A multidisciplinary review into the definition, operationalization, and measurement of talent

Abstract

Organizations report great difficulty in measuring talent accurately, reflecting the lack of theoretical foundations for talent-identification in the HRM literature. This multidisciplinary review aims to contribute to the establishment of a stronger theoretical basis for talent-management by presenting a conceptual framework of talent in which the definition, operationalization and measurement of talent and its relation to excellent performance is clarified. We systematically introduce 11 propositions into the framework, building on fragmented insights from the literature—from the fields of HRM, gifted education, positive psychology, and vocational psychology respectively—that will guide readers in understanding and applying the proposed framework.

Full text

A
multidisciplinary
review
into
the
definition,
operationalization,
and
measurement
of
talent
Sanne
Nijs
a,
*,
Eva
Gallardo-Gallardo
b,1
,
Nicky
Dries
a,2
,
Luc
Sels
a,3
a
Research
Centre
for
Organization
Studies,
Faculty
of
Economics
and
Business,
KU
Leuven,
Naamsestraat
69,
3000
Leuven,
Belgium
b
Department
of
Economics
and
Business
Organization,
Faculty
of
Economics
and
Business,
University
of
Barcelona,
Av.
Diagonal
690,
08034
Barcelona,
Spain
Over
the
course
of
the
last
decade,
organizations
seem
to
have
become
increasingly
convinced
that
the
deliberate
identification
of
talent
is
crucial
for
maximizing
organizational
performance
(Collings
&
Mellahi,
2009;
Lewis
&
Heckman,
2006).
Interestingly,
however,
human
resource
management
(HRM)
practitioners
report
great
difficulty
defining
what
talent
is,
let
alone
measuring
it
accurately
for
identification
purposes
(Tansley,
2011).
Theoreti-
cal
foundations
for
talent-management
based
on
a
clear
oper-
ationalization
of
talent
appear
largely
absent
in
the
academic
literature
(Silzer
&
Church,
2009a).
Given
that
robust
theory
building
and
accurate
interpretation
of
empirical
data
cannot
take
place
before
formal
definitions
are
established,
we
claim
that
operationalizing
and
measuring
talent
is
one
of
the
major
challenges
the
talent-management
field
currently
has
ahead
of
it
(Wacker,
2004).
Although
HRM
scholars
appear
to
be
convinced
that
very
few
theoretical
frameworks
for
talent-management
are
currently
available,
our
systematic
review
shows
that
in
fact
a
whole
body
of
literature
exists
outside
of
the
HRM
domain
with
the
potential
of
offering
interesting
insights
into
the
operationaliza-
tion
and
measurement
of
talent.
The
present
paper
aims
to
contribute
to
the
establishment
of
a
stronger
theoretical
basis
for
talent-management
by
integrating
insights
fragmented
across
different
disciplines.
With
the
help
of
our
search
strategy,
three
literature
streams
were
identified
in
addition
to
the
HRM
literature
as
being
of
particular
relevance
for
this
purpose:
the
giftedness
literature;
the
vocational
psychology
literature,
and
the
positive
psychology
literature.
Starting
from
the
HRM
perspective
on
talent,
we
systematically
incorporate
insights
from
the
divergent
literature
streams,
which
counteract
some
of
the
limitations
inherent
to
the
HRM
literature
and
therefore
can
help
establish
better
conceptual
foundations
for
talent-management.
The
relationship
between
talent
and
excellent
performance
functions
as
a
general
framework
within
which
issues
of
predictive
and
construct
validity
are
addressed,
across
11
research
propositions.
With
the
future
research
directions,
we
shed
light
on
how
talent-management
scholars
might
further
capitalize
on
the
cross-fertilization
between
insights
from
different
dis-
ciplines
so
as
to
gradually
establish
the
theoretical
foundations
needed
to
transform
talent-management
into
a
legitimate
field
of
academic
study.
By
discussing
managerial
implications
in
the
concluding
part,
we
provide
practical
guidelines
for
designing
talent-identification
practices
grounded
in
sound
theory.
1.
Search
strategy
To
achieve
a
comprehensive
multidisciplinary
review
of
the
literature
on
talent—which
could
account
for
the
evolutions
within
the
field—we
used
1993
as
the
starting
point
of
our
literature
search,
thus
covering
insights
developed
over
the
last
twenty
years.
We
took
four
different
steps
to
establish
the
final
body
of
peer-reviewed,
academic
articles
considered
in
this
review.
Journal
of
World
Business
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
A
R
T
I
C
L
E
I
N
F
O
Keywords:
Talent
definition
Talent
operationalization
Talent
measurement
Multidisciplinary
review
Theoretical
propositions
A
B
S
T
R
A
C
T
Organizations
report
great
difficulty
in
measuring
talent
accurately,
reflecting
the
lack
of
theoretical
foundations
for
talent-identification
in
the
HRM
literature.
This
multidisciplinary
review
aims
to
contribute
to
the
establishment
of
a
stronger
theoretical
basis
for
talent-management
by
presenting
a
conceptual
framework
of
talent
in
which
the
definition,
operationalization
and
measurement
of
talent
and
its
relation
to
excellent
performance
is
clarified.
We
systematically
introduce
11
propositions
into
the
framework,
building
on
fragmented
insights
from
the
literature—from
the
fields
of
HRM,
gifted
education,
positive
psychology,
and
vocational
psychology
respectively—that
will
guide
readers
in
understanding
and
applying
the
proposed
framework.
ß
2013
Published
by
Elsevier
Inc.
*Corresponding
author.
Tel.:
+32
016
32
68
18.
E-mail
addresses:
Sanne.Nijs@kuleuven.be
(S.
Nijs),
eva.gallardo@ub.edu
(E.
Gallardo-Gallardo),
Nicky.Dries@kuleuven.be
(N.
Dries),
Luc.Sels@kuleuven.be
(L.
Sels).
1
Tel.:
+34
93
402
90
40.
2
Tel.:
+32
016
37
37
19.
3
Tel.:
+32
016
32
66
09.
G
Model
WORBUS-640;
No.
of
Pages
12
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Nijs,
S.,
et
al.
A
multidisciplinary
review
into
the
definition,
operationalization,
and
measurement
of
talent.
Journal
of
World
Business
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Journal
of
World
Business
jo
u
r
nal
h
o
mep
age:
w
ww.els
evier
.co
m/lo
c
ate/jwb
1090-9516/$
–
see
front
matter
ß
2013
Published
by
Elsevier
Inc.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002

1.1.
Step
1:
clarifying
the
talent
construct
In
order
to
find
those
articles
that
would
be
most
informative
for
achieving
conceptual
clarity
about
talent,
we
first
developed
a
general
working
definition
of
talent
based
on
the
meaning
contemporary
English
dictionaries
ascribe
to
the
term
(Gallardo-
Gallardo,
Dries,
&
Gonza
´lez-Cruz,
2013).
In
the
English
language,
talent
is
commonly
understood
as
corresponding
to
an
above-
average
ability
that
makes
the
individuals
who
possess,
detect,
develop,
and
deploy
it,
perform
excellently
in
a
given
performance
domain
(Gagne
´,
2004;
Tansley,
2011).
1.2.
Step
2:
selecting
search
terms
We
started
our
search
by
tracking
articles
that
had
‘talent’
in
their
titles.
As
we
were
interested
in
talent
and
talent-identifica-
tion
in
the
context
of
the
business
world,
specifically,
we
selected
Business
Source
Premier
as
the
database
of
departure.
The
use
of
talent
as
a
search
term
resulted
in
a
large
number
of
hits
across
a
wide
range
of
journals.
A
preliminary
analysis
of
these
articles
showed
that
talent
was
sometimes
associated
with
‘gifts’
and
‘strengths’.
Because
both
strengths
and
gifts
refer
to
attributes
that
predict
excellent
performance,
like
talent—while
these
concepts,
in
contrast
to
talent
have
received
ample
conceptual
attention
in
the
academic
literature—we
deliberately
selected
strengths
and
gifts
as
two
additional
search
terms.
Given
the
focus
of
the
present
review,
each
of
our
main
search
terms
(i.e.,
talents,
gifts,
and
strengths)
was
used
in
conjunction
with
search
terms
like
‘identification’
and
‘measurement’
(see
Appendix
A).
1.3.
Step
3:
establishing
exclusion
criteria
Our
search
in
Business
Source
Premier
resulted
in
a
large
number
of
hits.
From
a
first
analysis,
we
concluded
that
the
majority
of
articles
corresponding
to
our
3
main
search
terms
were
not
relevant
to
our
topic
of
interest.
Therefore,
we
chose
to
work
with
explicit
exclusion
criteria
with
the
goal
of
selecting
only
those
articles
that
would
be
truly
informative
to
our
systematic
literature
review.
In
accordance
with
our
working
definition
of
talent,
we
withheld
articles
based
on
three
exclusion
criteria:
(a)
articles
that
do
not
refer
to
human
attributes
4
;
(b)
articles
using
talent
as
interchangeable
with
(a
euphemism
for)
people
or
employees
5
;
and
(c)
articles
that
do
not
mention
their
vision
on,
or
definition
of
the
concept
of
talent
6
(or
gifts,
or
strengths).
1.4.
Step
4:
expanding
the
database
Because
our
aim
was
to
contribute
to
better
theoretical
foundations
for
talent-management
by
also
considering
academic
domains
outside
the
HRM
field,
we
expanded
our
search
to
the
PychInfo
database.
The
same
criteria
for
exclusion
were
applied.
The
searches
conducted
across
both
databases
resulted
in
a
final
set
of
161
articles
withheld
for
this
review
(see
Appendix
A).
The
selected
articles
were
situated
in
the
HRM
literature,
the
giftedness
literature,
vocational
psychology
and
positive
psychology.
In
order
to
ensure
adequate
interpretation
of
our
findings,
articles
were
added
to
the
list
of
161
using
the
‘backtracking’
method
(i.e.,
review
of
the
reference
lists
of
the
selected
articles).
Although
the
obtained
article
list
may
not
be
exhaustive,
we
are
confident
it
is
at
least
representative
of
the
work
published
within
the
talent
domain.
2.
Talent
through
an
HRM
Lens
From
the
late
nineties
onwards,
the
HRM
literature
has
extensively
discussed
the
topic
of
talent-management
motivated
mainly
by
the
‘war
for
talent’,
a
term
introduced
by
a
group
of
McKinsey
consultants
(Michaels,
Handfield-Jones,
&
Axelrod,
2001).
The
HRM
literature,
within
which
the
talent-management
literature
is
situated,
is
mainly
concerned
with
strategic
invest-
ments
in
terms
of
talent-identification,
selection,
development,
planning
and
retention.
These
are
subsumed
under
the
umbrella
term
talent-management.
Talent
is
typically
operationalized
as
human
capital,
a
term
used
to
denote
the
stock
of
competencies,
knowledge,
social
and
personality
attributes
which
is
embodied
in
the
ability
to
perform
labor
so
as
to
produce
economic
value
(Farndale,
Scullion,
&
Sparrow,
2010).
According
to
the
HR
architecture
model
developed
by
Lepak
and
Snell
(1999),
human
capital
can
be
assessed
in
terms
of
value
and
uniqueness.
Value
refers
to
the
potential
to
contribute
to
an
organization’s
core
competencies
and
advance
its
competitive
position.
Uniqueness
refers
to
the
extent
to
which
human
capital
is
difficult
to
replace
due
to
unique
job
or
organization
requirements
and
labor
market
scarcities.
Employees
who
possess
human
capital
that
is
rated
high
both
on
value
and
on
uniqueness
are
identified
as
the
‘talent’
of
an
organization
(Lepak
&
Snell,
2002).
Becker
and
Huselid
(2006)
argue
that
the
value
of
talented
employees
depends
on
the
specific
positions
they
occupy.
Specifically,
those
positions
for
which
small
increments
in
improvement
in
quality
or
quantity
result
in
an
above-average
return
on
strategic
measures
are
seen
as
pivotal
(Boudreau
&
Ramstad,
2005)
and
should
therefore
be
allocated
to
high
value,
high
uniqueness
employees
called
‘A
players’
(Becker,
Huselid,
&
Beatty,
2009),
making
them
the
most
pivotal
talent
of
the
organization
(Boudreau
&
Ramstad,
2007;
Cascio
&
Boudreau,
2011).
In
general,
scholars
adhering
to
the
human
capital
approach
to
talent-management
believe
that
the
relative
contribution
of
people
or
positions
to
their
organizations
legitimizes
dispropor-
tionate
investment
in
certain
employees
or
jobs
(Becker
&
Huselid,
2006;
Lepak
&
Snell,
1999).
This
is
reflected
in
the
principle
of
workforce
differentiation
that
refers
to
the
investment
of
disproportionate
resources
where
one
expects
disproportionate
returns,
resulting
in
segmentation
of
the
workforce
on
the
basis
of
the
strategic
contribution
a
specific
job
or
a
specific
employee
can
produce
(Huselid
&
Becker,
2011).
To
this
end,
employees
are
frequently
differentiated
between
based
on
their
past
and
current
performance
in
terms
of
predefined
competencies.
These
compe-
tencies
are
associated
with
the
capacity
to
take
on
senior
jobs,
so
as
to
detect
the
leaders
of
the
future
(Sharma
&
Bhatnagar,
2009;
Silzer
&
Church,
2009a).
The
human
capital
perspective
on
talent
described
typically
draws
inspiration
from
a
resource-based
view
on
humans,
in
which
employees
are
directed
toward
creating
added
value
for
their
organizations
(Dries,
2013).
Inkson
(2008)
warns
us
for
the
potential
pitfalls
of
labeling
employees
as
‘human
capital’
that
is
manageable
toward
certain
outcomes
in
the
same
way
other
resources
are.
By
characterizing
humans
as
capital,
the
changing
and
highly
unpredictable
nature
of
individual
attitudes
and
behaviors
is
not
taken
into
consideration
adequately
(De
Vos
&
Dries,
2013).
Consequently,
investigating
talent
and
talent-
management
purely
from
a
resource-based
view
seems
insuffi-
cient
to
capture
the
psychological
mechanisms
that
come
into
play
when
managing
individuals.
In
general,
we
posit—in
line
with
Lewis
and
Heckman
(2006)—that
the
talent-management
litera-
ture
is
characterized
by
a
disturbing
lack
of
lucidity
regarding
its
definitions,
scope
and
aims.
This
is
partly
driven
by
the
limited
clarity
the
human
capital
perspective
offers
about
the
precise
meaning
of
the
underlying
construct
‘talent’
(Gallardo-Gallardo
4
We
for
example
excluded:
Florano
(2003).
5
We
for
example
excluded:
Milton
(2003).
6
We
for
example
excluded:
Ng
and
Burke
(2005).
S.
Nijs
et
al.
/
Journal
of
World
Business
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
2
G
Model
WORBUS-640;
No.
of
Pages
12
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Nijs,
S.,
et
al.
A
multidisciplinary
review
into
the
definition,
operationalization,
and
measurement
of
talent.
Journal
of
World
Business
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002

et
al.,
2013;
Tansley,
2011).
This
leaves
organizations
with
only
minimal
theoretical
foundations
for
their
talent-management
decisions
(Thunnissen,
Boselie,
&
Fruytier,
2013).
In
what
follows
we
also
build
on
insights
from
outside
the
broader
HRM
domain
to
address
this
research
gap,
since
they
were
detected
as
having
the
potential
to
counter
the
specific
limitations
inherent
to
the
talent-management
field.
By
integrating
insights
originating
from
the
giftedness
literature,
vocational
psychology,
and
positive
psychology,
we
explicitly
address
different
views
on
talent
within
which
psychological
aspects
are
incorporated
and
conceptualization
issues
are
explicitly
addressed.
3.
Defining
talent
Based
on
our
conceptual
framework
of
talent,
visualized
in
Fig.
1,
we
posit
that
talent
can
be
operationalized
as
an
ability
and
an
affective
component
which
function
as
necessary
preconditions
for
achieving
excellence
which,
in
turn,
can
be
operationalized
as
performing
better
than
others
(i.e.,
interpersonal
excellence)
or
performing
consistently
at
one’s
personal
best
(i.e.,
intrapersonal
excellence).
Our
working
definition
of
talent
is
the
following:
‘‘Talent
refers
to
systematically
developed
innate
abilities
of
individuals
that
are
deployed
in
activities
they
like,
find
important,
and
in
which
they
want
to
invest
energy.
It
enables
individuals
to
perform
excellently
in
one
or
more
domains
of
human
functioning,
operationalized
as
performing
better
than
other
individuals
of
the
same
age
or
experience,
or
as
performing
consistently
at
their
personal
best’’.
3.1.
Operationalization
of
talent
into
two
components
Within
our
working
definition
of
talent
we
distinguish
between
two
components
that
predict
excellence:
an
ability
and
an
affective
component.
The
ability
component.
Across
all
relevant
literature
streams,
talent
is
frequently
associated
with,
and
sometimes
equated
to
excellent
performance,
which
is
adequately
illustrated
by
the
federal
definition
widely
used
in
educational
settings
in
the
United
States—i.e.,
‘‘Talented
individuals
are
those
identified
by
profes-
sionally
qualified
persons
who
by
virtue
of
outstanding
abilities
are
capable
of
high
performance’’
(Periathiruvadi
&
Rinn,
2013,
p.
153).
Insights
into
this
component
are
mainly
found
in
the
giftedness
literature,
situated
in
the
field
of
education
(Brown
et
al.,
2005;
Mayer,
2005),
but
are
also
frequently
applied
by
HR
practitioners.
Primarily
based
on
the
work
of
Gagne
´(1998a,
2004),
we
propose
the
following
definition
of
the
ability
component
of
talent,
within
which
two
distinct
predictors
can
be
identified—innate
abilities,
and
systematic
development:
‘‘Talent
refers
to
systematically
developed
innate
abilities
that
drive
excellent
performance
in
one
or
more
domains
of
human
functioning’’.
First
predictor:
innate
abilities
in
a
specific
domain
of
human
functioning.
At
the
onset
of
the
giftedness
literature
in
1920,
talented
children
were
defined
as
children
who
achieved
high
IQ
scores
due
to
a
fixed
innate
trait.
This
was
reflected
in
psychometric
definitions
of
talent
that
focused
on
achieving
a
certain
score,
typically
on
an
IQ
test
tapping
into
intellectual
giftedness
(Preckel
&
Thiemann,
2003;
Robinson
&
Clinkenbeard,
1998).
It
turned
out,
however,
that
the
correlation
between
a
single
IQ
score
and
exceptional
performance
later
in
life
was
rather
weak
(Ericsson,
Krampe,
&
Tesch-Ro
¨mer,
1993;
Ruban
&
Reis,
2005).
Informed
by
this
finding,
scholars
in
the
giftedness
literature
currently
tend
to
advocate
a
multidimensional
conception
of
talent
building
on
domain-specific
theories
of
multiple
intelligences
referring
to
different
areas
of
human
functioning
(Bailey
&
Morley,
2006;
Major,
Johnson,
&
Deary,
2012;
Robinson
&
Clinkenbeard,
1998;
Robinson,
Zigler,
&
Gallagher,
2000).
Within
this
perspective,
the
conceptualization
of
talent
that
Gagne
´(2004)
developed
in
his
Differentiated
Model
of
Giftedness
and
Talent
(DMTG)
is
frequent-
ly
cited.
Based
on
Gardner’s
theory
of
Multiple
Intelligences
(1983,
in
Bailey
&
Morley,
2006;
Baldwin,
2005),
in
which
nine
forms
of
Fig.
1.
Conceptual
model
of
the
definition,
operationalization
and
measurement
of
talent.
S.
Nijs
et
al.
/
Journal
of
World
Business
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
3
G
Model
WORBUS-640;
No.
of
Pages
12
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Nijs,
S.,
et
al.
A
multidisciplinary
review
into
the
definition,
operationalization,
and
measurement
of
talent.
Journal
of
World
Business
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002

intelligence
were
incorporated
(i.e.,
linguistic
intelligence,
logical-
mathematical
intelligence,
spatial
intelligence,
bodily-kinesthetic
intelligence,
musical
intelligence,
intrapersonal
intelligence,
nat-
uralistic
intelligence,
existential
intelligence,
and
spiritual
intelli-
gence),
Gagne
´distinguished
between
four
ability
domains
(i.e.,
intellectual,
creative,
socio-affective,
and
sensori-motor)
that
can
lead
to
extraordinary
performances
in
seven
domains
of
human
functioning
(i.e.,
academics,
arts,
business,
leisure,
social
action,
sports,
and
technology).
Other
conceptualizations
of
talent
closely
resemble
that
of
Gagne
´,
but
differ
slightly
in
terms
of
categoriza-
tion
and
specificity
of
the
ability
domains,
and
the
human
functioning
domains
considered
(Feldhusen,
1994).
Second
predictor:
systematic
development.
Scholars
situated
in
the
giftedness
literature
are
generally
convinced
that
the
aptitudes
necessary
to
develop
talent
in
a
specific
domain
are
only
present
in
a
small
proportion
of
the
population
because
they
are
genetically
inherited.
Although
many
people
believe
that
genius
is
created
purely
through
genetics—known
as
the
‘Amadeus
Myth’—
innate
dispositions
are,
although
necessary,
not
sufficient
to
ensure
high-level
achievement
(Robinson
et
al.,
2000).
Innate
abilities,
referred
to
by
Gagne
´(1998a)
as
gifts,
must
be
nurtured
into
talents
in
order
to
deliver
excellent
performance
in
at
least
one
domain
of
human
functioning
(Baldwin,
2005).
Extended
and
deliberate
practice
is
a
necessary
condition
for
the
manifestation
of
talent
into
excellence.
It
can
be
attained
by
engaging
in
formal,
non-formal,
or
informal
learning
activities
inside
or
outside
of
the
school-
or
workplace
(Ericsson
et
al.,
1993;
Gagne
´,
2004;
Pfeiffer,
2009).
The
affective
component.
Since
the
eighties,
a
wide
range
of
studies
have
discussed
what
we
label
‘affective’
factors
as
vital
to
excellent
performance
(Bailey
&
Morley,
2006;
Gagne
´,
2010;
Robinson
&
Clinkenbeard,
1998).
Kane
(1986,
in
Bailey
&
Morley,
2006,
p.
222)
summarizes
the
main
point
of
these
studies
adequately
by
stating
that
the
factors
ultimately
accounting
for
achievement
are
likely
to
be
the
unique
personal
and
behavioral
dispositions
that
the
individual
brings
to
the
actual
performance.
Attention
for
the
affective
component
of
talent
resonates
through
the
giftedness
literature,
the
positive
psychology
literature,
and
the
vocational
psychology
literature.
The
multiple
insights
we
collected
from
these
different
streams
are
summarized
in
the
following
definition
of
talent,
in
which
the
ability
component
and
the
affective
component
of
talent
are
integrated:
‘‘Talent
refers
to
systematically
developed
innate
abilities
of
individuals
that
are
deployed
in
activities
they
like,
find
important,
and
in
which
they
want
to
invest
energy.
It
enables
individuals
to
perform
excellently
in
one
or
more
domains
of
human
functioning’’.
While
the
definition
of
the
ability
component
of
talent
focused
primarily
on
multiple
intellectual
abilities,
the
affective
compo-
nent
considers
non-intellectual
attributes
and
how
these
differen-
tially
affect
the
performance
of
individuals:
‘‘To
predict
which
environments
an
individual
is
likely
to
enter,
work
in,
and
thrive
in,
you
must
not
only
know
what
they
can
do
(their
abilities,
capabilities),
you
must
also
know
what
they
want
(their
interests,
needs,
or
motives)’’
(Lubinski
&
Benbow,
2000,
p.
146).
As
illustrated
by
this
fragment
and
by
the
above
definition
of
talent,
the
affective
component
is
made
up
of
two
main
elements:
‘motivation
to
invest’
(i.e.,
activities
in
which
one
wants
to
invest
energy)
and
‘interest
areas’
(i.e.,
activities
one
likes
and
finds
important).
First
predictor:
motivation
to
invest.
In
the
giftedness
literature
mainly
the
concept
of
motivation,
in
relation
to
investments,
has
received
attention.
The
frequently
applied
three-band
talent
definition
of
Renzulli
(1986)
forms
an
adequate
illustration.
It
states
that
talent
is
the
combination
of
three
clusters,
namely
general
or
specific
high
ability,
task
commitment,
and
motivation.
Numerous
other
authors
argue
that
motivation
plays
a
central
role
in
achieving
excellence
in
that
it
exerts
a
positive
influence
on
the
willingness,
capacity
and
preference
to
engage
in
deliberate
practice
(Bailey
&
Morley,
2006;
Ericsson
et
al.,
1993;
Feldhusen,
1994).
Deliberate
practice
refers
to
activities
that
are
structured,
goal-orientated,
require
effort
and
are
not
always
inherently
enjoyable,
with
an
average
of
ten
years
elapsing
between
first
work
and
best
work.
In
the
positive
psychology
literature
the
term
strengths,
instead
of
talents,
is
used
to
denote
positive
characteristics
that
allow
individuals
to
thrive
and
prosper
(Cascio
&
Luthans,
in
press;
Luthans,
2002).
The
key
is
to
detect
one’s
unique
strengths
in
order
to
deploy
them
in
activities
one
is
passionate
about.
The
assumption
is
that
only
in
activities
that
are
conducted
with
passion,
peak
performances
(i.e.,
episodes
of
superior
functioning;
Privette,
1983)
can
be
achieved
(Seligman
&
Csikszentmihalyi,
2000).
With
the
concept
of
‘passion’,
described
as
the
inclination
toward
an
activity
one
likes,
finds
important
and
in
which
one
wants
to
invest
energy
(Vallerand
et
al.,
2003),
the
essential
role
of
motivation
and
interests
in
attaining
excellence
is
highlighted
(Rea,
2000).
Second
predictor:
interest.
Next
to
motivation
to
invest,
interests
are
widely
discussed
in
the
giftedness
literature
and
the
vocational
psychology
literature
and
assumed
to
have
a
positive
influence
on
excellent
performance
(Bailey
&
Morley,
2006).
Gagne
´
(2004)
traditionally
addressed
this
factor
in
his
Differentiated
Model
of
Giftedness
and
Talent
(DMGT)
as
an
interpersonal
catalyst
that
influenced
the
development
of
gifts
into
talents.
In
2009,
Gagne
´revised
his
Differentiated
Model
of
Giftedness
and
Talent
(DMGT)
and
replaced
the
seven
domains
of
human
functioning
he
initially
distinguished
by
six
major
occupational
groups
(i.e.,
technical,
science
and
technology,
arts,
social
service,
administration
and
sales,
and
business
operations)
based
on
Holland’s
work
on
vocational
interests.
This
shift
reflects
the
increasing
attention
given
to
interest
areas
when
investigating
talented
children,
adolescents
and
adults—also
referred
to
as
‘preferences’
and
‘orientations’
(Milgram
&
Hong,
1999).
Identifi-
cation
of
interest
areas
is
believed
to
be
crucial
in
order
to
locate
activities
in
which
interests
can
be
reinforced
and
actualized,
leading
ideally
to
the
delivery
of
excellent
performance
(Lubinski
&
Benbow,
2000).
Accordingly,
vocational
psychologists
assess
interests
as
a
key
component
of
talent
with
the
goal
of
supporting
individuals
in
finding
a
fit
between
the
person
they
are
and
the
job
or
career
they
aspire
to
so
that
extraordinary
performance
might
be
achieved
(Arnold
&
Cohen,
2008;
Greenhaus
&
Callanan,
2006).
From
the
1990s
onwards,
several
authors
in
the
giftedness
literature,
as
well,
have
addressed
this
issue
by
advocating
that
person–environment
fit
is
crucial
for
obtaining
optimal
achieve-
ment.
This
is
predicted
by
a
match
between
personal
abilities
and
ability
requirements
of
the
environment
on
the
one
hand,
and
a
match
between
personal
preferences
and
reinforces
available
from
the
environment
on
the
other
(Achter,
Lubinski,
Benbow,
&
Eftekhari-Sajani,
1999).
By
dissecting
both
the
ability
and
affective
component
of
talent
into
distinct
elements
we
shed
light
on
what
the
construct
of
talent
entails
exactly—a
topic
underexamined
within
the
HRM
literature
to
date.
Proposition
1.
The
measurement
of
talent
can
only
be
valid
if
the
construct
is
operationalized
as
encompassing
both
an
ability
and
an
affective
component
(construct
validity).
Proposition
2.
The
measurement
of
the
ability
component
of
talent
can
only
be
valid
if
this
component
is
operationalized
as
encompassing
both
innate
domain-specific
abilities
and
amount
of
systematic
development
(construct
validity).
S.
Nijs
et
al.
/
Journal
of
World
Business
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
4
G
Model
WORBUS-640;
No.
of
Pages
12
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Nijs,
S.,
et
al.
A
multidisciplinary
review
into
the
definition,
operationalization,
and
measurement
of
talent.
Journal
of
World
Business
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002

Proposition
3.
The
measurement
of
the
affective
component
of
talent
can
only
be
valid
if
this
component
is
operationalized
as
encompassing
both
motivation
and
interest
areas
(construct
validity).
3.2.
Operationalization
of
excellence
as
the
main
criterion
for
talent
In
addition
to
talent
encompassing
an
ability
and
an
affective
component,
we
adopt
as
a
basic
assumption
that
talent
is
evidenced
by
excellence—or
put
otherwise,
that
excellence
should
be
the
main
criterion
for
talent.
Given
that
organizations
today
operate
within
a
continuously
evolving
knowledge
economy
in
which
the
war
for
talent
runs
rampant,
they
are
more
than
ever
concerned
with
making
accurate
predictions
regarding
excellent
individual
performances
that
could
advance
the
attainment
of
their
strategic
goals
(Lepak
&
Snell,
1999).
Accordingly,
talent-
identification
practices
are
often
installed
with
the
aim
of
detecting
those
individuals
who
are
capable
of
delivering
excellent
performances,
so
as
to
subsequently
deploy
their
talents
in
a
way
that
could
enhance
the
organization’s
performance
and
competi-
tive
position
(Collings
&
Mellahi,
2009;
Lewis
&
Heckman,
2006).
Unfortunately
however,
theoretical
papers
explaining
what
talent
entails
exactly
and
how
it
relates
to
excellent
performance—
a
main
concern
of
HR
practitioners—have
remained
largely
absent
in
the
literature.
With
the
present
review,
we
aim
to
address
this
research
gap
by
proposing
a
conceptual
framework
of
talent
in
which
the
relationship
between
talent
and
excellence
is
made
explicit,
by
systematically
elaborating
on
issues
of
construct
and
predictive
validity.
In
the
previous
section
we
introduced
our
definition
of
talent,
in
which
both
an
ability
and
an
affective
component
are
integrated.
In
line
with
this
definition,
we
posited
that
motivation
and
interests
operate,
together
with
innate
abilities
and
system-
atic
development,
as
necessary
preconditions
to
excellent
performance
within
a
specific
domain.
In
what
follows,
we
discuss
interpersonal
(i.e.,
performing
better
than
others)
and
intrapersonal
(i.e.,
performing
consistently
at
one’s
personal
best)
excellence
as
two
distinct
operationalizations
of
excellence
as
the
main
criterion
for
talent,
thus
completing
the
in-depth
discussion
of
our
talent
definition.
Proposition
4.
The
operationalization
of
talent
in
either
an
ability
or
an
affective
component
is
less
valid
for
predicting
interpersonal
and
intrapersonal
excellence
than
the
operationalization
of
talent
in
both
an
ability
and
affective
component
(predictive
validity).
Interpersonal
excellence.
Scholars
in
the
giftedness
literature
hold
the
belief
that
not
all
individuals
can
be
talented.
This
is
due
to
their
assumption
of
a
genetic
basis
for
talent
(Gagne
´,
1998a,
1998b).
According
to
Ericsson
et
al.
(1993)—and
in
line
with
the
majority
of
scholars
in
the
giftedness
literature—the
motivation
to
engage
in
lifelong
deliberate
practice
differs
among
individuals
as
well.
Only
a
few
individuals—so-called
outliers—show
the
motivation
to
invest
10,000
hours
in
perfecting
certain
talents,
which
is
demonstrated
to
be
crucial
for
achieving
top
perfor-
mances
(Gladwell,
2009).
Therefore,
these
authors
argue
that
high-level
performances
are
not
feasible
for
everyone
(Milgram
&
Hong,
1999).
The
emphasis
thus
lies
on
the
identification
of
those
individuals
who
perform
significantly
better
than
others
of
the
same
age
or
experience
due
to
the
presence
of
rare
talents
(Brown
et
al.,
2005;
Heller,
2004;
Mayer,
2005;
Sternberg
&
Davidson,
2005).
In
the
HRM
literature,
it
is
typically
argued
that
these
employees
deserve
disproportionate
investments
because
they
are
capable
of
enhancing
organizational
performance
by
their
capacity
to
achieve
excellence
(Lepak
&
Snell,
1999).
Proposition
5.
Organizational
decision
makers
who
operationa-
lize
excellence
as
performing
better
than
other
individuals
of
the
same
age
or
experience
in
a
specific
domain
of
human
functioning
are
more
likely
to
adopt
talent-management
practices
in
which
there
is
differential
investment—i.e.,
orientation
of
a
select
group
of
high
performers
toward
activities
they
like,
find
important
and
in
which
they
want
to
invest
energy.
Intrapersonal
excellence.
Although
the
operationalization
of
excellence
as
performing
better
than
others—resulting
in
a
focus
on
A
players
(Becker
et
al.,
2009)—remains
to
a
large
extent
dominant
today,
Renzulli
advocated
a
more
‘inclusive’
conception
of
talent
already
in
2005.
He
stated
that
everyone
has
a
role
to
play
in
societal
improvement
and,
as
a
result,
we
should
provide
all
people
with
the
opportunities,
resources,
and
encouragement
necessary
to
achieve
their
full
potential
through
maximization
of
their
involvement
and
motivation.
Renzulli’s
(2005)
approach
to
talent,
which
is
uncommon
in
the
giftedness
literature,
is
closely
related
to
the
approach
typically
adopted
by
authors
situated
in
the
positive
psychology
as
well
as
the
vocational
psychology
literature
due
to
the
‘non-selective’
stance
it
takes.
Positive
psychologists
Buckingham
and
Clifton
(2001),
for
instance,
assert
that
each
individual
possesses
a
certain
set
of
strengths
(e.g.,
adaptability,
discipline)
and
that
it
is
the
specific
constellation
of
strengths
that
makes
everyone
unique.
According
to
these
authors,
innate
factors
determine
merely
which
set
of
strengths
can
be
developed
and
not
whether
or
not
you
can
develop
talent
at
all,
as
is
assumed
in
the
giftedness
literature.
It
is
essential
to
detect
one’s
unique
strengths
in
order
to
deploy
them
in
activities
one
is
passionate
about
(Vallerand
et
al.,
2003).
This
will
result
in
performing
consistently
at
one’s
personal
best
(i.e.,
the
maximum
of
one’s
capacity)
(Seligman
&
Csikszentmihalyi,
2000).
Adherents
of
the
‘strengths-based
approach’
argue
that
utilizing
everyone’s
strengths
is
crucial.
This
generates
positive
physical
and
psychological
health
outcomes
such
as
individual
fulfillment,
which
is
believed
to
substantially
increase
the
productivity
of
employees
and
in
turn
positively
affect
organiza-
tional
performance
(Wood,
Linley,
Maltby,
Kashdan,
&
Hurling,
2011).
Proposition
6.
Organizational
decision
makers
who
operationa-
lize
excellence
as
performing
consistently
at
one’s
personal
best,
are
more
likely
to
adopt
talent-management
practices
in
which
there
is
egalitarian
investment—i.e.,
orientation
of
all
employees
toward
activities
they
like,
find
important
and
in
which
they
want
to
invest
energy.
4.
Measuring
talent
In
this
next
section
we
build
on
our
previous
discussion
of
definitions
and
operationalizations
of
talent
by
addressing
the
‘measurement
layer’
of
our
proposed
framework
(Fig.
1).
By
connecting
definition,
operationalization,
and
measurement
we
want
to
offer
support
to
HR
practitioners
in
designing
theoretically
sound
talent-identification
practices.
In
what
follows
we
discuss
the
specific
talent
measures
and
methods
that
can
be
applied
to
measure
the
ability
and
affective
component
of
talent
as
well
as
interpersonal
and
intrapersonal
excellence.
Although
talent
manifests
in
observable
excellence,
and
one
could
argue
that
excellent
performance
would
thus
be
the
best
measure
of
talent—a
view
frequently
subscribed
to
by
HR
practitioners—we
posit
that
it
is
crucial
to
measure
the
two
underlying
components
of
talent,
as
well.
Only
by
assessing
both
the
ability
and
the
affective
component,
employees
who
are
currently
not
performing
excellently,
but
possess
the
ability
to
do
S.
Nijs
et
al.
/
Journal
of
World
Business
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
5
G
Model
WORBUS-640;
No.
of
Pages
12
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Nijs,
S.,
et
al.
A
multidisciplinary
review
into
the
definition,
operationalization,
and
measurement
of
talent.
Journal
of
World
Business
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002

so
in
the
future,
can
be
managed
toward
excellence
by
stimulating
them
to
discover
and
undertake
activities
that
(better)
match
their
motivation
and
interest
areas.
We
argue,
in
accordance
with
Silzer
and
Church
(2009a),
that
talent-identification
practices
should
not
only
aim
to
detect
the
talent
already
manifested
in
a
given
organizational
setting,
but
also
those
employees
who
have
the
potential
to
be
excellent
in
different
(larger)
roles
or
activities
in
the
future.
Thus,
we
advise
against
basing
talent-identification
decisions
solely
on
perfor-
mance
scores—which
only
reflect
currently
deployed
abilities—
because
they
only
evidence
what
is
manifest
at
the
present
time.
Such
decisions
lack
the
power
for
predicting
the
sustained
interpersonal
and
intrapersonal
excellence
in
which
organiza-
tions
are
interested.
4.1.
Ability
component
Innate
ability.
Informed
by
the
theories
about
multiple
intelligences
we
previously
discussed
(Bailey
&
Morley,
2006;
Major
et
al.,
2012),
we
identify
a
wide
range
of
multifaceted
and
domain-specific
ability
tests
designed
to
capture
specific
innate
abilities,
that
can
be
applied
in
talent-identification
procedures
(see
Table
1)
such
as
WISC-R,
the
Wechsler
Individual
Achieve-
ment
Test,
and
the
Self-Regulation
and
Concentration
Test
(Bianco,
2010;
Periathiruvadi
&
Rinn,
2013;
Preckel
&
Thiemann,
2003;
Saccuzzo
&
Johnson,
1995;
Sanders,
Lubinski,
&
Benbow,
1995).
These
tests
are
frequently
combined
with
subjective
judgments
collected
through
supervisor,
peer,
and
self-evaluation
(Bailey
&
Morley,
2006;
Baldwin,
2005).
To
this
end,
rating
scales
and
nomination
forms
that
focus
on
particular
domains
of
human
functioning
are
frequently
applied.
In
the
HRM
field
specific
IQ-
tests,
typically
utilized
to
evaluate
verbal
and/or
analytic
reason-
ing,
are
often
introduced
in
selection
procedures.
The
integration
of
these
ability
tests
is
driven
by
the
fact
that
IQ
demonstrated
to
be
a
superior
predictor
of
job
performance
after
recruitment
(Schmidt
&
Hunter,
1998).
Systematic
development.
Although
innate
abilities
have
shown
to
be
a
necessary
predictor
of
excellence,
they
need
to
be
combined
with
a
particular
skills
and
knowledge
set
in
order
to
perform
excellently
(Buckingham
&
Clifton,
2001).
In
the
HRM
field
a
number
of
methods
are
applied
to
assess
the
(amount
of)
knowledge
and
skills
(i.e.,
experience)
employees
have
systemati-
cally
developed
throughout
the
life
span
and
are
capable
of
improving
further.
Within
this
regard,
HR
practitioners
frequently
use
so-called
‘performance-potential’
matrices
for
talent-identification—also
referred
to
as
the
‘nine-box’
methodology,
at
least
when
there
are
nine
possible
combinations
of
performance
and
potential
ratings
(Silzer
&
Church,
2009b).
Only
employees
who
demonstrate
a
high
level
of
performance
and
simultaneously
show
high
potential
within
a
given
functioning
domain
are
considered
‘talented’
according
to
this
methodology.
Performance
can
be
assessed
with
the
help
of
assessment
centers
in
which
the
knowledge
and
skills
base
of
employees
is
evaluated.
Potential
is
typically
operationalized
as
the
possibility
to
perform
well
in
a
higher
or
different
role
and
is
mostly
assessed
using
development
centers
and
‘stretch’
assignments
(Silzer
&
Church,
2009a).
The
time
aspect
is
the
main
differentiator
between
talent
and
potential.
While
potential
refers
to
the
future
possibility
of
excellent
performance,
excellence
is
the
main
criterion
by
which
talent
can
be
currently
detected
(Robinson,
Fetters,
Riester,
&
Bracco,
2009).
In
addition,
assessing
(the
amount
of)
previously
acquired
knowledge
and
skills
by
investigating
an
individual’s
re
´sume
´and
educational
background
is
a
frequently
conducted
practice
(Silzer
&
Church,
2009a).
4.2.
Affective
component
As
for
motivations
and
interests
two
large
groups
of
measures
can
be
identified:
standardized
self-assessment
tools
and
reflec-
tion
exercises
(see
Table
1).
Motivation.
Standardized
self-assessment
tools.
In
the
positive
psycholo-
gy
literature,
a
number
of
self-report
questionnaires
are
proposed
to
identify
strengths
as
drivers
of
excellence.
The
StrengthsFinder
(Buckingham
&
Clifton,
2001),
the
Values
in
Action
Inventory
of
Strengths
(VIA-IS)
(Brdar
&
Kashdan,
2010;
Furnham
&
Lester,
2012;
Linley
et
al.,
2007;
Littman-Ovadia
&
Lavy,
2012;
Money,
Hillenbrand,
&
da
Camara,
2009;
Peterson,
2006;
Rust,
Diessner,
&
Reade,
2009;
Seligman,
Steen,
Park,
&
Peterson,
2005)
and
the
Inventory
of
Interpersonal
Strengths
(IIS)
(Hatcher
&
Rogers,
2009)
are
extensively
validated
tools
capable
of
capturing
a
wide
variety
of
characteristics
that
enable
human
flourishing
in
particular
performance
domains.
Interests.
Standardized
self-assessment
tools.
Vocational
psychologists
have
long
developed
and
validated
self-assessment
instruments
to
(re-)orient
individuals
toward
an
occupation
or
career
that
corresponds
to
their
vocational
interests.
Examples
of
self-report
questionnaires
that
are
believed
to
be
of
particular
value
for
detecting
interests
are
the
Strong
Interest
Inventory
(Betz
&
Borgen,
2000;
Gasser,
Larson,
&
Borgen,
2007;
Larson
&
Borgen,
2002),
the
Study
of
Values
(1928,
in
Schmidt,
Lubinski,
&
Benbow,
1998)
and
the
Career
Anchors
Inventory
developed
by
Schein
(1996).
Reflection
exercises.
From
the
eighties
onwards,
both
vocational
psychologists
and
positive
psychologists
have
been
developing
more
open-ended
methods
that
support
individuals
in
eliciting
the
unique
and
continually
evolving
meanings
they
ascribe
to
talent
by
reflecting
on
meaningful
life
and
work
experiences
and
how
talent
plays
a
role
in
them.
To
this
end,
moments
of
successful
talent
deployment,
as
experienced
over
the
course
of
life,
can
be
probed
using
certain
interview
techniques—for
instance,
the
biographical
interview
technique
(Kelchtermans,
1993)—or
evoked
by
providing
individuals
with
specific
reflection
tasks
as
is
the
case
in
the
Intelligent
Career
Card
Sort
exercise
(Amundson,
Parker,
&
Arthur,
2002;
Parker,
2002),
exercises
on
‘possible
selves’
(Markus
&
Nurius,
1986;
Whitty,
2002)
and
so-called
‘reflected
best
self’s-exercises
(Meyers,
van
Woerkom,
&
Bakker,
2012;
Roberts,
Dutton,
Spreitzer,
Heaphy,
&
Quinn,
2005).
Depending
on
the
specific
questions
asked
or
tasks
given,
these
exercises
can
be
applied
to
detect
both
motivations
and
interests.
Regardless
of
the
specific
focus
on
motivation
or
interests,
these
exercises
should
result
in
the
formation
of
ideas
of
what
one
might
become
in
the
future,
on
the
basis
of
which
individuals
can
make
more
effective
career
decisions.
Organizations
can
choose
to
adopt
a
talent
definition
in
which
either
the
ability
and/or
affective
component
is—to
a
greater
or
lesser
extent—emphasized,
thereby
influencing
not
only
the
specific
measures
and
methods
they
will
use
for
identification
purposes,
but
also
the
validity
of
the
identification
process.
The
latter
should
be
an
important
concern
for
organizations
engaging
in
talent-identification,
in
order
to
avoid
‘false
hits’
and
‘false
misses’.
Proposition
7.
Organizational
decision
makers
who
operationa-
lize
talent
mainly
by
the
ability
component
are
more
likely
to
prefer
achievement
tests,
supervisor,
peer
and
self-ratings
of
per-
formance
within
particular
domains
of
human
functioning,
and
assessments
of
knowledge
and
skills
as
measures
in
their
talent-
identification
practices.
S.
Nijs
et
al.
/
Journal
of
World
Business
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
6
G
Model
WORBUS-640;
No.
of
Pages
12
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Nijs,
S.,
et
al.
A
multidisciplinary
review
into
the
definition,
operationalization,
and
measurement
of
talent.
Journal
of
World
Business
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002

Table 1
Talent measures and methods.
Literature stream Measures and methods Characteristics of the measures and methods
What? Who? How?
Ability Systematic
development
Motivation Interests Tests Self Peer Supervisor Standardized Open-ended
Giftedness literature WISC-R X X X
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test X X X
Standard Raven’s Progressive Matrices X X X
Advanced Ravens Progressive Matrices X X X
Torrance Test of Creativity X X X
SAGES X X X
Scholastic Aptitude Test X X X
Defining Issue Test X X X
Self-Regulations and Concentration Test X X X
Gifted Rating Scales-School form X X X X
Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics
of Superior Students
XXX
Marker’s DISCOVER model X XX
Iowa Acceleration Scale X XX
Adjusted Gifted Rating Scales-School form X XX X
Adjusted Scales for Rating Behavioral
Characteristics of Superior Students
XXX X
Teacher nomination scales X XX
Self-nomination scales X XX
Peer nomination scales X XX
Tel-Aviv Activities and Accomplishment
Inventory
XXXX
HRM literature Verbal reasoning tests X X X
Analytic reasoning tests X X X
Assessment centers X X X X
Development centers X X X X
Stretch assignments X X X X X X X
Re
´sume
´XXX
Vocational psychology Strong Interest Inventory XX X
The Study of Values XX X
Careers Anchors Inventory XX X
The Intelligent Career Card sort X X X X X X X
The biographical method X X X X X
Positive psychology StrengthsFinder X X X
The Values in Action Inventory of Strengths X X X
The Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths X X X
Possible selves exercise X X X X X
Reflected best self-exercise X X X X X X X
S.
Nijs
et
al.
/
Journal
of
World
Business
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
7
G
Model
WORBUS-640;
No.
of
Pages
12
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Nijs,
S.,
et
al.
A
multidisciplinary
review
into
the
definition,
operationalization,
and
measurement
of
talent.
Journal
of
World
Business
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002

Proposition
8.
Organizational
decision
makers
who
operationa-
lize
talent
mainly
by
the
affective
component
are
more
likely
to
prefer
standardized
self-assessment
tools
and
open-ended
reflec-
tion
exercises
as
measures
in
their
talent-identification
practices.
Scholars
operating
within
the
discussed
literature
streams
argue
that
instruments
capable
of
measuring
the
affective
component
of
talent
form
a
necessary
extension
to
ability
measures,
because
talent
is
believed
to
be
a
complex
constellation
of
innate
and
systematically
developed
abilities,
motivations
and
interests,
all
interacting
in
determining
excellence
(Parker,
2002).
This
makes
a
combination
of
various
instruments,
tapping
into
both
the
ability
and
the
affective
component
of
talent,
essential
to
obtain
a
holistic
view
of
the
talents
of
employees
(Ericsson
et
al.,
1993).
Only
this
way
the
identified
talents
can
be
accurately
deployed
in
a
manner
that
benefits
both
the
individual
and
the
organization.
Proposition
9.
Organizational
decision
makers
who
operationa-
lize
talent
both
by
the
ability
and
the
affective
component
of
talent
are
more
likely
to
combine
achievement
tests,
supervisor,
peer
and
self-ratings
of
performance
within
particular
domains
of
human
functioning,
and
assessments
of
knowledge
and
skills
with
self-
assessment
tools
and
reflection
exercises
as
measures
in
their
talent-identification
practices,
leading
to
identification
with
higher
predictive
power
for
interpersonal
and
intrapersonal
excel-
lence.
4.3.
Interpersonal
excellence
Measures
reflecting
an
underlying
focus
on
interpersonal
excellence
are
predominantly
used
to
determine
which
individuals
are
capable
of
outperforming
others.
To
this
end,
cut-off
points,
either
with
a
relative
(e.g.,
the
top
10
percent
of
performers
of
a
certain
group)
or
an
absolute
norm
(e.g.,
those
individuals
that
perform
above
a
certain
score)
are
frequently
applied—both
in
the
educational
as
in
the
HRM
field—to
distinguish
between
the
‘haves’
and
the
‘have
nots’
(Be
´langer
&
Gagne
´,
2006;
Pfeiffer,
2009).
The
issue
of
cut-off
points
is
closely
related
to
discussions
about
prevalence,
widely
held
in
the
giftedness
literature.
Prevalence
expresses
the
percentage
of
individuals
within
a
given
population
that
can
be
considered
talented
(Gagne
´,
1998b,
2004).
Typically,
cut-offs
range
from
the
top
0.001
to
10
percent
of
performers,
representing
extremely
to
mildly
talented
individuals
in
compari-
son
to
their
peers
(Gagne
´,
1998b;
Pfeiffer,
2009).
The
assumption
underlying
the
principle
of
cut-off
points
is
that
individuals
who
exceed
a
predefined
relative
or
absolute
threshold
are
in
the
possession
of
a
particular
rare
ability
that
enables
them
to
deliver
performances
impossible
to
achieve
by
the
majority
of
the
population.
Consequently,
these
cut-off
points
are
implemented
to
detect
the
A
players
who
perform
better
than
others
(Becker
et
al.,
2009).
Proposition
10.
Organizational
decision
makers
who
operationa-
lize
excellence
as
performing
better
than
other
individuals
of
the
same
age
or
experience
in
a
specific
domain
of
human
functioning
are
more
likely
to
prefer
methods
and
measures
benchmarked
against
a
specific
norm
population—reflected
by
a
focus
on
relative
and
absolute
cut-off
points
in
their
talent-identification
practices.
4.4.
Intrapersonal
excellence
According
to
the
majority
of
vocational
and
positive
psychol-
ogists,
measures
of
talent
should
be
applied
to
gain
insight
into
the
unique
constellation
of
talents
that
everyone
possesses,
so
as
to
adequately
deploy
them
in
environments
in
which
performances
at
one’s
personal
best
can
be
reached
(Buckingham
&
Clifton,
2001).
In
order
to
detect
those
talents
that
lead
to
intrapersonal
excellence,
methods
and
measures
designed
to
benchmark
individuals
against
their
own
(perceptions
of)
performance,
so
as
to
determine
the
gap
between
past,
current
and
(expected)
maximum
performance,
are
most
suited.
Within
this
perspective,
progression
over
time
is
an
important
variable,
which
can
be
captured
through
follow-up
measurement—see,
for
instance,
the
literature
on
personal
development
plans
(PDPs)
(Taylor
&
Edge,
1997).
Proposition
11.
Organizational
decision
makers
who
operationa-
lize
excellence
as
performing
consistently
at
one’s
personal
best
are
more
likely
to
prefer
methods
and
measures
benchmarked
against
an
individual’s
own
(past)
performances
and
capabilities—
reflected
by
a
focus
on
subjective
experiences
of
excellence
in
their
talent-identification
practices.
5.
Directions
for
future
research
Through
our
multidisciplinary
review
we
aimed
to
offer
more
insight
into
the
definition,
operationalization
and
measurement
of
talent,
on
the
basis
of
which
empirical
studies
could
be
designed.
We
offer
some
suggestions
for
future
research.
5.1.
Contextualizing
talent
The
(organizational)
context
(Bailey
&
Morley,
2006)
will
exert
an
influence
on
the
talent
definition
an
organization
subscribes
to
and
subsequently
the
talent-identification
practices
it
will
install,
making
it
more
likely
for
some
individuals
to
be
detected
as
talented
than
others.
Therefore
research
that
could
help
clarify
if
and
how
organiza-
tional
characteristics
(e.g.,
size,
sector,
culture)
relate
to
a
certain
definition
and
operationalization
of
talent
seems
useful.
Especially
valuable
within
this
respect
are
research
endeavors
that
could
help
assess
for
which
types
of
organizations
operationalizing
excellence
as
interpersonal
versus
intrapersonal
excellence
is
most
beneficial.
To
date,
however,
the
way
in
which
interpersonal
and
intraper-
sonal
excellence
affect
organizational
excellence—a
relation
often
assumed
but
difficult
to
research
(Paauwe
&
Boselie,
2005)—
remains
unknown
and
therefore
is
in
urgent
need
of
further
scrutiny.
5.2.
Inserting
assessors
and
assessees
into
the
equation
The
personnel
selection
literature
and
the
social
psychology
literature—beyond
the
scope
of
the
present
article,
but
neverthe-
less
useful—show
that
talent
definitions
and
measurements
are
subjective
by
nature
due
to
the
influence
of
assessor
and
assessee
personal
characteristics
(Tormala,
Jia,
&
Norton,
2012;
Tsay
&
Banaji,
2011;
Vaughan
&
Hogg,
2005).
Informed
by
the
insights
in
the
present
paper,
we
posit
that
organizational
decision
makers
who
operationalize
talent
both
by
the
ability
and
the
affective
component
are
the
most
suitable
assessors,
because
they
will
engage
in
the
most
valid
measurement
approach
to
talent.
By
empirically
investigating
the
characteristics
of
those
individuals
(e.g.,
implicit
person
theory,
personality),
we
could
gain
more
insight
into
the
profile
of
the
most
suitable
‘identifiers’
of
talent.
Furthermore,
little
attention
has
been
paid
so
far
to
how
specific
talent
definitions,
operationalizations,
and
measures
are
experi-
enced
by
assessees.
In
this
regard,
research
that
explicitly
investigates
attitudinal
and
behavioral
reactions
to
(not)
being
identified
as
talent
and
links
this
to
specific
talent
operationalization
S.
Nijs
et
al.
/
Journal
of
World
Business
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
8
G
Model
WORBUS-640;
No.
of
Pages
12
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Nijs,
S.,
et
al.
A
multidisciplinary
review
into
the
definition,
operationalization,
and
measurement
of
talent.
Journal
of
World
Business
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002

and
measurements,
forms
a
valuable
contribution
to
the
field
(Gelens,
Dries,
Hofmans,
&
Pepermans,
2013;
Sonnenberg,
van
Zijderveld,
&
van
Gorp,
2012;
Van
Zijderveld
&
Sonnenberg,
2012).
5.3.
From
an
individual
to
a
relational
perspective
Throughout
this
review,
we
focused
on
talent
as
something
that
is
individually
held,
detected,
developed
and
deployed
in
order
to
achieve
excellence,
mainly
adopting
an
individual
perspective
on
talent.
Given
the
widespread
use
of
teams
in
organizations
(Guzzo
&
Dickson,
1996),
it
would
be
relevant
to
examine
how
talent
can
be
manifested
and
identified
in
team
settings
(Edwards
&
Sproull,
1985).
By
focusing
on
this
more
aggregated
level,
opportunities
arise
for
studying
effects
of
group
climate
and
social
beliefs
on
definitions
and
assessments
of
talent
(Oltra
&
Vivas-Lo
´pez,
2013).
Related
to
this,
one
might
investigate
how
the
talents
of
individuals,
as
described
throughout
this
paper,
can
strengthen
or
hinder
each
other
in
achieving
individual,
team,
or
organizational
excellence.
This
relational
aspect
of
talent
fell
outside
the
scope
of
our
review,
but—given
the
importance
of
social
networks
(i.e.,
social
capital)
and
teamwork
in
today’s
business
environment—is
certainly
valuable
to
address
in
further
research
(Al
Ariss
&
Syed,
2011;
Jokinen,
Brewster,
&
Suutari,
2008).
6.
Managerial
relevance
By
discussing
managerial
implications
in
terms
of
defining
and
measuring
talent,
we
provide
practical
guidelines
for
designing
talent-identification
practices
grounded
in
sound
theory.
6.1.
Defining
talent
Ability
and
affective
component.
Regardless
of
the
specific
opinion
organizational
decision
makers
hold
about
the
scarcity
of
talent,
we
posit
that
not
all
talents
can
be
equally
valuable
to
an
organization.
Since
abilities
are
always
linked
to
a
specific
domain
of
human
functioning,
which
may
or
may
not
be
related
to
the
core
activities
of
an
organization,
the
value
of
particular
abilities
varies
depending
on
the
organization
at
hand.
Nevertheless,
in
the
HRM
literature,
it
is
often
assumed
that
organizations,
regardless
of
their
strategic
direction,
implement
talent-identification
with
the
main
goal
of
detecting
those
individuals
that
are
capable
of
taking
on
senior
jobs
with
broad
responsibilities
and
are
therefore
seen
as
future
leaders
(Chamorro-Premuzic
&
Furnham,
2010;
Guo,
2003;
Roberts,
Kossek,
&
Ozeki,
1998;
Smith
&
Victorson,
2012).
In
accordance
with
Gagne
´(2009)
and
Buckingham
and
Clifton
(2001),
we
argue
that
exceptional
ability
can
occur
in
a
multitude
of
domains,
of
which
leadership
is
only
one.
Therefore,
we
advise
organizational
decision
makers
to
carefully
assess
which
specific
talent
domains
are
most
valuable
for
their
organizations,
given
their
strategic
direction,
before
implementing
specific
talent-
identification
tools
and
procedures.
Boudreau
and
Ramstad
(2005,
2007),
in
their
seminal
work
on
‘pivotal
positions’,
assert
that
all
kind
of
employees,
not
only
the
ones
holding
leadership
positions—as
is
often
assumed
in
the
HRM
literature—can
in
fact
be
pivotal
for
guaranteeing
the
long-term
success
of
an
organization.
As
the
expression
of
talent
into
excellent
performance
depends
on
the
fruitful
mixture
of
specific
innate
and
developed
abilities,
providing
employees
with
opportunities
for
practice
is
essential
(Capaldo,
Iandoli,
&
Zollo,
2006;
Thunnissen
et
al.,
2013).
Since
practice
is
installed
to
optimize
the
skills
and
knowledge
sets
of
employees—which
are
by
definition
trainable—employees
who
possess
the
necessary
innate
abilities,
but
have
not
yet
developed
them
in
a
systematic
way
thus
can
be
trained
toward
excellence
(Buckingham
&
Clifton,
2001).
Since
the
amount
of
received
practice
can
differ
considerably
between
employees
equally
capable
of
achieving
excellence,
differential
investment
in
their
learning
and
development
(customized
to
each
talented
employ-
ee’s
need
for
further
development)
seems
desirable.
Informed
by
these
findings,
it
might
be
advisable
for
organizations
to
not
only
differentiate
between
talented
and
less
talented
individuals—often
designated,
in
the
HR
literature,
with
the
term
workforce
differentiation
(Huselid
&
Becker,
2011)—but
to
also
differentiate
within
the
group
of
talented
individuals
and
this
on
the
basis
of
the
level
of
practice
they
have
had
to
date.
In
addition
to
developmental
support,
organizations
need
to
support
individuals
in
orienting
them
toward
activities
that
draw
upon
their
motivations
and
interests
areas.
As
motivation
and
interests
are
not
entirely
visible
to
other
parties,
it
is
crucial
that
individuals
take
a
certain
responsibility
in
articulating
these
to
organizational
decision
makers
(Arnold
&
Cohen,
2008;
Dries,
2011).
We
conclude
that
a
valid
assessment
of
talent
requires
striking
a
balance
between
organizational
responsibility
(i.e.,
detecting
relevant
areas
of
human
functioning
and
providing
employees
with
opportunities
for
systematic
development)
and
self-respon-
sibility
(i.e.,
articulating
invisible
motivations
and
interest
areas).
Interpersonal
and
intrapersonal
excellence.
HRM
scholars,
typically
adopting
a
human
capital
perspective
to
talent,
seem
to
be
convinced
that
workforce
differentiation—corresponding
to
a
focus
on
interpersonal
excellence—is
the
way
to
go
about
managing
talent.
However,
some
organizations
voice
concern
about
applying
workforce
differentiation
for
two
main
reasons.
Firstly,
not
all
organizations
are
convinced
that
workforce
differentiation
will
positively
affect
the
attainment
of
strategic
goals,
due
to
the
potentially
negative
impact
unequal
treatment
can
exert
on
the
motivation
and
performance
levels
of
employees
not
identified
as
talented
(Gelens
et
al.,
2013).
Secondly,
certain
organizations
hold
a
reluctant
attitude
toward
differentiation
because
such
an
exclusive
interpretation
of
talent
clashes
with
their
culture
(Iles,
Chuai,
&
Preece,
2010).
With
the
help
of
our
conceptual
model
(see
Fig.
1),
we
demonstrate
that
talent
can
also
be
operationalized
as
leading
to
intrapersonal
excellence,
which
reflects
a
more
inclusive
view
on
talent,
and
implying
more
egalitarian
investment.
Throughout
the
literature—albeit
in
different
literature
streams—it
is
argued
that
both
the
exclusive
and
the
inclusive
view
of
talent,
referring
to
interpersonal
and
intrapersonal
excellence
as
criterion
for
talent
respectively,
can
generate
positive
organizational
outcomes.
We
state
that
organizational
character-
istics
will
determine
which
operationalization
of
excellence
is
the
most
suitable
and
will
therefore
benefit
the
organization
the
most.
What
seems
to
be
certain
is
that
the
specific
talent
definition
organizations
adhere
to
(i.e.,
emphasizing
interpersonal
versus
intrapersonal
excellence)
should
be
aligned
with
the
strategic
aims
of
the
organization
(De
Vos
&
Dries,
2013;
Zhao
&
Du,
2011).
We
posit
that
an
organization’s
talent
definition
serves
strategic
purposes
because,
as
demonstrated
in
this
paper,
it
directly
affects
the
concrete
identification
practices
preferred
by
organizational
decision
makers
which
are
subsequently
interpreted
and
enacted
upon
by
employees
(Wright
&
Nishii,
2007).
6.2.
Measuring
talent
As
summarized
in
Proposition
9,
combining
instruments
that
measure
innate
abilities,
systematic
development,
motivation,
and
interests
is
advisable
in
order
to
obtain
a
holistic
view
of
the
talents
of
employees
so
as
to
accurately
predict
excellence
(Parker,
2002).
The
measures
and
methods
presented
in
Table
1
emphasize
these
different
components
of
the
talent
construct
and
vary
in
terms
of
S.
Nijs
et
al.
/
Journal
of
World
Business
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
9
G
Model
WORBUS-640;
No.
of
Pages
12
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Nijs,
S.,
et
al.
A
multidisciplinary
review
into
the
definition,
operationalization,
and
measurement
of
talent.
Journal
of
World
Business
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002

the
measurement
approach
taken
(i.e.,
standardized
versus
open-
ended).
Each
measurement
approach
has
its
own
specific
benefits
and
limitations,
therefore
we
advise
practitioners
to
combine
different
sorts
of
approaches.
Standardized
measures
are
extensively
validated
and
easy
to
use
within
an
organizational
context
because
they
can
be
applied
to
a
large
number
of
people
in
a
standardized
way.
Due
to
the
standardization,
it
is
not
possible
to
capture
the
complex
nature
of
motivations
and
interests
as
differentially
experienced
by
individuals.
Rather,
these
are
better
detected
by
applying
open-ended
exercises
in
which
individuals
narratively
reflect
on
the
subjective
meaning
they
ascribe
to
talent.
Since
the
focus
is
on
detecting
the
unique
perception
individuals
have
of
(their)
talent,
we
can
however
characterize
these
as
extremely
individual
and
time-consuming
exercises.
Furthermore,
we
advise
using
multisource
assessments
in
order
to
reduce
bias
that
could
result
from
using
only
one
assessor
(Smither,
London,
&
Reilly,
2005).
The
talent-identification
process
is
quite
subjective
by
nature
(Dominick
and
Gabriel,
2009;
Heslin,
Latham,
&
Vandewalle,
2005).
Consequently,
we
suggest
combin-
ing
tests,
self,
peer
and
supervisor
instruments
(see
Table
1).
Moreover,
we
strongly
advise
organizations
to
incorporate
self-
assessment
tools
in
their
talent-identification
processes.
These
could
help
shed
light
on
motivation
and
interests
areas,
components
of
talent
that
are
not
always
visible
to
other
parties.
Because
motivation
and
interests
are
approached
as
dynamically
influenced
by
personal
and
environmental
factors
(Ibarra,
1999),
we
emphasize
that
talent-identification
should
be
a
continuous
endeavor.
Within
this
perspective
life-long
interventions
for
talent-identification
are
deemed
suitable,
not
only
early-career
interventions
as
is
so
often
the
case
in
HR
practice
today
(Savickas
et
al.,
2009).
Acknowledgement
This
research
project
was
funded
by
Acerta
Leerstoel
Talent
Management
&
Employability.
Appendix
A.
Keywords
used
and
number
of
articles
retrieved
from
the
Business
Source
Premier
and
the
PsycInfo
Databases
(n
=
161)
Keyword
Selected
articles
Nature
of
selected
articles
Empirical
Theoretical
Talent*
AND
Identif*
18
6
12
Gift*
AND
Identif*
10
3
7
Strength*
AND
Identif*
7
1
6
Talent*
AND
Defin*
5
3
2
Gift*
AND
Defin*
4
0
4
Strength*
AND
Defin*
2
1
1
Talent*
AND
Detect*
2
1
1
Gift*
AND
Detect*
0
0
0
Strength*
AND
Detect*
1
0
1
Talent*
AND
Select*
5
3
2
Gift*
AND
Select*
2
1
1
Strength*
AND
Select*
2
0
2
Talent*
AND
Assess*
22
8
14
Gift*
AND
Assess*
6
3
3
Strength*
AND
Assess*
9
3
6
Talent*
AND
Measure*
17
6
11
Gift*
AND
Measure*
4
4
0
Strength*
AND
Measure*
3
2
1
Talent*
AND
Tool*
3
0
3
Gift*
AND
Tool*
0
0
0
Strength*
AND
Tool*
7
2
5
Talent*
AND
Scale*
2
2
0
Gift*
AND
Scale*
4
3
1
Strength*
AND
Scale*
9
9
0
Appendix
A
(Continued
)
Keyword
Selected
articles
Nature
of
selected
articles
Empirical
Theoretical
Talent*
AND
Method*
15
9
6
Gift*
AND
Method*
1
1
0
Strength*
AND
Method*
1
1
0
References
Achter,
J.
A.,
Lubinski,
D.,
Benbow,
C.
P.,
&
Eftekhari-Sanjani,
H.
(1999).
Assessing
vocational
preferences
among
intellectually
gifted
adolescents
adds
incremental
validity
to
abilities:
A
discriminant
analysis
of
educational
outcomes
over
a
10-
year
interval.
Journal
of
Educational
Psychology,
91:
777–786.
Al
Ariss,
A.,
&
Syed,
J.
(2011).
Capital
mobilization
of
skilled
migrants:
A
relational
perspective.
British
Journal
of
Management,
22(2):
286–304.
Amundson,
N.
E.,
Parker,
P.,
&
Arthur,
M.
B.
(2002).
Merging
two
worlds:
Linking
occupational
and
organizational
career
counselling.
Australian
Journal
of
Career
Development,
11(3):
26–35.
Arnold,
J.,
&
Cohen,
L.
(2008).
The
psychology
of
careers
in
industrial
and
organizational
settings:
A
critical
but
appreciative
analysis.
In
G.
P.
Hodgkinson
&
J.
K.
Ford
(Eds.),
International
review
of
industrial
and
organizational
psychology
(pp.
1–44).
New
York:
John
Wiley
&
Sons.
Bailey,
R.,
&
Morley,
D.
(2006).
Towards
a
model
of
talent
development
in
physical
education.
Sport
Education
and
Society,
11:
211–230.
Baldwin,
A.
Y.
(2005).
Identification
concerns
and
promises
for
gifted
students
of
diverse
populations.
Theory
Into
Practice,
44:
105–114.
Becker,
B.
E.,
&
Huselid,
M.
A.
(2006).
Strategic
human
resource
management:
Where
do
we
go
from
here?
Journal
of
Management,
32:
898–925.
Becker,
B.
E.,
Huselid,
M.
A.,
&
Beatty,
R.
W.
(2009).
The
differentiated
workforce:
Transforming
talent
into
strategic
impact.
Boston:
Harvard
Business
Press.
Be
´langer,
J.,
&
Gagne
´,
F.
(2006).
Estimating
the
size
of
the
gifted/talent
population
from
multiple
identification
criteria.
Journal
for
the
Education
of
the
Gifted,
30(2):
131–
163.
Betz,
N.
E.,
&
Borgen,
F.
H.
(2000).
The
future
of
career
assessment:
Integrating
vocational
interests
with
self-efficacy
and
personal
styles.
Journal
of
Career
Assess-
ment,
8:
329–338.
Bianco,
M.
(2010).
Strength-based
RTI:
Conceptualizing
a
multi-tiered
system
for
developing
gifted
potential.
Theory
Into
Practice,
49:
323–330.
Boudreau,
J.
W.,
&
Ramstad,
P.
M.
(2005).
Talentship,
talent
segmentation,
and
sustainability:
A
new
HR
decision
science
paradigm
for
a
new
strategy
definition.
Human
Resource
Management,
44:
129–136.
Boudreau,
J.
W.,
&
Ramstad,
P.
M.
(2007).
Beyond
HR:
The
new
science
of
human
capital.
Boston:
Harvard
Business
Press.
Brdar,
I.,
&
Kashdan,
T.
B.
(2010).
Character
strengths
and
well-being
in
Croatia:
An
empirical
investigation
of
structure
and
correlates.
Journal
of
Research
in
Personali-
ty,
44:
151–154.
Brown,
S.
W.,
Renzulli,
J.
S.,
Gubbins,
E.
J.,
Siegle,
D.,
Zhang,
W.,
&
Chen,
C.-H.
(2005).
Assumptions
underlying
the
identification
of
gifted
and
talented
students.
Gifted
Child
Quarterly,
49:
68–79.
Buckingham,
M.,
&
Clifton,
D.
(2001).
Now
discover
your
strengths.
New
York:
The
Free
Press.
Capaldo,
G.,
Iandoli,
L.,
&
Zollo,
G.
(2006).
A
situationalist
perspective
to
competence
management.
Human
Resource
Management,
45(3):
429–448.
Cascio,
W.
F.,
&
Boudreau,
J.
W.
(2011).
Investing
in
people:
Financial
impact
of
human
resource
initiatives
(2nd
ed.).
New
Jersey,
NY:
Pearson
Education
Inc.
Cascio,
W.
F.,
&
Luthans,
F.
(2013).
Reflections
on
the
metamorphosis
at
Robben
Island:
The
role
of
institutional
work
and
positive
psychological
capital.
Journal
of
Man-
agement
Inquiry
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056492612474348.
(in
press).
Chamorro-Premuzic,
T.,
&
Furnham,
A.
(2010).
The
psychology
of
personnel
selection.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Collings,
D.
G.,
&
Mellahi,
K.
(2009).
Strategic
talent-management:
A
review
and
research
agenda.
Human
Resource
Management
Review,
19:
304–313.
De
Vos,
A.,
&
Dries,
N.
(2013).
Applying
a
talent-management
lens
to
career
manage-
ment:
The
role
of
human
capital
composition
and
continuity.
The
International
Journal
of
Human
Resource
Management,
24:
1816–1831,.
(special
issue).
Dominick,
P.
G.,
&
Gabriel,
A.
S.
(2009).
Two
sides
to
the
story:
An
interactionist
perspective
on
identifying
potential.
Industrial
and
Organizational
Psychology,
2:
430–433.
Dries,
N.
(2011).
The
meaning
of
career
success:
Avoiding
reification
through
a
closer
inspection
of
historical,
cultural
and
ideological
contexts.
Career
Development
International,
16:
364–384.
Dries,
N.
(2013).
The
psychology
of
talent-management:
A
review
and
research
agenda.
Human
Resource
Management
Review
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.
05.001.
(special
issue).
Edwards,
M.
R.,
&
Sproull,
J.
R.
(1985).
Team
talent
assessment:
Optimizing
assessee
visibility
and
assessment
accuracy.
Human
Resource
Planning,
8:
157–171.
Ericsson,
K.
A.,
Krampe,
R.Th.,
&
Tesch-Ro
¨mer,
C.
(1993).
The
role
of
deliberate
practice
in
the
acquisition
of
expert
performance.
Psychological
Review,
100:
363–406.
Farndale,
E.,
Scullion,
H.,
&
Sparrow,
P.
(2010).
The
role
of
the
corporate
HR
function
in
global
talent-management.
Journal
of
World
Business,
45:
161–168,.
(special
issue).
Feldhusen,
J.
F.
(1994).
Talent-identification
and
development
in
education
(TIDE).
Gifted
Education
International,
10:
10–15.
S.
Nijs
et
al.
/
Journal
of
World
Business
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
10
G
Model
WORBUS-640;
No.
of
Pages
12
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Nijs,
S.,
et
al.
A
multidisciplinary
review
into
the
definition,
operationalization,
and
measurement
of
talent.
Journal
of
World
Business
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002

Florano,
E.
R.
(2003).
Assessment
of
the
strengths
of
the
new
ASEAN
agreement
on
transboundary
haze
pollution.
International
Review
for
Environmental
Strategies,
14:
127–147.
Furnham,
A.,
&
Lester,
D.
(2012).
The
development
of
a
short
measure
of
character
strength.
European
Journal
of
Psychological
Assessment,
28:
95–101.
Gagne
´,
F.
(1998a).
A
proposal
for
subcategories
within
gifted
or
talented
populations.
Gifted
Child
Quarterly,
42:
87–95.
Gagne
´,
F.
(1998b).
The
prevalence
of
gifted,
talented,
and
multitalented
individuals:
Estimates
from
peer
and
teacher
nominations.
In
T.
C.
Friedman
&
K.
B.
Rogers
(Eds.),
Talent
in
context:
Historical
and
social
perspectives
on
giftedness
(pp.
101–
126).
Washington,
DC:
American
Psychological
Association.
Gagne
´,
F.
(2004).
Transforming
gifts
into
talents:
The
DMGT
as
a
developmental
theory.
High
Ability
Studies,
15:
119–147.
Gagne
´,
F.
(2009).
Building
gifts
into
talents:
Detailed
overview
of
the
DMGT
2.0.
In
B.
MacFarlane
&
T.
Stambaugh
(Eds.),
Leading
change
in
gifted
education:
The
festschrift
of
Dr.
Joyce
VanTassel-Baska
(pp.
61–80).
Waco,
TX:
Prufrock
Press.
Gagne
´,
F.
(2010).
Motivation
within
the
DMGT
2.0
framework.
High
Ability
Studies,
21:
81–99,.
(special
issue).
Gallardo-Gallardo,
E.,
Dries,
N.,
&
Gonza
´lez-Cruz,
T.
(2013).
What
is
the
meaning
of
‘talent’
in
the
world
of
work?
Human
Resource
Management
Review
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.002.
(special
issue).
Gasser,
C.
E.,
Larson,
L.
M.,
&
Borgen,
F.
H.
(2007).
Concurrent
validity
of
the
2005
Strong
Interest
Inventory:
An
examination
of
gender
and
major
field
of
study.
Journal
of
Career
Assessment,
15:
23–43.
Gelens,
J.,
Dries,
N.,
Hofmans,
J.,
&
Pepermans,
R.
(2013).
The
role
of
perceived
organizational
justice
in
shaping
the
outcomes
of
talent-management:
A
research
agenda.
Human
Resource
Management
Review
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.hrmr.2013.05.005.
(special
issue).
Gladwell,
M.
(2009).
Outliers:
The
story
of
success.
London:
Penguin.
Greenhaus,
J.
H.,
&
Callanan,
G.
A.
(2006).
Encyclopedia
of
Career
Development.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage
Publications.
Guo,
K.
L.
(2003).
An
assessment
tool
for
developing
healthcare
managerial
skills
and
roles.
Journal
of
Healthcare
Management/American
College
of
Healthcare
Executives,
48:
367–376.
Guzzo,
R.
A.,
&
Dickson,
M.
W.
(1996).
Teams
in
organizations:
Recent
research
on
performance
and
effectiveness.
Annual
Review
of
Psychology,
47:
307–338.
Hatcher,
R.
L.,
&
Rogers,
D.
T.
(2009).
Development
and
validation
of
a
measure
for
interpersonal
strengths.
Psychological
Assessment,
21:
554–569.
Heller,
K.
A.
(2004).
Identification
of
gifted
and
talented
students.
Psychology
Science,
46:
302–323.
Heslin,
P.
A.,
Latham,
G.
P.,
&
Vandewalle,
D.
(2005).
The
effect
of
implicit
person
theory
on
performance
appraisals.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
90:
842–856.
Huselid,
M.
A.,
&
Becker,
B.
E.
(2011).
Bridging
micro
and
macro
domains:
Workforce
differentiation
and
strategic
human
resource
management.
Journal
of
Management,
37:
421–428.
Ibarra,
H.
(1999).
Provisional
selves:
Experimenting
with
image
and
identity
in
professional
adaptation.
Administrative
Science
Quarterly,
44:
764–792.
Iles,
P.,
Chuai,
X.,
&
Preece,
D.
(2010).
Talent-management
and
HRM
in
multinational
companies
in
Beijing:
Definitions,
differences
and
drivers.
Journal
of
World
Business,
45:
179–189,.
(special
issue).
Inkson,
K.
(2008).
Are
humans
resources?
Career
Development
International,
13:
270–
279.
Jokinen,
T.,
Brewster,
C.,
&
Suutari,
V.
(2008).
Career
capital
during
international
work
experiences:
Contrasting
self-initiated
expatriate
experiences
and
assigned
expa-
triation.
International
Journal
of
Human
Resource
Management,
19:
979–998.
Kelchtermans,
G.
(1993).
Teachers
and
their
career
story:
A
biographical
perspective
on
professional
development.
In
C.
Day,
J.
Calderhead,
&
P.
Denicolo
(Eds.),
Research
on
teacher
thinking:
Understanding
professional
development
(pp.
198–220).
London:
Falmer.
Larson,
L.
M.,
&
Borgen,
F.
H.
(2002).
Convergence
of
vocational
interests
and
personali-
ty:
Examples
in
an
adolescent
gifted
sample.
Journal
of
Vocational
Behavior,
60:
91–
112.
Lepak,
D.
P.,
&
Snell,
S.
A.
(1999).
The
human
resource
architecture:
Toward
a
theory
of
human
capital
allocation
and
development.
Academy
of
Management
Review,
24:
31–48.
Lepak,
D.
P.,
&
Snell,
S.
A.
(2002).
Examining
the
human
resource
architecture:
The
relationships
among
human
capital,
employment,
and
human
resource
configura-
tions.
Journal
of
Management,
28:
517–543.
Lewis,
R.
E.,
&
Heckman,
R.
J.
(2006).
Talent-management:
A
critical
review.
Human
Resource
Management
Review,
16:
139–154.
Linley,
P.
A.,
Maltby,
J.,
Wood,
A.
M.,
Joseph,
S.,
Harrington,
S.,
&
Peterson,
C.
(2007).
Character
strengths
in
the
United
Kingdom:
The
VIA
inventory
of
strengths.
Personality
and
Individual
Differences,
43:
341–351.
Littman-Ovadia,
H.,
&
Lavy,
S.
(2012).
Character
strengths
in
Israel.
European
Journal
of
Psychological
Assessment,
28:
41–50.
Lubinski,
D.,
&
Benbow,
C.
P.
(2000).
States
of
excellence.
American
Psychologist,
55:
137–150.
Luthans,
F.
(2002).
Positive
organizational
behavior:
Developing
and
managing
psy-
chological
strengths.
The
Academy
of
Management
Executive,
16(1):
57–72.
Major,
J.
T.,
Johnson,
W.,
&
Deary,
I.
J.
(2012).
Comparing
models
of
intelligence
in
Project
TALENT:
The
VPR
model
fits
better
than
the
CHC
and
extended
Gf–Gc
models.
Intelligence,
40:
543–559.
Markus,
H.,
&
Nurius,
P.
(1986).
Possible
selves.
American
Psychologist,
41:
954–969.
Mayer,
R.
E.
(2005).
The
scientific
study
of
giftedness.
In
R.
J.
Sternberg
&
J.
E.
Davidson
(Eds.),
Conceptions
of
giftedness
(pp.
437–448).
New
York,
NY:
Cambridge
Univer-
sity
Press.
Meyers,
M.
C.,
van
Woerkom,
M.,
&
Bakker,
A.
B.
(2012).
The
added
value
of
the
positive:
A
literature
review
of
positive
psychology
interventions
in
organizations.
European
Journal
of
Work
and
Organizational
Psychology
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
1359432X.2012.694689.
Michaels,
E.,
Handfield-Jones,
H.,
&
Axelrod,
B.
(2001).
War
for
talent.
Boston,
MA:
Harvard
Business
Press.
Milgram,
R.
M.,
&
Hong,
E.
(1999).
Multipotential
abilities
and
vocational
interests
in
gifted
adolescents:
Fact
or
fiction?
International
Journal
of
Psychology,
34:
81–93.
Milton,
L.
P.
(2003).
An
identity
perspective
on
the
propensity
of
high-tech
talent
to
unionize.
Journal
of
Labor
Research,
24:
31–53.
Money,
K.,
Hillenbrand,
C.,
&
da
Camara,
N.
(2009).
Putting
positive
psychology
to
work
in
organizations.
Journal
of
General
Management,
34(3):
21–36.
Ng,
E.
S.,
&
Burke,
R.
J.
(2005).
Person–organization
fit
and
the
war
for
talent:
Does
diversity
management
make
a
difference?
The
International
Journal
of
Human
Resource
Management,
16:
1195–1210.
Oltra,
V.,
&
Vivas-Lo
´pez,
S.
(2013).
Boosting
organizational
learning
through
team-based
talent-management:
What
is
the
evidence
from
large
Spanish
firms?
The
Interna-
tional
Journal
of
Human
Resource
Management,
24:
1853–1871,.
(special
issue).
Paauwe,
J.,
&
Boselie,
P.
(2005).
HRM
and
performance:
What
next?
Human
Resource
Management
Journal,
15(4):
68–83.
Parker,
P.
(2002).
Working
with
the
intelligent
career
model.
Journal
of
Employment
Counseling,
39:
83–96.
Periathiruvadi,
S.,
&
Rinn,
A.
N.
(2013).
Technology
in
gifted
education:
A
review
of
best
practices
and
empirical
research.
Journal
of
Research
on
Technology
in
Education,
45(2):
153–169.
Peterson,
C.
(2006).
The
values
in
action
(VIA)
classification
of
strengths.
In
M.
Csikszentmihalyi
&
I.
S.
Csikszentmihalyi
(Eds.),
A
life
worth
living:
Contributions
to
positive
psychology
(pp.
29–48).
New
York,
NY:
Oxford
University
Press.
Pfeiffer,
S.
I.
(2009).
The
gifted:
Clinical
challenges
for
child
psychiatry.
Journal
of
the
American
Academy
of
Child
&
Adolescent
Psychiatry,
48:
787–790.
Preckel,
F.,
&
Thiemann,
H.
(2003).
Online-
versus
paper-pencil
version
of
a
high
potential
intelligence
test.
Swiss
Journal
of
Psychology,
62:
131–138.
Privette,
G.
(1983).
Peak
experience,
peak
performance,
and
flow:
A
comparative
analysis
of
positive
human
experiences.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
45:
1361–1368.
Rea,
D.
W.
(2000).
Optimal
motivation
for
talent
development.
Journal
for
the
Education
of
the
Gifted,
23(2):
187–216.
Renzulli,
J.
S.
(1986).
The
three-ring
conception
of
giftedness:
A
developmental
model
for
creative
productivity.
In
R.
J.
Sternberg
&
J.
E.
Davidson
(Eds.),
Conceptions
of
giftedness
(pp.
53–92).
New
York,
NY:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Renzulli,
J.
S.
(2005).
Applying
gifted
education
pedagogy
to
total
talent
development
for
all
students.
Theory
Into
Practice,
44:
80–89.
Roberts,
K.,
Kossek,
E.
E.,
&
Ozeki,
C.
(1998).
Managing
the
global
workforce:
Challenges
and
strategies.
The
Academy
of
Management
Executive,
12(4):
93–106.
Roberts,
L.
M.,
Dutton,
J.
E.,
Spreitzer,
G.,
Heaphy,
E.
D.,
&
Quinn,
R.
E.
(2005).
Composing
the
reflected
best-self
portrait:
Building
pathways
for
becoming
extraordinary
in
work
organizations.
Academy
of
Management
Review,
30(7):
12–36.
Robinson,
A.,
&
Clinkenbeard,
P.
R.
(1998).
Giftedness:
An
exceptionality
examined.
Annual
Review
of
Psychology,
49(1):
117–139.
Robinson,
C.,
Fetters,
R.,
Riester,
D.,
&
Bracco,
A.
(2009).
The
paradox
of
potential:
A
suggestion
for
guiding
talent-management
discussions
in
organizations.
Industrial
and
Organizational
Psychology,
413–415.
Robinson,
N.
M.,
Zigler,
E.,
&
Gallagher,
J.
J.
(2000).
Two
tails
of
the
normal
curve:
Similarities
and
differences
in
the
study
of
mental
retardation
and
giftedness.
American
Psychologist,
55:
1413–1424.
Ruban,
L.
M.,
&
Reis,
S.
M.
(2005).
Identification
and
assessment
of
gifted
students
with
learning
disabilities.
Theory
Into
Practice,
44(2):
115–124.
Rust,
T.,
Diessner,
R.,
&
Reade,
L.
(2009).
Strengths
only
or
strengths
and
relative
weaknesses?
A
preliminary
study.
The
Journal
of
Psychology:
Interdisciplinary
and
Applied,
143:
465–476.
Saccuzzo,
D.
P.,
&
Johnson,
N.
E.
(1995).
Traditional
psychometric
tests
and
propor-
tionate
representation:
An
intervention
and
program
evaluation
study.
Psycholog-
ical
Assessment,
7:
183–194.
Sanders,
C.
E.,
Lubinski,
D.,
&
Benbow,
C.
P.
(1995).
Does
the
defining
issues
test
measure
psychological
phenomena
distinct
from
verbal
ability?
An
examination
of
Lykken’s
query.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
69:
498–504.
Savickas,
M.
L.,
Nota,
L.,
Rossier,
J.,
Dauwalder,
J.
P.,
Duarte,
M.
E.,
Guichard,
J.,
et
al.
(2009).
Life
designing:
A
paradigm
for
career
construction
in
the
21st
century.
Journal
of
Vocational
Behavior,
75:
239–250.
Schein,
E.
H.
(1996).
Career
anchors
revisited:
Implications
for
career
development
in
the
21st
century.
The
Academy
of
Management
Executive,
10(4):
80–88.
Schmidt,
D.
B.,
Lubinski,
D.,
&
Benbow,
C.
P.
(1998).
Validity
of
assessing
educational-
vocational
preference
dimensions
among
intellectually
talented
13-year-olds.
Journal
of
Counseling
Psychology,
45:
436–453.
Schmidt,
F.
L.,
&
Hunter,
J.
E.
(1998).
The
validity
and
utility
of
selection
methods
in
personnel
psychology:
Practical
and
theoretical
implications
of
85
years
of
re-
search
findings.
Psychological
Bulletin,
124:
262–274.
Seligman,
M.
E.
P.,
&
Csikszentmihalyi,
M.
(2000).
Positive
psychology:
An
introduction.
American
Psychologist,
55:
5–14,.
(special
issue).
Seligman,
M.
E.
P.,
Steen,
T.
A.,
Park,
N.,
&
Peterson,
C.
(2005).
Positive
psychology
progress:
Empirical
validation
of
interventions.
American
Psychologist,
60:
410–
421.
Sharma,
R.,
&
Bhatnagar,
J.
(2009).
Talent-management–competency
development:
Key
to
global
leadership.
Industrial
and
Commercial
Training,
41:
118–132.
Silzer,
R.,
&
Church,
A.
H.
(2009a).
Identifying
and
assessing
high-potential
talent:
Current
organizational
practices.
In
R.
Silzer
&
B.
E.
Dowell
(Eds.),
Strategy-driven
S.
Nijs
et
al.
/
Journal
of
World
Business
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
11
G
Model
WORBUS-640;
No.
of
Pages
12
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Nijs,
S.,
et
al.
A
multidisciplinary
review
into
the
definition,
operationalization,
and
measurement
of
talent.
Journal
of
World
Business
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002

talent-management:
A
leadership
imperative
(pp.
213–279).
San
Francisco,
CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Silzer,
R.,
&
Church,
A.
H.
(2009b).
The
pearls
and
perils
of
identifying
potential.
Industrial
and
Organizational
Psychology,
2:
377–412.
Smith,
M.
C.,
&
Victorson,
J.
(2012).
Developing
a
global
mindset:
Cross-cultural
challenges
and
best
practices
for
assessing
and
grooming
high
potentials
for
global
leadership.
People
and
Strategy,
35(2):
42–51.
Smither,
J.
W.,
London,
M.,
&
Reilly,
R.
R.
(2005).
Does
performance
improve
following
multisource
feedback?
A
theoretical
model,
meta-analysis,
and
review
of
empirical
findings.
Personnel
Psychology,
58:
33–66.
Sonnenberg,
M.,
van
Zijderveld,
V.,
&
van
Gorp,
K.
(2012).
Het
belang
van
psychologisch
contract
onrepliceerbaarheid
[The
importance
of
psychological
contract
unreplic-
ability]].
Gedrag
en
Organisatie,
25:
347–366.
Sternberg,
R.
J.,
&
Davidson,
J.
E.
(Eds.).
(2005).
Conceptions
of
giftedness
(2nd
ed.).
New
York,
NY:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Tansley,
C.
(2011).
What
do
we
mean
by
the
term
‘‘talent’’
in
talent-management?
Industrial
and
Commercial
Training,
43:
266–274.
Taylor,
D.,
&
Edge,
D.
(1997).
Personal
Development
plans:
Unlocking
the
future.
Career
Development
International,
2:
21–23.
Thunnissen,
M.,
Boselie,
P.,
&
Fruytier,
B.
(2013).
Talent-management
and
the
relevance
of
context:
Towards
a
pluralistic
approach.
Human
Resource
Management
Review
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.004.
(special
issue).
Tormala,
Z.
L.,
Jia,
J.
S.,
&
Norton,
M.
I.
(2012).
The
preference
for
potential.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
103:
567–583.
Tsay,
C.,
&
Banaji,
M.
R.
(2011).
Naturals
and
strivers:
Preferences
and
beliefs
about
sources
of
achievement.
Journal
of
Experimental
Social
Psychology,
47:
460–
465.
Vallerand,
R.
J.,
Blanchard,
C.,
Mageau,
G.
A.,
Koestner,
R.,
Ratelle,
C.,
Leonard,
M.,
et
al.
(2003).
Les
passions
de
l’a
ˆme:
On
obsessive
and
harmonious
passion.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
85:
756–767.
Van
Zijderveld,
V.,
&
Sonnenberg,
M.
(2012).
I-deals
en
rechtvaardigheid:
Het
effect
van
talent
differentiatie
[I-deals
and
justice:
The
effect
of
talent
differentiation].
Tijdschrift
voor
HRM,
2:
61–78.
Vaughan,
G.
M.,
&
Hogg,
M.
A.
(2005).
Introduction
to
social
psychology.
Frenchs
Forest,
New
South
Wales,
NSW:
Pearson
Education.
Wacker,
J.
G.
(2004).
A
theory
of
formal
conceptual
definitions:
Developing
theory-
building
measurement
instruments.
Journal
of
Operations
Management,
22:
629–
650.
Whitty,
M.
(2002).
Possible
selves:
Exploring
the
utility
of
a
narrative
approach.
Identity:
An
International
Journal
of
Theory
and
Research,
2:
213–230.
Wood,
A.
M.,
Linley,
P.
A.,
Maltby,
J.,
Kashdan,
T.
B.,
&
Hurling,
R.
(2011).
Using
personal
and
psychological
strengths
leads
to
increases
in
well-being
over
time:
A
longitu-
dinal
study
and
the
development
of
the
strengths
use
questionnaire.
Personality
and
Individual
Differences,
50:
15–19.
Wright,
P.
M.,
&
Nishii,
L.
H.
(2007).
Strategic
HRM
and
organizational
behavior:
Integrating
multiple
levels
of
analysis.
CAHRS
Working
Paper
Series,
468.
Zhao,
S.,
&
Du,
J.
(2011).
The
application
of
competency-based
talent
assessment
systems
in
China.
Human
Systems
Management,
30(1):
23–37.
S.
Nijs
et
al.
/
Journal
of
World
Business
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
12
G
Model
WORBUS-640;
No.
of
Pages
12
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Nijs,
S.,
et
al.
A
multidisciplinary
review
into
the
definition,
operationalization,
and
measurement
of
talent.
Journal
of
World
Business
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002