Talent Management in Practice: Article Information

Talent Management in Practice
The Integrated and Dynamic TM Model

Article information:
To cite this document: "The Integrated and Dynamic TM Model" In
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 01:21 23 February 2018 (PT)
Talent Management in Practice. Published online: 24 Aug 2017; 111-125.

Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78714-597-920171008
Downloaded on: 23 February 2018, At: 01:21 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3 times since 2017*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription
provided by emerald-srm:353605 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication,
then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for
more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the
benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well
as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The
organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of

download.
CHAPTER 6
THE INTEGRATED AND DYNAMIC

TM MODEL
6.1. INTRODUCTION
We started this book by arguing that even though business

leaders and practitioners attach great value to talent and TM,
and are in need of finding the right solutions for their talent
issues, the academic community doesn’t pay full attention to
the complexity of TM in practice. We wanted to bridge the
gap between theory and practice and aimed to enhance the
understanding of the complexity and dynamics of TM in
practice. Step by step, we have built and integrated and con-
textualized TM framework, which helps address and assess
the nature of TM in an organization with its dynamics. In
this final chapter, the complete model is presented, and its
strengths and limitations are discussed. We end with sugges-
tions for future research.
111
112 Talent Management in Practice
6.2. THE INTEGRATED AND DYNAMIC TM MODEL
In the previous chapters, we have given an overview of parts

of our integrated and dynamic TM model. We started with
offering a rigorous and up-to-date synthesis of prior empirical
research on TM published between 2006 and 2016 in aca-
demic peer-reviewed journals. Chapters 2 and 3 therefore
framed the extent and nature of contemporary empirical
research on TM. We have seen that empirical research in TM

increases rapidly, and that the academic debate about TM is
no longer dominated by US scholars and their US way of
thinking and investigating (Collings et al., 2011) but by
European scholars. Three topics attract specific academic
attention: the shaping of an intended (Global) TM approach,
the carrying out of single TM practices, and how to define
talent. The accent has been put on the organizational perspec-
tive, and on two parts of the TM process, that is, the intended
TM strategy and the employees’ reactions. How TM is imple-
mented, how and how well (from the perspective of multiple
actors) it works in practice, as well as the role and percep-
tions of line managers and other actors in the implementation
process are underexplored areas. The data show that each
region has its own specific TM issues. A slight increasing
awareness of organizational context and culture was found
in particular in studies on TM in Europe and on GTM but
in general contextually based research is lacking in the field
of TM. All in all, empirical research presents a fragmented
and one-dimensional view on TM. The analysis also shows
that research foundations and designs are not very rigorous.
The lacunas in empirical research identified in review of
empirical TM literature were used as stepping stones to
expand our view on TM in practice. Building on lessons
learned from the fields of strategic management, quality man-
agement, and strategic HRM (Andersson et al., 2006; Boxall,
The Integrated and Dynamic TM Model 113
2013; Boxall & Macky, 2009; Collins, 2001; De Waal,

2008; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Wongrassamee et al.,
2003), we presented, in Chapter 4, the key elements of an
integrated TM model. We discussed the main features of
these models, and identified seven key principles for achieving
excellence at the organizational level. We learned that it is
essential (1) to consider achieving excellence as an organiza-
tional process, (2) in which an explicit distinction is made

between enablers or drivers of excellence on the one hand
and results on the other, (3) regarding the results, a multi-
stakeholder multi-value approach is crucial, and also (4) a
broad orientation towards the enablers or drivers is pivotal,
since excellence needs to be embedded and integrated in both
“soft” and “hard” aspects of the organization such as struc-
ture, processes, leadership, and culture. Moreover, in order
to grow as an organization it is important (5) to pay explicit
attention to systematic organizational learning and improve-
ment. Finally, (6) contextual awareness and sensitivity is cru-
cial, so the impact of the external organizational context
needs to be incorporated in the model, as well as (7) the
acknowledgment that changes in both the internal and exter-
nal organizational context can cause variety and dynamics
with which the organization has to deal in achieving
excellence.
Based on the lessons learned from both empirical TM
research and the above-mentioned related academic fields, we
have adopted a process-orientation towards TM (see
Figure 6.1). We have made a clear distinction between
enablers of excellence and outcomes of TM, and have incorpo-
rated learning and innovation into the TM process.
Concerning the outcomes of TM, we have argued that TM
can contribute to both economic and non-economic well-being
at the individual employee level, and the organizational and
societal level (cf. Thunnissen et al., 2013b). Organizations
114
Figure 6.1: An Integrated and Dynamic TM Model.
ENABLERS OUTCOMES
EXTERNAL CONTEXT
Employees’
Institutional and market pressures Institutional actors
results
INTENDED TM TM IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGY
- Talent definition
- TM objectives Actual TM Perceived TM Organizational
- TM practices practices practices results
Talent Management in Practice

INTERNAL CONTEXT
Organizational alignment (e.g., with workforce Involvement of organization-

composition, history, etc.) and embeddedness in: nal actors (values,
- Mission, vision, strategy perceptions & actions) Society results
- Leadership - Top & line management
- Culture - HR
- Systems, processes and structure - Employees
Systematic learning and continuous

improvement
have to be aware that these objectives can collide which causes

tensions and paradoxes. Regarding the enablers, we suggested
to have a value driven TM strategy, which consists of a clear
and shared view on talent, objectives at multiple levels, and a
broad orientation towards the coherent bundle of TM prac-
tices and activities to achieve those objectives. Moreover, TM
is not a standalone and isolated process, and to achieve orga-
nizational excellence the focus on talent has to be embedded

and internalized into other (hard and soft) organizational
aspects: the overall strategy, organizational structure, systems
and processes, organizational culture, and leadership style. In
correspondence to this broad and integrated view on TM, we
describe TM as the activities and processes that involve the
systematic attraction, identification, development, engagement,
retention and deployment of those talents which are of partic-
ular value to an organization in order to create strategic sus-
tainable success (e.g., Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Collings
& Mellahi, 2009; Scullion et al., 2010). The term talent in this
definition can refer to both the inclusive (the strength based
approach) and the exclusive approach (focused on an elite
employee group).
We have argued several times that there can be variation
in the TM process: The strategy is often not exactly imple-
mented as intended, and can be perceived differently by
employees and others involved in TM. The employees’ per-
ceptions affect their attitudes and behavior, including their
performance (Nishii et al., 2008). These different stages
generally speaking: intended TM, implemented TM and
results are presented in our integrated and dynamic TM
model. The variety in the TM process can be caused by fac-
tors outside the organization. We have made a distinction
between institutional and market mechanisms, which at least
have an impact on the choices made by the dominant coali-
tion (often HR and top management) regarding the intended
HR strategy, but can also affect the implementation of TM in

the different parts of the organization. Yet, also factors at the
organizational and individual level can cause variance.
Characteristics of the organization (such as size and homo-
geneity) mainly affect the development of a TM strategy,
while in particular factors at the individual level seem to
influence the TM implementation process. Mainly the actions
by the line manager and the employee have a significant effect

on TM in practice. Therefore we argue that it is important to
pay specific attention to the (active) actor involvement in our
integrated and dynamic TM model.
In Chapter 5, the dynamics in the process of managing
excellence was put central, and we showed that different
forces inside and outside the organization which are often
not stable but changing over time as well cause tensions
and dilemmas, with which the organization has to deal. We
have presented some dilemmas in both the development of
the TM strategy and in the implementation phase (including
employees’ perception). Now the question arises how organi-
zations deal with these dynamics, tensions, and dilemmas.
The models on quality management and operational excel-
lence present a learning and innovation loop, suggesting that
constantly measuring results leads to adjustments in the
enablers. The learning and innovation loop is integrated in
the model. The theories about HRM and fit suggest that the
organization needs to find an optimal equilibrium on a spe-
cific aspect of the HR strategy and its “forces.” The weakness
of this fit-approach is that it searches for a status quo and
doesn’t focus on innovation and growth. Also an either-or
approach seems to dominate in the TM literature, forcing us
to choose one side of the tension. In the strategic manage-
ment literature, other ways to handle dilemmas are men-
tioned, such as parallel processing. The truth is that we don’t
have much information about the actual dilemmas in TM,
nor about the way organizations handle these dilemmas.

Empirical research indicates that organizations simply stop
with talent programs because they are not effective, but this
needs further investigation.
The full model is presented in Figure 6.1.
6.3. DISCUSSION: STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS
Several strengths of the model can be outlined. First, the model

is based on “practice based evidence,” since we took lessons
learned from empirical research as starting point. Additionally,
the model includes some neglected facts and also integrates
variables that are usually considered separately. Second,
as recommended by Boxall, Purcell, and Wright (2007), the
model offers a broad interpretation of the organizational out-
comes, differentiating between individual, organizational, and
societal levels. Third, models and theories from related aca-
demic subfields were integrated in the TM model, which is a
great contribution to the field since most studies are not ade-
quately built on theoretical frameworks. As a result, the model
highlights the expected dynamic relationship between drivers
and results of excellence and emphasizes the alignment with
environmental (external context) and organizational (internal
context) demands and opportunities. Fourth, the models
acknowledge that the TM process is not static and linear, but
contains several stages in which variance can occur. Finally,
explicit attention is given to learning and innovation in order
to highlight the dynamic nature of TM. This is going to be the
first model that offers researchers (and practitioners) a theoreti-
cal frame to analyze how TM is implemented within organiza-
tions and what has been achieved.
The model also has some limitations. For example, the
question arises whether all essential elements in describing a
TM approach are included in the model, and whether these

enablers of TM really help organizations to achieve organiza-
tional excellence. This issue needs further investigation. Also,
a proper detection of obstacles and accelerators in TM imple-
mentation, and the exact clarification of the different roles
and impact of the key actors have become crucial to offer a
more complete picture. In addition, we have included a feed-
back loop in the model, but this needs further clarification.

After all, the question is whether learning and innovation
takes place after assessing results, or whether there are multi-
ple “mini feedback loops” within the model since organiza-
tions constantly adjust their TM approach to environmental
constraints. Moreover, Silzer and Dowell (2010) suggest five
stages of TM integration (reactive, programmatic, compre-
hensive, aligned and strategic). The underlying assumption is
that, when applied frequently, the dynamic TM model can
show not only the progress in managing talent but also the
evolution of the organization’s TM approach. The question
arises if there are levels of maturity in TM, and how they can
be defined. This also needs further improvement through
research.
We are also aware that the model has some methodological
issues to settle. First, the descriptive and open character of the
model makes it feasible to test it in a qualitative research, such
as in a case study in which multiple stakeholders are inter-
viewed and organizational documents analyzed. However,
whether it is possible to gather the information in qualitative
research, or, as in the case of the EFQM model, as a self-
assessment model needs to be considered in future research. In
any case, we recommend multi-level study in which the per-
spectives of at least the organization (HR/management) and
employees are included. Second, the multi-level and broad ori-
entation of the model requires a thorough research design,
favorably a longitudinal research design, but this is not always
possible. The question is how the model can be tested in a less

intensive way (or even used as a self-assessment instrument for
organizations). Third, although we explained the central ele-
ments of the model in the text and in tables, a more detailed
and consistent operationalization of the “variables” in the
model is required, in particular when the model is used in
quantitative research. For example, we know that culture,
leadership, processes are relevant enablers but, how and what

aspects of those enablers have to be taken into account?
Likewise, there is a need to define some reasonable metrics in
order to be able to measure the TM outcomes at all levels.
6.4. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
We have recommendations for future research for both the

content of TM research and the research designs. We will
start with the latter.
6.4.1. Recommendations for Research Designs
Through the review we gained insight in the research designs

adopted in empirical TM research. Often the quality of the
research designs at least how they are presented in the pub-
lication is open for improvement. First, we noticed that
qualitative research was prevalent before 2011, but since
then quantitative research increased significantly. The amount
of qualitative research was somewhat surprising, since we
expected a greater use of qualitative data given the emerging
nature of the field (Von Krogh, Rossi-Lamastra, & Haefliger,
2012). The increase of quantitative research could be an indi-
cator of the field moving forward, although mixed-method
studies are still a mere anecdote. Moreover, as expected in a
young field, the majority of the articles are based on descrip-

tive research. So, it seems that there are confusing signs of the
progress in the field. In order to keep advancing our knowl-
edge on TM we retain the call for significant empirical
research in terms of quality, depth, and breadth of the meth-
odologies used. We encourage more qualitative and mixed-
method studies, and in line with McDonnell et al. (2017), we
consider the use of single case studies with an indepth analy-

sis useful in enhancing the depth of understanding.
A second recommendation concerns the level of analysis.
Not only do we see the need for research on other levels than
the organizational and individual level (such as job or team
level) but also urge researchers to be more precise in match-
ing the aim and subject of the study with the respondents
group. We have seen publications in which data on employ-
ees’ perceptions were gathered by interviewing (HR) man-
agers, and publications pretending to investigate
organizational outcomes by asking employees.
Third, as we mentioned in Chapter 3, previous statement
about the absence of contextual awareness in the TM litera-
ture need some adjustments. Each region seems to have its
own specific TM issues. This implies that TM is context
dependent. However, this cannot be interpreted as a sign that
scholars conducted a contextualized research design in which
they deliberately look for contextual factors to explain what
happens. Although GTM and European scholars show an
increasing awareness of the relevance of contextual research,
in many other studies the finding of contextual factors is,
what we called, a fortunate side effect of these studies.
However, we have seen in Chapter 5 that this provides us
some interesting information about how TM works in prac-
tice. Moreover, we encourage scholars to look further than
the national context. The review shows that the impact of the
organizational configuration on TM hardly receives any
explicit scholarly attention in empirical TM research. So,

despite the advancements made, we call up for (1) more
research designs in which investigating the impact of the
organizational context is integrated, (2) more research in
which organizations and regions are compared with each
other to detect contextual factors, and (3) more research in
underexplored countries and sectors of industry.
Finally, we can conclude that there still is some work to

do regarding the use of definitions and theoretical back-
grounds. We advise each scholar to give a clear definition of
talent and TM in either the introduction or in the theoretical
framework of the publication, to clarify the focus of the arti-
cle. Moreover, we echo Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2015) in
saying that, instead of agreeing on which theoretical frame-
works to use, it is more important that scholars make deliber-
ate choices in terms of theoretical framing, and apply these
consistently within the project. By doing this, it can help the
field to surpass descriptive research designs and to identify
and clarify correlations and causality between variables.
Often focusing on one sound theoretical framework is more
effective than the application of multiple frameworks (or the-
oretical concepts). The latter is, however, common in empiri-
cal TM research.
6.4.2. Recommendations on the Content of Empirical

TM Research
Regarding the content of empirical TM research, we also

have some suggestions for future research. First, as we have
mentioned before, not all aspects of the TM process are get-
ting scholarly attention. TM scholars need to invest more
effort into understanding “how” TM works (including the
underlying processes), and “how well” according to the
perspective of multiple stakeholders (at least managers, HR,

and employees). Although more research on the organiza-
tional level is encouraged in order to gain insights in these
matters, we also think it is necessary to do more research on
TM issues on the job or team level, such as how TM is con-
ceived within teams and groups working together. We also
found that the perception, role and impact of the line man-
ager in TM is underexplored, which should also be addressed

in future research since findings from the field of HRM shows
that line managers play an important role in implementing
HRM practices (e.g., Knies & Leisink, 2014). Although HR
is one of the most targeted research groups, we don’t know
much about the exact role of the HR department in develop-
ing and implementing TM. Investigating their perceptions
and dilemmas would be interesting as well. Looking at TM
from an actor perspective also is a chance to bring in theoreti-
cal models that are new to the field, for example, on organi-
zational politics. In particular, critical management scholars
can have an interesting influence on the debate.
Second, in Chapter 3 we argued that there is more atten-
tion to the implementation of TM than we expected, but that
the attention is primarily focused on a single practice (micro
HRM) instead of the consistent bundle of practices part of a
larger system. We do acknowledge that it is sometimes neces-
sary to focus on a small part of a research topic in order to
gain some in-depth insights, but this micro approach gives a
scattered view of what actually happens in practice. We invite
scholars to do more research on the implementation process
as a whole and to investigate whether organizations investi-
gate a complete bundle of practices, and how well they are
doing so.
Moreover, in Chapter 5 we have presented some proofs of
the importance of TM being embedded in organization struc-
tures, systems, and processes, other than the narrow set of
TM practices. In particular, an embeddedness in leadership

styles, organization values, and mission statements seems to
be crucial (e.g., Kontoghiorghes, 2016; Stahl et al., 2012). Up
until now this broad orientation to TM is rare in TM
research, and we urge more research with the focus on orga-
nizational excellence and strength beyond the usual TM prac-
tices. Especially the impact of the “soft” aspects such as
organizational culture and leadership style needs further

exploration.
Fourth, Chapter 4 identified some tensions regarding the
definition of talent (cf. Dries, 2013), of which the inclusive
vs. the exclusive approach is the most dominant tension. In
the field of management and business scholars, the attention
is focused on the exclusive approach, while scholars in the
field of positive psychology and Human Resource
Development mainly investigate issues regarding the inclusive
approach. In this book we didn’t make a statement for either
the inclusive or the exclusive approach, because both
approaches have pros and cons. Moreover, in practice both
the inclusive and the exclusive approach are adopted, and we
think that the focus on the exclusive approach again creates a
gap between theory and practice. Therefore, we urge TM
researchers to show interest in the implementation of the
exclusive and the inclusive approaches, so we can investigate
what happens in practice, and what the actual value and con-
tribution is of both approaches from an multi-actor perspec-
tive. We also recommend more research in which the
inclusive and the exclusive approaches are compared, in par-
ticular the nature and effects of both TM approaches in
practice.
Finally, we need more research on the dynamics in TM.
After all, Chapter 5 refers to a lot of theory, models, assump-
tions, and questions, but what the actual dynamics are in TM
is unexplored territory in TM research. Further empirical
research on TM in practice is therefore necessary in order to

gain insight in what actually happens in practice, why, how
well, and according to whom. This information can help
organizations in practice to develop a TM approach that
really works and is effective. We (again) recommend more
multi-level research in which multiple actors are involved in
order to gain insight in their perceptions of and actions in the
different stages in the TM process. Case studies would pro-

vide the opportunity to include also the possibility to investi-
gate what causes the tensions and dilemmas, by investigating
the impact of a broad range of internal and external factors
of influence (including the role of stakeholders). It is also
interesting to investigate how organizations deal with ten-
sions and dilemmas. Do they keep looking for an equilibrium
as the HRM and fit debate would suggest, or are there alter-
native ways of dealing with dualities? In order to gain insight
in the development levels in TM and in the ways organiza-
tions deal with tensions and dilemmas, adequate theoretical
models are required. The current models in strategic HRM
do not seem to be helpful, and we therefore suggest to turn to
models from the fields of strategic management, learning
organizations and organizational excellence, and to test them
in empirical research on this matter. In particular, longitudi-
nal research can help to identify changes in the TM process,
and even development levels in TM.
6.5. CONCLUSION
The aim of this book was to approach TM from a more com-

prehensive and dynamic perspective. We come to the conclu-
sion that there is power in TM, but that the dynamics are
underexplored and even underused, in both theory and prac-
tice, and action doesn’t seem to lead to the intended reaction
and actual growth and innovation in the organization. What

are exactly the talent issues and dilemmas organizations face
in practice? How do they deal with these dilemmas (e.g.,
being reactive or proactive?; balancing or navigating?) And
are there different development stages in TM? This book
refers to a lot of theory, models, assumptions and questions,
but it is all unexplored territory in TM research. We encour-
age scholars to develop new knowledge based on research in

practice, and to share it with practice so they can build their
TM approach based on evidence. In that case, “practice
based evidence” and “evidence based practice” go hand in
hand, and the gap between the practitioner interest and the
scholarly contribution to the debate can be closed.

Talent Management in Practice: Article Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Talent Management in Practice: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Talent Management in Practice

The Integrated and Dynamic TM Model

Talent Management in Practice. Published online: 24 Aug 2017; 111-125.

*Related content and download information correct at time of

THE INTEGRATED AND DYNAMIC

We started this book by arguing that even though business

6.2. THE INTEGRATED AND DYNAMIC TM MODEL

In the previous chapters, we have given an overview of parts

research on TM. We have seen that empirical research in TM

2013; Boxall & Macky, 2009; Collins, 2001; De Waal,

tional process, (2) in which an explicit distinction is made

Talent Management in Practice

Organizational alignment (e.g., with workforce Involvement of organization-

Systematic learning and continuous

have to be aware that these objectives can collide which causes

nizational excellence the focus on talent has to be embedded

HR strategy, but can also affect the implementation of TM in

by the line manager and the employee have a signiﬁcant effect

nor about the way organizations handle these dilemmas.

6.3. DISCUSSION: STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

Several strengths of the model can be outlined. First, the model

TM approach are included in the model, and whether these

back loop in the model, but this needs further clariﬁcation.

possible. The question is how the model can be tested in a less

leadership, processes are relevant enablers but, how and what

6.4. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

We have recommendations for future research for both the

6.4.1. Recommendations for Research Designs

Through the review we gained insight in the research designs

young ﬁeld, the majority of the articles are based on descrip-

consider the use of single case studies with an indepth analy-

explicit scholarly attention in empirical TM research. So,

Finally, we can conclude that there still is some work to

6.4.2. Recommendations on the Content of Empirical

Regarding the content of empirical TM research, we also

perspective of multiple stakeholders (at least managers, HR,

ager in TM is underexplored, which should also be addressed

TM practices. In particular, an embeddedness in leadership

organizational culture and leadership style needs further

research on TM in practice is therefore necessary in order to

different stages in the TM process. Case studies would pro-

The aim of this book was to approach TM from a more com-

and actual growth and innovation in the organization. What

age scholars to develop new knowledge based on research in

You might also like