowledged that the hospitality industry’s high level of conformity limits
creativity and leads to best practice tactics, resulting in similar processes implemented in
tightly clustered hotel international firms.

Human capital theory

Collings (2014) conceptualized that human capital theory (HCT) could explain global TM
effects on organizational-level outcomes. HCT illustrates how investing in employee’s
knowledge, skills, and abilities can lead to improved organizational performance,
competitive advantage, change and growth (Collings, 2014). Sparrow and Makram (2015)
used human capital theory to develop 14 research propositions for TM value-based designs.
HCT takes an individualistic approach to TM and informs studies focused on skill
development and skill shortage (Crowley-Henry and Al Ariss, 2018; Bhanugopan et al.,
2015).

Social capital theory

Social capital theory (SCT) describes the potential that is embedded, available, and derived
from the network of relationships among employees (McPhail et al., 2016). SCT represents a
combination of structural social capital (strength of network), relational social capital
(nature of relationships), and cognitive social capital (shared goals, norms, and values). SCT
is based on a collective perspective (Claussen et al., 2014) and used to compare contextual vs
transferrable talent and TM success factors (Collings and Melahi, 2009). Although, HCT and
SCT describe different aspects affecting TM, Collings (2014) postulated that talent cannot
develop in isolation therefore, HCT and SCT must be applied simultaneously to understand
the effectiveness of TM tactics.

Signaling theory
Signaling theory is focused on resolving information asymmetry between the sender and
receiver of information (Connelly et al., 2011). Signaling theory defines the sender, signal,
receiver, receiver’s signal interpretation, receiver’s feedback, and signaling environment as
main components of the signaling process (Connelly et al., 2011). Three out of five Talent
manuscripts used signaling theory in combination with SET to explain a signal’s influence management
on the development of talent’s psychological contract.
Sonnenberg et al. (2014) acknowledged that companies have different definitions of talent
meta review
and degrees of transparency about talent vs non-talent designations, which might lead to
incongruent employee talent perceptions. Signaling an employee as new talent or high-
potential status may lead to developing a stronger psychological contract, improve
employee commitment, and intention to stay (Dries and Pepermans, 2007), while 3957
misinterpretation can lead to psychological contract breach (Dries and De Gieter, 2014).
Beyond psychological contract, signaling theory was used to explain TM development
barriers formed by cultural gender perceptions (Groutsis et al., 2016); and describe the
creation of reputational capital that helps attract talented individuals to organizations
(Martin et al., 2011).
Overall, TM concepts that received further empirical interest and exploration were
grounded in a theoretical foundation with a combination of theories adapted from other
fields of study. Interestingly, 64 different theories were applied to TM only once. Therefore,
there is an untapped potential to advance these theoretical foundations and test proposed
causal relationships. Nonetheless, Lewis and Heckman (2006) and Meyers et al. (2013) called
for further developing the theory of talent, which may be premature. Hence, existing
conceptual development and qualitative research data could be valuable to identify and
formulate unique TM concepts, constructs, and measures.

Discussion
Despite the industry’s evident interest and even urgency to implement TM over the past 10
years, VNS analysis revealed that TM hospitality research is in the embryonic phase of
development. The current hospitality TM literature is limited, largely conceptual and
qualitative, exploring trends rather than concepts and casual links. Furthermore, compared
to general business, hospitality TM research represents a very applied, managerial and
organization-oriented view. It is crucial for hospitality TM to determine the specific tactics
aligned with the unique features of the industry’s workforce. One of the fundamental
hospitality concerns is identifying talented employees, ensuring their retention and thriving
in the company and industry at-large. We argue that for hospitality to be successful it is
necessary to broaden the existing literature with theoretically grounded research combined
with multi-faceted experience-oriented TM approach.
The comparative analysis of the literature using VNS approach uncovered a number of
research gaps representing opportunities to develop hospitality TM. To explicate these gaps
further, Dries (2013) five-stage protocol to advance a phenomenon-driven research agenda
was used, including: distinguishing (identifying and describing a TM phenomenon),
exploring (creating or advancing nomological network of the TM phenomenon), designing
(developing empirical studies based on TM research frameworks), theorizing (adapting,
modifying, or creating new theory to explain TM phenomenon), and synthesizing
(developing new counter-intuitive TM research propositions). The unifying theme of the
identified gaps is an underlying rationale for a unique core of hospitality TM that informs
all theoretical and practical TM implications.

Agenda for future hospitality talent management research and theory

Distinguishing: identifying hospitality talent
Based on the substantive domain analysis, we posit that hospitality TM is currently
challenged to define what it means to be talented in hospitality and how to effectively
IJCHM implement TM to support such employees. In addition to contributing hospitality empirical
31,10 evidence to discussion on talent-as-object and talent-as-subject (Gallardo-Gallardo et al.,
2013), hospitality researchers should examine unique attributes of talent, specific to
hospitality, such as hospitableness and callings. Finally, by combining substantive and
methodological domains, hospitality researchers can re-orient the composition of hospitality
talent pool beyond skilled and managerial employees, including new generational cohorts.
3958 Conceptualizing and measuring hospitableness as talent. Hospitableness as a hospitality
differentiator was defined by Pizam (2005) to characterize the critical sensory and hedonic
dimensions of the service phenomenon (Tasci and Semrad, 2016). Originally, hospitableness
reflected generosity of host-guest interactions (Teng, 2011). However, it was redefined as:
[. . .]positive attitudinal, behavioral, and personality characteristics of the hosts that result in
positive emotional responses in guests feeling welcomed, wanted, cared for, safe, and important
(Tasci and Semrad, 2016, p. 31).
Three dimensions of hospitableness were identified: heartwarming, heart-assuring, and
heart-soothing. Therefore, by definition, employees who possess these positive
characteristics may possess a talent for hospitableness. It would be useful to make
hospitableness a more strategic focus for hospitality TM, specifically talent identification.
To measure employee hospitableness a customer-focused Tasci and Semrad (2016) scale
should be adapted to TM and its impact tested on various customer, organizational,
personal, and societal outcomes.
Specifying callings as talent. With the growing research interest in hospitality industry
callings (Lee, 2016; Cain et al., 2018), the case can be made for callings inclusion in talent
identification TM tactics. Executive chefs were identified as having a calling (Cain et al.,
2018), “who pursued [their] deepest passion” (Samuelsson and Chambers, 2012, p.198),
“driven by a compulsion that few would feel” (Pratten, 2003, p. 458). Connected to self-
esteem, self-actualization, and self-determination, callings are identified by an internal drive,
prosocial focus, and feelings of purpose or meaning through work (Wrzesniewski, 2012).
Cain et al. (2018) revealed that chefs, who experience professional calling, have strong
engagement and a sense of work-life balance. Hotel front desk employees with the sense of
calling not only positively assessed their career satisfaction, but also demonstrated
increased knowledge-sharing (Lee, 2016). Therefore, it can be proposed that more conceptual
and empirical work connecting professional callings with TM is needed. For example, how
employees with heightened sense of calling react to TM tactics, specifically, if they are not
labeled as high-performers or high-potentials.
Generation Z. Hospitality is a prevalent first-job and one of the first to integrate Generation
Z employees into the workforce. Deloitte (2017) estimates that by 2022 Generation Z will
represent 20 per cent of the labor market. Therefore, understanding Generation Z’s
personality characteristics and talent identification tactics may improve industry prospects
of retaining talented employees through industry-personality fit (Gallardo-Gallardo et al.,
2013). Early studies (Goh and Lee, 2018) on Generation Z hospitality students indicated that
this generation desires personal mobility and worldwide travel while having positive
attitudes toward hospitality as a people industry. They seek happiness at work, embrace
team spirit, portray self-confidence, but may require regular feedback and assurance
regarding their future (Goh and Lee, 2018). More research is critically needed on this new
demographic trend affecting hospitality TM.
Hospitality talent pool. Although the traditional perception of the hospitality industry is
skilled-based (Baum, 2008), growing evidence shows a shift toward knowledge-based for
pivotal employee positions. For example, employees of hotel property management
companies in Spain were surveyed and their knowledge was found to significantly influence Talent
product, process, and marketing innovation (Nieves et al., 2014). Presenza et al. (2017) management
explored menu innovation and the intellectual property of executive chefs. Knowledge-
creation and knowledge sharing was investigated in hotel revenue management teams
meta review
(Aubke et al., 2014). With the growing number of hospitality knowledge-based positions,
including OTAs, sales and revenue managers, social media and reputation analysts; creative
positions, such as chefs, event planners, designers, customer experience managers, future
research should probe hospitality-specific TM pools in other pivotal positions beyond hotel 3959
or restaurant general managers.

Exploring and advancing talent management nomological network

Talent management – customer experience link. Hospitality has a strong customer-service
orientation (He et al., 2011). Commonly adopted in hospitality, the service-profit chain
connects customer HRM practices with the firm’s performance through customer-oriented
outcomes, such as satisfaction and loyalty (Heskett et al., 1994). Therefore, based on the
substantive domain analysis, specifically reviewing gaps in the research framework
(Figure 4), the link between TM and customer outcomes is proposed. Customer experiences
will be influenced by job-related employee outcomes, leading to stronger organizational,
personal, societal, and customer outcomes. For instance, similar to corporate-social
responsibility (He et al., 2011), customer service experiences may be affected by the
organization’s approach to TM and employee perceptions, forming positive or negative
company reputation and contributing to TM ethical discourse. It also means that TM tactics
must be analyzed to address what customers may “value and have reason to value” (Downs
and Swailes, 2013, p.278) in their hospitality service experiences.
Assessing hospitality talent support. The need for in-depth research of TM’s role in
employee retention for the hospitality industry was raised in Deery and Jago (2015),
highlighting the need to better understand work-life balance, employee attitudes,
satisfaction, work overload, stress, and substance abuse. The researchers called for effective
training and development programs, promotional opportunities, and leadership attention to
employee well-being as potential avenues to combat talent attrition. Talent support
programs should be developed to protect and nurture existing hospitality talent. Conger and
Fishel (2007) in their qualitative case-study found that organizational commitment to talent,
one-on-one on-boarding, supportive interventions, mentoring, and coaching of managerial
talent potentially led to pre-empting managerial failures, improved new talent effectiveness,
and reduced turnover. Recently, a 12-month hospitality management training and mentor
program study that combined career development and psychological support to trainees,
positively affected organizational commitment and promotional attitudes (Chang and
Busser, 2017). Furthermore, supervisory mentoring was found to positively influence
newcomers’ innovation in four and five star hotels (Uen et al., 2018). Therefore, future
research should examine what constitutes effective hospitality TM support, what TM
tactics specific to hospitality talent connect with desired job-related employee and customer-
related outcomes, and how organization-oriented, employee-oriented, and society-oriented
TM can coexist within hospitality organizations rather than a unidirectional focus on
company performance and competitive advantage.

Designing hospitality talent management empirical studies

The proposed research framework (Figure 4) represents TM categories and research
pathways that connect the substantive, conceptual, and methodological domains. There is
an overall dearth of hospitality-related quantitative evidence in support of the TM
IJCHM conceptual domain. The framework addresses potential causal links from factors affecting
31,10 TM tactics to outcomes of TM (organizational, personal, societal, customer) yet to be tested.
Although, the majority of researchers agree that TM should build sustainable competitive
advantage and lead to increasing overall firm performance (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2015;
De Boek et al.., 2018), little evidence is provided to support this claim. The lack of specific
measurements to determine the effectiveness of hospitality TM tactics might hinder the
3960 methodological domain. Furthermore, the empirical evidence of mediation effects of job-
related employee outcomes ought to be examined. Finally, the global trends affecting TM
tactics should be examined more thoroughly. Festing and Schäfer (2014) proposed that
generational effects serve as a moderator for TM and affect psychological contracts and
talent retention. Similarly, other global trends may be translated into boundary conditions.
For example, the effects of TM could be compared in the service industry with positive (e.g.
accounting services) and negative reputation (e.g. hospitality), in a simple or complex
industry structure, under volatile or stable work conditions, in homogenous vs diverse
workforce. Connecting customer outcomes with TM tactics, researchers could explore how
authenticity of customer experiences influences managerial decisions to hire talented
expatriates or inpatriates and their career advancement.

Theorizing and synthesizing: towards experiential talent management

Hospitality organizations are under increasing customer, employee and societal pressure to
show more socially responsible leadership (Deery and Jago, 2015; Downs and Swailes, 2013;
He et al., 2011). In recent years, hospitality theory development, research, and practice have
been strongly influenced by the emergence of experience-, collaborative-, sharing- economy
(Chang, 2018; Cheng, 2016; Camilleri and Neuhofer, 2017). The shift to new employee roles in
the shared collaborative economy (Bowen, 2016) calls for new approaches to HRM. Harkison
(2018) in a study focused on co-creation of luxury accommodation customer experiences
acknowledged that “in order for organizations to be able to co-create unique customer
experiences, they must be able to co-create an empowered employee experience “inside”
their organization” (p. 16). Hence, to advance positive psychology and a capabilities
approach (Swailes et al., 2014), we propose an experiential direction for hospitality TM that
is built on propositions derived from the broaden-and-build theory (BBT) (Fredrickson,
2001).
Unlike RBV that focuses on the lack or shortage of resources, BBT describes how
humans create and develop their intrinsic resources (Garland et al., 2010). BBT postulates
that positive emotions improve (broaden) one’s thought-action repertoires, enabling them to
flexibly draw on higher-level connections and wider-than-usual ranges of perceptions, ideas,
and action urges (Garland et al., 2010). As a result, this enhanced cognition creates agility
that over time generates, builds, and grows a variety of personal and social resources, such
as mindfulness, resilience, social closeness (Fredrickson et al., 2008), hence, providing
individual’s with extra resources and potential to develop their talent. Improved work
engagement, innovativeness and organizational-citizenship behavior were found to result
from broaden-and-built resources (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009; Meyers and Van Woerkom,
2015). Finally, enabled by accumulating these psychological resources, individuals combine
hedonic well-being, or the experience of pleasurable emotions, with eudaimonic well-being,
defined as the striving toward one’s potential and purpose in life (Garland et al., 2010). Sen
(2004), proposed it is individual’s well-being that should matter the most, and it’s for
individuals to decide what matters to them.
Therefore, we propose a shift from TM’s goal of building organizational competitive
advantage through talented individuals to TM’s goal of building employees’ personal well-
being. Following the service-profit chain logic as applied to hospitality, the outcome of such Talent
well-being-oriented TM should be improved organizational performance: increased revenue management
and financial performance. Further, to achieve the goal of positive impact on employee well-
being, rather than TM tactics, TM employee experiences should be developed, tested, and
meta review
co-created with employees. Pine and Gilmore (1999, p. 12) defined individual experiences as
“events that engage individuals in a personal way.” We argue that it is worth developing
experiential TM that provides employees with engaging TM experiences that are
personable, building their intrinsic resources, and positively influencing their sense of well- 3961
being. Experiential experts consider individuals as both rational and emotional, and argue
that in hospitality they value pleasure in addition to other utilitarian values (Hwang and
Seo, 2016), providing yet another connection to BBT. Conceptualizing TM, Swailes et al.
(2014) proposed a TM continuum from fully inclusive to highly exclusive or elitist.
Experiential TM should be built not on principals of complete exclusivity or full inclusivity,
but rather on principles of personalization and customization, creating TM experiences for a
specific employee.

Theoretical implications
The inconsistent definitions of TM and talent as a focal construct in general business and
hospitality literature is imperative for this study. Conceptually this study proposes to
advance hospitality TM definitions to reflect the unique customer-facing, complex, and
volatile nature of the industry and specific talent characteristics (i.e. hospitableness,
callings) that are required to succeed in the industry. There is more to be explored in relation
to what it means to be talented in hospitality, and how to attract and retain those
extraordinary talented individuals.
Considering the continuous argument that TM is simply a rebranding of HRM
(Schiemann, 2014; Lewis and Heckman, 2006) and increased application of TM as leadership
or career development tactics (Dries, 2013) revealed through this literature review, it is
argued that hospitality industry should advance the TM field of study by developing
experiential TM. Building on BBT (Fredrickson et al., 2008) and CA (Swailes et al., 2014),
experiential TM is focused on employee well-being rather than pure organizational gain,
which may result in creating sustainable competitive advantage for the hospitality firm and
positive societal outcomes. Extending the service-profit chain with TM and connecting TM
outcomes with customer experiences in the hospitality industry promises to enrich the field
of study with benefits derived from supporting talented employees.
This study demonstrated that hospitality TM research is very limited and mainly
involved in conceptual development and qualitative studies with under-developed
theoretical foundation. However, the industry shows heightened interest in the topic (Ricca,
2018). Thus, hospitality TM scholars should provide theoretically-sound evidence to support
TM claims, and consider building studies to test existing theories and theoretical
frameworks extended with unique hospitality-related concepts. Advancing TM theoretical
perspectives through sociological, educational, vocational, social, positive theories of
psychology may deepen our understanding and interpretation of TM phenomenon as seen
in hospitality industry.

Practical implications
As one of the leading industries in the world, hospitality and tourism employs a large
number of individuals. As such, it is critical for practitioners to identify those who are
specifically talented in hospitableness and/or have a calling to specific hospitality traits, in
both managerial and non-managerial positions, including individuals from the diversity
IJCHM groups, who are just entering the profession, such as immigrants and younger generations.
31,10 Hospitality practitioners should keep in mind that talented employees might have a direct
effect on customer-related outcomes and competitive advantage of the firm. The general
business TM research suggests that conditions must be provided for fair talent development
support. Therefore, hospitality practitioners should focus on customization of employee
work experiences to improve retention and extend the work-cycle of the talented employees.
3962 Given hospitality industry barriers to attract talent, it is critical for practitioners to create
opportunities that support talent development, such as formal and informal mentoring and
coaching, career planning, learning and development programs. Well-being of employees
should be positively affected as the result. Thus, it is imperative for hospitality managers to
monitor not only employee satisfaction, but also employee work experience indices and well-
being.

Conclusion
This comparative TM literature review based on the VNS approach, provided a critical
analysis, synthesis and directions for future hospitality research. The overview of 12 general
and 5 hospitality-specific TM discourse topics and a research framework of potential
antecedents, mediators, and outcomes of TM tactics (Figure 4) identified gaps in hospitality
scholarship. The limited number of hospitality TM studies and the heightened industry
interest in TM presents a notable opportunity for hospitality academics to advance the
unique research agenda advancing the theoretical development of the field while also
influencing practical application.

References
Aubke, F., Woeber, K., Scott, N. and Baggio, R. (2014), “Knowledge sharing in revenue management
teams: antecedents and consequences of group cohesion”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 41, pp. 149-157.
Ayentimi, D.T., Burgess, J. and Dayaram, K. (2017), “Do multinational subsidiaries demonstrate a
convergence across their HRM practices in a less developed host-country? evidence from
Ghana”, Employee Relations, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 1066-1082.
Barney, J.B. (2002), “Strategic management: from informed conversation to academic discipline”,
Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 53-57.
Barron, P. (2008), “Education and talent management: Implications for the hospitality industry”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 730-742.
Baum, T. (2008), “Implications of hospitality and tourism labour markets for talent management
strategies”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 7,
pp. 720-729.
Baum, T., Hearns, N. and Devine, F. (2007), “Place, people and interpretation: issues of migrant labour
and tourism imagery in Ireland”, Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 39-48.
Baum, T., Hearns, N. and Devine, F. (2008), “Place branding and the representation of people at work:
exploring issues of tourism imagery and migrant labour in the republic of Ireland”, Place
Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 45-60.
Beamond, M.T., Farndale, E. and Härtel, C.E.J. (2016), “MNE translation of corporate talent
management strategies to subsidiaries in emerging economies”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 499-510.
Beck, R. and Harter, J. (2018), “Why great managers are so rare”, available at: www.gallup.com/
workplace/231593/why-great-managers-rare.aspx (accessed 15 February 2019).
Bharwani, S. and Talib, P. (2017), “Competencies of hotel general managers: a conceptual framework”, Talent
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 393-418.
management
Bianchi, R.V. (2000), “Migrant tourist-workers: exploring the' contact zones' of post-industrial tourism”,
Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 107-137. meta review
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers.
Böhmer, N. and Schinnenburg, H. (2016), “How gender and career concepts impact global talent
management”, Employee Relations, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 73-93.
3963
Bolander, P., Werr, A. and Asplund, K. (2017), “The practice of talent management: a framework and
typology”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 1523-1551.
Bowen, D.E. (2016), “The changing role of employees in service theory and practice: an interdisciplinary
view”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 4-13.
Brinberg, D. and McGrath, J.E. (1985), “Validity and the research process”, in Validity and the Research
Process, Sage Publications.
Buckingham, M. and Vosburgh, R.M. (2001), “The 21st century human resources function: it's the
talent, stupid!”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 24 No. 4.
Cain, L., Busser, J. and Kang, H.J. (2018), “Executive chefs’ calling: effect on engagement, work-life
balance and life satisfaction”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 2287-2307.
Camilleri, J. and Neuhofer, B. (2017), “Value co-creation and co-destruction in the Airbnb sharing
economy”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 9,
pp. 2322-2340.
Chami-Malaeb, R. and Garavan, T. (2013), “Talent and leadership development practices as drivers of
intention to stay in Lebanese organisations: the mediating role of affective commitment”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 21, pp. 4046-4062.
Chang, S. (2018), “Experience economy in hospitality and tourism: gain and loss values for service and
experience”, Tourism Management, Vol. 64, pp. 55-63.
Chang, W. and Busser, J.A. (2017), “Hospitality employees promotional attitude: findings from
graduates of a twelve-month management training program”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 60, pp. 48-57.
Cheng, M. (2016), “Sharing economy: a review and agenda for future research”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 57, pp. 60-70.
CIPD (2006), Talent Management: Understanding the Dimensions, CIPD, UK.
Claussen, J., Grohsjean, T., Luger, J. and Probst, G. (2014), “Talent management and career development:
what it takes to get promoted”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 236-244.
Cobb, A. (2011), “Using talent management to drive competitive advantage”, available at: www.
hotelexecutive.com/business_review/2735/using-talent-management-to-drive-competitive-
advantage (accessed 15 February 2019).
Collings, D.G. (2014), “Integrating global mobility and global talent management: exploring the
challenges and strategic opportunities”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 253-261.
Collings, D.G. and Mellahi, K. (2009), “Strategic talent management: a review and research agenda”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 304-313.
Conger, J.A. and Fishel, B. (2007), “Accelerating leadership performance at the top: lessons from the
bank of America's executive on-boarding process”, Human Resource Management Review,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 442-454.
Connelly, B.L., Certo, S.T., Ireland, R.D. and Reutzel, C.R. (2011), “Signaling theory: a review and
assessment”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 39-67.
Connolly, P. and McGing, G. (2006), “Graduate education and hospitality management in Ireland”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 50-59.
IJCHM Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
31,10
Crowley-Henry, M. and Al Ariss, A. (2018), “Talent management of skilled migrants: propositions and
an agenda for future research”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 29 No. 13, pp. 2054-2079.
D’Annunzio-Green, N. (2008), “Managing the talent management pipeline: towards a greater
3964 understanding of senior managers' perspectives in the hospitality and tourism sector”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 807-819.
De Boeck, G., Meyers, M.C. and Dries, N. (2018), “Employee reactions to talent management:
assumptions versus evidence”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 199-213.
Deloitte (2017), “Meet the US workforce of the future”, by Buckley, P. and Bachman, D.
(Eds), available at: www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/3884_Meet-the-US-
work-force/DUP_Meet-the-US-workforce-reprint.pdf
De Vos, A. and Dries, N. (2013), “Applying a talent management lens to career management: the role of
human capital composition and continuity”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 1816-1831.
Deery, M. and Jago, L. (2015), “Revisiting talent management, work-life balance and retention
strategies”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 453-472.
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: collective rationality and
institutional isomorphism in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48
No. 2, pp. 147-160.
Downs, Y. and Swailes, S. (2013), “A capability approach to organizational talent management”,
Human Resource Development International, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 267-281.
Dries, N. (2013), “The psychology of talent management: a review and research agenda”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 272-285.
Dries, N. and De Gieter, S. (2014), “Information asymmetry in high potential programs: a potential risk
for psychological contract breach”, Personnel Review, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 136-162.
Dries, N. and Pepermans, R. (2007), “Real” high-potential careers: an empirical study into the
perspectives of organisations and high potentials”, Personnel Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 85-108.
Dries, N., Vantilborgh, T. and Pepermans, R. (2012), “The role of learning agility and career variety in
the identification and development of high potential employees”, Personnel Review, Vol. 41 No. 3,
pp. 340-358.
Ericsson, KAs., Prietula, M.J. and Cokely, E.T. (2007), “The making of an expert”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 85 Nos 7/8, p. 114.
Festing, M. and Schäfer, L. (2014), “Generational challenges to talent management: A framework for
talent retention based on the psychological-contract perspective”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 262-271.
Festing, M., Kornau, A. and Schäfer, L. (2015), “Think talent–think male? a comparative case study
analysis of gender inclusion in talent management practices in the German media industry”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 707-732.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2001), “The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build
theory of positive emotions”, American Psychologist, Vol. 56 No. 3, p. 218.
Fredrickson, B.L., Cohn, M.A., Coffey, K.A., Pek, J. and Finkel, S.M. (2008), “Open hearts build lives:
positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal
resources”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5, p. 1045.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N. and González-Cruz, T.F. (2013), “What is the meaning of ‘talent’ in the
world of work?”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 290-300.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Nijs, S., Dries, N. and Gallo, P. (2015), “Towards an understanding of talent Talent
management as a phenomenon-driven field using bibliometric and content analysis”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 264-279.
management
Gannon, J., Roper, A. and Doherty, L. (2010), “The impact of hotel management contracting on IHRM
meta review
practices: understanding the bricks and brains split”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 638-658.
Gannon, J.M., Roper, A. and Doherty, L. (2015), “Strategic human resource management: Insights from
the international hotel industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 47, 3965
pp. 65-75.
Garavan, T.N. (2012), “Global talent management in science-based firms: an exploratory investigation
of the pharmaceutical industry during the global downturn”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 3 No. 12, pp. 2428-2449.
Garland, E.L., Fredrickson, B., Kring, A.M., Johnson, D.P., Meyer, P.S. and Penn, D.L. (2010), “Upward
spirals of positive emotions counter downward spirals of negativity: insights from the broaden-
and-build theory and affective neuroscience on the treatment of emotion dysfunctions and
deficits in psychopathology”, Clinical Psychology Review, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 849-864.
Gelens, J., Dries, N., Hofmans, J. and Pepermans, R. (2013), “The role of perceived organizational justice
in shaping the outcomes of talent management: a research agenda”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 341-353.
Goh, E. and Lee, C. (2018), “A workforce to be reckoned with: the emerging pivotal generation Z
hospitality workforce”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 73, pp. 20-28.
Grewal, D. and Levy, M. (2007), “Retailing research: past, present, and future”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 447-464.
Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A.L. and Nordfält, J. (2016), “Roles of retailer tactics and customer-specific
factors in shopper marketing: substantive, methodological, and conceptual issues”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 1009-1013.
Groutsis, D., O’Leary, J. and Russell, G. (2016), “Capitalizing on the cultural and linguistic diversity of
mobile talent: lessons from an Australian study”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, pp. 1-22.
Guerci, M. and Solari, L. (2012), “Talent management practices in Italy–implications for human
resource development”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 25-41.
Harkison, T. (2018), “The use of co-creation within the luxury accommodation experience–myth or
reality?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 71, pp. 11-18.
He, Y., Li, W. and Keung, L.K. (2011), “Service climate, employee commitment and customer
satisfaction: evidence from the hospitality industry in China”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 592-607.
Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser Jr, W.E. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1994), “Putting the
service–profit chain to work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 164-174.
Hughes, C.J. and Rog, E. (2008), “Talent management: a strategy for improving employee recruitment,
retention and engagement within hospitality organizations”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 743-757.
Hwang, J. and Seo, S. (2016), “A critical review of research on customer experience management:
theoretical, methodological and cultural perspectives”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 2218-2246.
Iles, P., Preece, D. and Chuai, X. (2010), “Talent management as a management fashion in HRD: towards
a research agenda”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 125-145.
Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. (1995), “Understanding human resource management in the context of
organizations and their environments”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 237-264.
IJCHM Jonsson, L. and Thorgren, S. (2017), “Trainee programs: an emerging model on psychological contract
reciprocity”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 1738-1754.
31,10
King, K.A. (2016), “The talent deal and journey: understanding how employees respond to talent
identification over time”, Employee Relations, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 94-111.
Kontoghiorghes, C. (2016), “Linking high performance organizational culture and talent management:
satisfaction/motivation and organizational commitment as mediators”, The International
3966 Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 16, pp. 1833-1853.
Krishnan, T.N. and Scullion, H. (2017), “Talent management and dynamic view of talent in small and
medium enterprises”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 431-441.
Lee, K.J. (2016), “Sense of calling and career satisfaction of hotel frontline employees: mediation through
knowledge sharing with organizational members”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 346-365.
Lewis, R.E. and Heckman, R.J. (2006), “Talent management: a critical review”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 139-154.
McGrath, J.E. and Brinberg, D. (1983), “External validity and the research process: a comment on the
Calder/Lynch dialogue”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 115-124.
McNulty, Y. and De Cieri, H. (2016), “Linking global mobility and global talent management: the role of
ROI”, Employee Relations, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 8-30.
McPhail, R., McNulty, Y. and Hutchings, K. (2016), “Lesbian and gay expatriation: Opportunities,
barriers and challenges for global mobility”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 382-406.
Malik, A.R. and Singh, P. (2014), “High potential’ programs: let's hear it for ‘B’ players”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 330-346.
Mariani, M., Baggio, R., Fuchs, M. and Höepken, W. (2018), “Business intelligence and big data in
hospitality and tourism: a systematic literature review”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 3514-3554.
Martin, G., Gollan, P.J. and Grigg, K. (2011), “Is there a bigger and better future for employer branding?
facing up to innovation, corporate reputations and wicked problems in SHRM”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 17, pp. 3618-3637.
Maxwell, G.A. and MacLean, S. (2008), “Talent management in hospitality and tourism in Scotland:
operational implications and strategic actions”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 820-830.
Maxwell, G.A. and Watson, S. (2006), “Perspectives on line managers in human resource management:
Hilton International’s UK hotels”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 1152-1170.
Meyer, K.E. and Xin, K.R. (2017), “Managing talent in emerging economy multinationals: Integrating
strategic management and human resource management”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, pp. 1-29.
Meyers, M.C. and Van Woerkom, M. (2014), “The influence of underlying philosophies on talent
management: theory, implications for practice, and research agenda”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 192-203.
Meyers, M.C., Van Woerkom, M. and Dries, N. (2013), “Talent–innate or acquired? theoretical
considerations and their implications for talent management”, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 305-321.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., and Axelrod, B. (2001), The War for Talent, Harvard Business Press,
Boston.
Minbaeva, D. and Collings, D.G. (2013), “Seven myths of global talent management”, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 1762-1776.
Moeller, M., Maley, J., Harvey, M. and Kiessling, T. (2016), “Global talent management and inpatriate Talent
social capital building: a status inconsistency perspective”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 991-1012.
management
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. and Altman, D.G. and Prisma Group (2009), “Preferred reporting
meta review
items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”, PLoS Medicine, Vol. 6
No. 7.
Naim, M.F. and Lenka, U. (2018), “Development and retention of generation Y employees: a conceptual
framework”, Employee Relations, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 433-455. 3967
Nieves, J., Quintana, A. and Osorio, J. (2014), “Knowledge-based resources and innovation in the hotel
industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 38, pp. 65-73.
Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1999), The Experience Economy: Work Is Theatre and Every Business a
Stage, Harvard Business Press.
Pizam, A. (2005), International Encyclopedia of Hospitality Management, Routledge.
Pratten, J.D. (2003), “The training and retention of chefs”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 237-242.
Presenza, A., Abbate, T., Casali, G.L. and Perano, M. (2017), “An innovative approach to the
intellectual property in haute cuisine”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 65, pp. 81-88.
Ricca, S. (2018), “Hotel bosses open up about brand boom, supply concerns”, available at: www.
hotelnewsnow.com/articles/288977/Hotel-bosses-open-up-about-brand-boom-supply-concerns
(accessed 15 February 2019).
Riley, M. (2005), “Food and beverage management: a review of change”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 88-93.
Rousseau, D. (1995), Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten
Agreements, Sage Publications.
Samuelsson, M. and Chambers, V. (2012), Yes, Chef: A Memoir, Random House.
Schiemann, W.A. (2014), “From talent management to talent optimization”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 281-288.
Scott, B. and Revis, S. (2008), “Talent management in hospitality: graduate career success and strategies”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 781-791.
Sen, A. (2004), “Capabilities, lists, and public reason: continuing the conversation”, Feminist Economics,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 77-80.
Shepard, G. (2018), “Planning employees' life cycles: a blueprint for effective talent management”,
available at: www.hrdive.com/news/planning-employees-life-cycles-a-blueprint-for-effective-
talent-managemen/531859/ (accessed 15 February 2019).
Slattery, P. (2002), “Finding the hospitality industry”, The Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport and
Tourism, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 19-28.
Slowey, K. (2018), “Report: global hotel construction pipelines at record highs”, https://www.
constructiondive.com/news/report-global-hotel-construction-pipelines-at-record-highs/533486/
(accessed 15 February 2019).
Sonnenberg, M., van Zijderveld, V. and Brinks, M. (2014), “The role of talent-perception incongruence in
effective talent management”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 272-280.
Sparrow, P. (2012), “Globalising the international mobility function: the role of emerging markets,
flexibility and strategic delivery models”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 2404-2427.
Sparrow, P.R. and Makram, H. (2015), “What is the value of talent management? Building value-driven
processes within a talent management architecture”, Human Resource Management Review,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 249-263.
IJCHM Srinivasan, V. and Chandwani, R. (2014), “HRM innovations in rapid growth contexts: the healthcare
sector in India”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 10,
31,10 pp. 1505-1525.
Stokes, P., Liu, Y., Smith, S., Leidner, S., Moore, N. and Rowland, C. (2016), “Managing talent
across advanced and emerging economies: HR issues and challenges in a Sino-German
strategic collaboration”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 27 No. 20, pp. 2310-2338.
3968
Swailes, S. and Blackburn, M. (2016), “Employee reactions to talent Pool membership”, Employee
Relations, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 112-128.
Swailes, S., Downs, Y. and Orr, K. (2014), “Conceptualising inclusive talent management: Potential,
possibilities and practicalities”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 529-544.
Tasci, A.D.A. and Semrad, K.J. (2016), “Developing a scale of hospitableness: a tale of two worlds”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 53, pp. 30-41.
Teng, C.C. (2011), “Commercial hospitality in restaurants and tourist accommodation: perspectives
from international consumer experience in Scotland”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 866-874.
Thunnissen, M., Boselie, P. and Fruytier, B. (2013), “Talent management and the relevance of context:
towards a pluralistic approach”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 326-336.
Uen, J.F., Chang, H.C., McConville, D. and Tsai, S.C. (2018), “Supervisory mentoring and newcomer
innovation performance in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 73, pp. 93-101.
Ulrich, D. and Dulebohn, J.H. (2015), “Are we there yet? What’s next for HR?”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 188-204.
Ulrich, D. and Smallwood, N. (2012), “What is talent?”, Leader to Leader, Vol. 2012 No. 63,
pp. 55-61.
Vaiman, V., Haslberger, A. and Vance, C.M. (2015), “Recognizing the important role of self-initiated
expatriates in effective global talent management”, Human Resource Management Review,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 280-286.
Von Krogh, G., Lamastra, C.R., and Haefliger, S. (2009), Phenomenon-Based Research in Management
and Organization Science: Towards a Research Strategy, Paper Presented to AOM.
Walsh, K. and Taylor, M.S. (2007), “Developing in-house careers and retaining management talent:
what hospitality professionals want from their jobs”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 163-182.
Watson, S. (2008), “Where are we now? a review of management development issues in the hospitality
and tourism sector: implications for talent management”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 758-780.
Wrzesniewski, A. (2012), “Callings”, The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational
Scholarship.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), “Reciprocal relationships
between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 235-244.
Xu, H., Ye, T. and Chan, D. (2018), “When cosmopolitan corporations meet local environments: the
impact on managerial structure in international luxury hotels”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 74, pp. 30-39.
Zopiatis, A., Constanti, P. and Theocharous, A.L. (2014), “Migrant labor in hospitality: the cyprus
experience”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 37, pp. 111-120.
Further reading Talent
Gibbs, C., MacDonald, F. and MacKay, K. (2015), “Social media usage in hotel human resources: management
recruitment, hiring and communication”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 170-184. meta review
Tlaiss, H.A., Martin, P. and Hofaidhllaoui, M. (2017), “Talent retention: evidence from a multinational
firm in France”, Employee Relations, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 426-445.

Corresponding author
3969
Lenna V. Shulga can be contacted at: shulga@hawaii.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com