Talent identification transparency: an alternative perspective

Full text

E
uropean J. International Management, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019 25
Copyright © 2019 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Talent identification transparency: an alternative
perspective
Violetta Khoreva
Department of Management and Organization,
Hanken School of Economics,
Biblioteksgatan 16,
PB 287, 65100 Vasa, Finland
Email: violetta.khoreva@hanken.fi
Vlad Vaiman
California Lutheran University,
Hanson House 111,
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360, USA
Email: vvaiman@CalLutheran.edu
Edyta Kostanek*
School of Strategy and Leadership,
Faculty of Business and Law,
Coventry University,
CV1 5FB Coventry, UK
Email: edyta.kostanek@coventry.ac.uk
*Corresponding author
Abstract: Over the course of the last decade, talent management has attracted a
great deal of attention in the academic literature. Even though the field has
evolved, much scepticism continues to surround it, and many questions are
still to be answered that may bridge existing gaps between science and
practice. This article offers an alternative perspective on talent identification
transparency, the practice of informing employees of their talent pool
membership. In line with the social exchange perspective, we propose that even
though the reactions of those employees who are identified as talent and
informed of their talent pool membership seem to be positive, the negative
reactions of employees who are either identified as talent and informed of their
talent pool membership, and whose expectations are not as well met, or
employees who are not identified as talent (which is arguably the majority of
the employee population in most companies) may outweigh the positive. This
article adds value to the existing research on talent management, promotes a
dialogue, and encourages new directions in theoretical and empirical research
within the field. We believe that a heightened understanding of ‘the dark side’
of talent identification transparency may help organisational decision makers in
better executing their strategic talent initiatives.
Keywords: talent management; talent identification; talent identification
transparency; social exchange perspective; workforce differentiation.

26 V. Khoreva, V. Vaiman and E. Kostane
k
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Khoreva, V., Vaiman, V.
and Kostanek, E. (2019) ‘Talent identification transparency: an alternative
perspective’, European J. International Management, Vol. 13, No. 1,
pp.25–40.
Biographical notes: Violetta Khoreva is an Assistant Professor at Hanken
School of Economics in Finland. Her research interests include issues of
international human resource management, specifically talent management and
leadership in multinational companies. She has appeared in several academic
journals, including Journal of Managerial Psychology, Personnel Review,
International Studies of Management and Organization, and Corporate
Review.
Vlad Vaiman is professor of international management at California Lutheran
University in the USA and is a visiting professor at several top universities
around the world. His research interests include issues of both organisational
behaviour and international management and, more specifically, matters
of cultural differences and their influences on leadership, motivation and
talent management in multinational companies. He has published three very
successful books on managing talent in organisations. His work has also
appeared in several top academic journals, including Academy of Management
Learning & Education, Academy of Management Perspectives, Journal of
International Business Studies, Human Resource Management, Journal of
Business Ethics and others. He is also a co-founder and an executive editor of
the European Journal of International Management (EJIM).
Edyta Kostanek is a Senior Lecturer in Project Management at the School
of Strategy and Leadership, Coventry University in the UK. Her research
interests include language issues in international management, international
human resource management (specifically talent management in multinational
companies), and international project management.
This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Talent status
perspective: An alternative perspective’ presented at the ‘76th Annual Meeting
of the Academy of Management’, Anaheim, California, USA, 5–9 August 2016.
1 Introduction
Over the course of the last decade, talent management has attracted a great deal of
attention in the academic literature (Al Ariss et al., 2014; Beamond et al., 2016; Cascio
and Boudreau, 2016; Collings et al., 2015; Meyers and van Woerkom, 2014; Morris
et al., 2015; Tatoglu et al., 2016). Scholars from wide-raging academic traditions, such as
strategic human resource management, international human resource management, and
organisational behaviour, have contributed to the talent management debate (Cascio and
Boudreau, 2016; Gallardo-Gallardo and Thunnissen, 2016; Morris et al., 2015; Sparrow
and Makram, 2015). Their different perspectives have each, in their own way,
contributed to our current understanding of the various aspects of talent management, for
instance, the definition of talent (Cooke et al., 2014), talent management philosophies
and approaches (Meyers and van Woerkom, 2014; Morris et al., 2015; Sonnenberg et al.,
2014), and talent management practices and activities (Festing and Schäfer, 2014;
Vaiman et al., 2012). Even though talent management has evolved as a research area,

Talent identification transparency: an alternative perspective 27
much scepticism continues to surround it as a strategic management activity, and many
questions are yet to be answered to bridge the existing gaps between science and practice
(Cooke et al., 2014).
It is becoming imperative to identify and develop a pool of talent in order to meet
present and future organisational leadership requirements (Beamond et al., 2016;
Collings et al., 2011; Tatoglu et al., 2016). However, once a company identifies who the
talented employees are, the question arises as to whether or not the management should
inform them of their talent pool status. This dilemma, or better yet, concept, has been
named differently by various scholars. For instance, Evans et al. (2011, p.325) refer to
it as “transparency about judgements of potential”, Dries (2013, p.281) defines it
as “labelling of people as talent”, and Kotlyar et al. (2014, p.123) as “status-based
labelling”. In this article, we refer to the concept as talent identification transparency and
define it as the practice of informing employees of their talent pool membership.
Several studies have investigated attitudinal and behavioural outcomes of employees
being informed of their talent pool membership (Björkman et al., 2013; Dries and
Pepermans, 2008; King, 2016; Marescaux et al., 2013). These have revealed that
employees informed of their membership tend to react by displaying, for instance,
increased discretionary effort and performance (Becker et al., 1997), enhanced
commitment, job satisfaction and organisational citizenship behaviour (Anand et al.,
2010; Hornung et al., 2010), increased performance and reduced turnover intentions
(Björkman et al., 2013). In addition, studies have shown that differential treatment of
employees based on their talent potential creates a ‘continuous tournament’, where
employees are motivated to develop and apply the skills and qualities the company
requires (Höglund, 2012). Research has suggested that talent identification transparency
leads to an organisation’s increased market value, productivity, and retention (Combs
et al., 2006).
Talent identification transparency may be reasonable from a strategic perspective, in
the sense that it reflects positive organisational expectations of employee capability to
achieve future performance and advancement. However, earlier studies have estimated
that only one in three companies discloses information on their talent management
decisions to employees (Dries and Gieter, 2014; Bournois and Rousillon, 1992).
Furthermore, although some companies share talent management decisions with their
employees (Krupp, 2008), the majority prefer to keep the decisions confidential
(Sonnenberg et al., 2014). Many companies consider talent identification transparency
risky, since the current relationship between employers and employees is supposedly less
about loyalty and long tenure and more about self-managed careers and finding a better
deal (Dries, 2013). Also, talent identification transparency may promote inequality
between employees, making it a sensitive matter (Gelens et al., 2013). Human resources
are, after all, human beings, who may react emotionally, both cognitively and
behaviourally, when treated differently from others (Paauwe, 2004).
Both talent management scholars and practitioners recognise talent identification
transparency as one of the most significant challenges faced by the human resource
function in the twenty-first century (Dries et al., 2012). However, there has been lack of
theoretical development in this area (Dries and Pepermans, 2008; Gallardo-Gallardo
et al., 2013). While the positive side of talent identification transparency and positive
reactions of those employees who are identified as talent and informed of their talent
pool membership have been studied to a certain extent, the negative side, and negative

28 V. Khoreva, V. Vaiman and E. Kostane
k
reactions of those employees as well as of employees not identified as talent, has only
briefly been mentioned in the previous research (Björkman et al., 2013; King, 2016;
Silzer and Church, 2009).
We address this gap by offering an alternative perspective on talent identification
transparency and focusing on its negative side, a perspective which to the best of our
knowledge has not been broadly covered in the talent management literature. Our
intention is not to provide an exhaustive list of all the drawbacks of talent identification
transparency but, drawing on the social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964), to highlight
some of the most pressing challenges faced by scholars when conducting empirical
research in this area, and faced by organisational decision makers when administering
strategic talent initiatives.
First, in line with the social exchange perspective, we offer a critical overview of
talent identification transparency from an employee perspective, and investigate the
negative reactions of those identified as talent and informed of their talent pool
membership. Second, we highlight some negative outcomes of talent identification
transparency for those employees who are not identified as talent. We then move on to
examine talent identification transparency from an employer perspective. In particular,
we discuss the organisational consequences of identifying a minority of employees as
talent and informing them of their talent pool status and identifying a majority of
employees as ‘non-talent’. Next, we underline the organisational consequences of leaning
too heavily on the merits of the individual work produced by talented personnel,
while underestimating teamwork and the importance of those employees who are not
identified as talent but whose work is crucial for teamwork and overall organisational
performance. Furthermore, we highlight a possible ambiguity and subjectivity in the
talent identification process. We conclude by outlining theoretical and managerial
implications of talent identification transparency as well as some avenues for future
research.
2 Social exchange perspective
The social exchange perspective describes social exchange relationships between
employees and organisations (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). According to
the perspective, social exchange involves a series of ‘voluntary actions’ (Blau, 1964) that
generate obligations. These interactions are usually seen as interdependent and
contingent on the actions of another person (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell,
2005). These unspecified obligations rely on the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960;
Saks, 2006), whereby “individuals reciprocate benefits received in such a way that over
the course of time, a cycle emerges, whereby benefits received generate an obligation to
reciprocate, discharge obligations through the provision of benefit, and so on” (Dulac
et al., 2008, p.1081). In other words, when employees perceive that their employers
invest in the employment relationship, they feel an obligation to reciprocate this
investment (Kuvaas and Dysvik, 2010) and “good deeds with positive work attitudes and
behaviors” (Gould-Williams and Davies 2005, p.4). Researchers have noticed that when
employers invest in individual training and employee development, employees are likely
to reciprocate through preferred work-related behaviours (Haas and Deseran, 1981;
Moorman et al., 1998).

Talent identification transparency: an alternative perspective 29
However, successful exchange occurs when there is firm commitment between
employees and employers (Blau, 1964), a so-called psychological contract. The contract
focuses on the exchange of obligations and constitutes an individual’s beliefs about the
terms of a social exchange agreement between the employee and the employer
(Rousseau, 1995). It offers “a way of viewing an exchange relationship as a sequence of
contingent transactions that includes reciprocal promises about what will be exchanged
and the extent to which the subsequent transactions (or missed provisions) fulfil or break
those promises” (Dulac et al., 2008, p.1082). Social exchange theory implies that the
employee’s voluntary actions will be executed if they anticipate returns from what they
have contributed to (Blau, 1964). These distinct transactions will have certain
implications for behaviour (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005).
2.1 Talent identification transparency from the employee perspective
One of the intentions of talent identification transparency is to create and maintain
durable ties between employees and employers (Björkman et al., 2013). Employers may
fulfil their obligations in the reciprocal relationship with employees by identifying them
as talent and informing them of their talent pool membership. Talent identification
transparency may thus serve as a signalling instrument to express the importance
and value of the employee (Festing and Schäfer, 2014). This may in turn lead to
psychological contract fulfilment for the newly informed talent, and consequently to the
desired attitudes and behaviours, such as increased work engagement (Joyce and Slocum,
2012) and reduced employee turnover (Ballinger et al., 2011). As noted by Björkman
et al. (2013), talent identification transparency may be perceived as an indication that the
focal employee’s contribution to the company has been valued, and that the employer has
fulfilled its contract by deciding to invest in the employee’s career.
In line with the social exchange perspective, we argue that talent identification
transparency can be perceived as an indication of the employer’s higher expectations of
the talent. In response, the selected employees may have an instant expectation of a
promotion, salary raise, or an aspiration to participate in a training program or specific
developmental activities. In addition, those employees who are informed of their talent
pool membership may reasonably expect elevated levels of support and resource
allocation. However, the employers may not offer these items rapidly, since they may
believe that the newly informed talent needs first to mature in their current position. In
such a scenario, those employees identified as talent, inspired by their newly acquired
status but disappointed by the unfulfilled expectations, may opt to look for career
opportunities elsewhere (Campbell and Smith, 2008).
Following the social exchange perspective, we also suggest that when employees are
identified as talent and informed of their talent pool membership, they may be more
likely to monitor closely how the employer delivers its promises. For instance, if an
employee informed of their membership and coping with an intensive talent program
finds no opportunities for promotion, they may conclude that the employer does not fulfil
its promises, in other words violates the psychological contract. This can subsequently
lead to decreased levels of loyalty and other negative attitudinal and behavioural
outcomes on the part of the employee. Talent identification transparency may thus
cause perceptions of a breach of psychological contract, if expectations are not fulfilled
(Dries and Gieter, 2014).

30 V. Khoreva, V. Vaiman and E. Kostane
k
As already noted, talent identification transparency may be perceived by talent as a
signal of their employers’ higher expectations of them. The ambitions of the informed
employees may also consequently increase. Some scholars state that talent identification
transparency might in fact cause arrogance, complacency, and loss of motivation to work
(Dries and Pepermans, 2008). Those employees who are identified as talent and informed
of their talent pool status may believe they are assured a spot in their organisation’s
leadership and may thus lose their motivation to work hard for it (Dries, 2013). This is
perhaps one of the reasons why in the academic world some department heads are
hesitant to award tenure to young professors, as they assume it may lead to decreased
motivation and lower productivity in the newly tenured faculty (Yining et al., 2006).
Talent identification transparency can also cause those employees who are identified as
talent and informed of their talent pool membership to become less interested in
challenging themselves and more so in ‘looking important’ (McDonnell, 2011). In
contrast, those employees who are not informed may persist in progressing to fulfil their
employer’s expectations by exploring new ways of doing their job rather than having to
look and act according to their talent status.
Another possible scenario could be a (sometimes perceived) failure of employees
identified as talent and informed of their status to fulfil an employer’s expectations. Such
employees may exhibit, for instance, increased sensitivity to feedback, workaholism,
stress and burnout (Dries and De Gieter, 2014; Kotlyar et al., 2014).
Identifying a limited number of employees as talent and informing them of their
talent pool status may yield high inequality in the allocation of resources and may
consequently lead to perceptions of unfairness among employees not identified as talent.
These feelings of unfairness can be expressed in several ways. First, employees not
identified as talent may suffer demotivation and, therefore, view their ‘non-talent status’
negatively in terms of not feeling appreciated by the employer. This can cause increased
stress levels, lower confidence and self-esteem, and conceivably increased turnover
intentions. Second, talent identification transparency may run the risk of disengaging
those employees who are not identified as talent. The transparency can also lead to
frustration and dissatisfaction among employees not identified as talent (Bothner et al.,
2011). As noted by Larsen et al. (1998), the more top managers invest attention and
resources in those employees identified as talent and informed of their talent pool
membership, the more others become jealous. As a result, the performance of those
employees who are not identified as talent might decline. Finally, employees have a
tendency to overestimate their own contributions and thus expect high outcomes (Gelens
et al., 2013). In that sense, those employees who are not identified as talent might still
expect high outcomes, and may perceive they are not genuinely valued and cared for
when they become aware they are not in receipt of the same outcomes as members of the
designated talent pool (Gelens et al., 2013).
2.2 Talent identification transparency from the employer perspective
According to the social exchange perspective, employers’ positive expectations of
employees often boost their performance, motivation and self-esteem (Kierein and
Gold, 2000; McNatt, 2000). This raises a question of validity of talent identification
transparency. The positive affirmation of being informed of talent pool membership
may lead to the higher performance of talent pool members through their increased self-
confidence and role commitment. The criterion applied to talent identification – expected

Talent identification transparency: an alternative perspective 31
employee performance at a later point in time – may be partially attributed to self-
fulfilling prophecy, which involves a person or a group of people acting in accordance
with the expectations of another (Dries, 2013; Kierein and Gold, 2000). However, the
so-called ‘success syndrome’, a tendency whereby early career sponsorship of employees
identified as talent, and informed of their talent pool membership, may lead to their
exceptional success without being able to separate out and measure whether that success
is attributed to their talent or to the additional organisational support they gained because
of their talent status (Ishida et al., 2002; McCall, 1998). In that case, talent identification
transparency may lead to performance improvement only in those employees identified
as talent and informed of their talent pool status.
Companies tend to identify 5% to 20% of all employees as talent, with 10% being the
most common measure (Silzer and Church, 2010). Identifying a minority of employees
as talent and informing them of their talent pool membership could have a negative
impact on the majority, thus generating a negative overall impact on organisational
outcomes. The Gelens et al. (2013) proposal of aggregating a large number of high
turnover intentions among those employees who are not identified as talent with a limited
number of low turnover intentions among those employees who are identified as talent
and informed of their talent pool membership, may still result in a low overall retention
rate at the organisational level.
Hence, even though the reactions of those employees who are identified as talent and
informed of their talent pool status tend to be positive (Björkman et al., 2013; Gelens
et al., 2013), negative reactions on the part of those employees not identified as talent,
which is arguably the majority of the employee population in most companies (Silzer and
Church, 2009), may outweigh positive reactions of members of the designated talent
pool. Additionally, allocating a large proportion of organisational resources to a small
number of employees identified as talent and informed of their status, may damage
organisational image and morale, and cause resentment among employees not identified
as talent (DeLong and Vijayaraghavan, 2003). In contrast, employers that identify all of
their employees as talent may experience greater positive employee outcomes when
adequately investing in their training and development.
Talent identification transparency may also challenge focusing too heavily on
individual talent. An excessively strong focus may weaken teamwork as a result of zero-
sum reward practices (i.e., practices whereby only some team members are rewarded,
causing an overall negative or neutral effect; the positive effects of some receiving a
reward do not outweigh the negative effects of most not) (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013).
This may precipitate an atmosphere of destructive internal competition that may in turn
decelerate the learning and dissemination of best practices across the company (Walker
and LaRocco, 2002).
Open, trustworthy relationships and strong networks play a crucial role in sustaining
competitive advantage. Employees not identified as talent may have an essential
role in effective team performance and, by association, other individuals’ performance
(McDonnell, 2011). While these employees may not have the same potential as
talent, their influence on overall organisational performance can be significant due to a
particular set of skills, knowledge or networks they possess. Talent identification
transparency and an overemphasis on those employees identified as talent and informed
of their talent pool membership may thus discourage the development of overall
organisational spirit (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013).

32 V. Khoreva, V. Vaiman and E. Kostane
k
3 A critical review of the talent identification process
While interest in talent identification has grown over the years, and a significant
number of articles has focused on the magnitude of evaluating and identifying employees
who have the supreme differential impact on business strategy (Al Ariss et al., 2014;
Björkman et al., 2013; Collings, 2014; Morris et al., 2015), some disagreement regarding
the talent identification process has emerged (Dries and Pepermans, 2008; Gelens et al.,
2013; Silzer and Church, 2009). Since talent identification transparency is one of the
primary outcomes of the talent identification process, it is essential to pinpoint the fragile
side of the process.
3.1 Ambiguity of talent identification process
Transparency of talent management procedures is a precondition for enhancing
perceptions of fairness among those employees who are not identified as talent (Dries,
2013). However, companies tend to be reluctant in openly communicating matters related
to talent management in general and talent identification in particular, since it may cause
arrogance in those identified as talent and informed of their talent pool membership, and
jealousy in those who are not (Larsen et al., 1998). As noted by Eisenberg and Witten
(1987), although a transparent communication strategy is generally the most ethical
approach, it is not always strategically appealing, especially when privileged positions in
companies need to be filled.
There are a number of reasons why companies may be hesitant to communicate
issues related to the talent identification process, and these are commonly used to
legitimise companies’ choice not to be transparent in questions related to the process.
These include concerns about creating high expectations in terms of promotions,
development opportunities and resource allocation; about sacrificing flexibility to make
promotion decisions based on intuition rather than standardised assessments; about
forming ‘career guarantees’ and creating arrogance among employees identified as talent
and informed of their talent pool membership; about fears of forming peer envy,
frustration and distrust among those employees not identified as talent; and about being
overly restricted by rules and regulations (Bothner et al., 2011; Dries and De Gieter,
2014; Silzer and Church, 2010).
In addition, while delivering a positive message – informing employees of their talent
pool membership – is a positive and fulfilling procedure, delivering a message to
employees not identified as talent can be difficult and may require a superior set of
managerial skills. Companies and supervisors may find it challenging to be sufficiently
sensitive and provide adequate explanations when communicating negative news, such as
not including a certain employee in the talent pool. This may explain the existing secrecy
concerning the talent identification process. Hence, the typical mode of communication
related to the process seems to be a ‘strategic ambiguity’, deliberately avoiding openness
and clarity (Dries and De Gieter, 2014). This generates information asymmetries where
one party has more or better information than another (Stiglitz, 2002). Following this
logic, those employees who are identified as talent and informed of their talent status
may receive more information, while those not identified as talent may receive only
some information. This can trigger incorrect assumptions on the part of employees not
identified as talent; since they possess little information, they may ‘fill in the blanks’
using whatever cues or signals they receive from the company (Dries and De Gieter,

Talent identification transparency: an alternative perspective 33
2014), which in turn may lead to detrimental organisational outcomes. However, it
should be noted that even under conditions of secrecy and strategic ambiguity,
information about talent identification tends to ‘leak’ to employees in 90% of cases,
which may have even more serious consequences (Bournois and Rousillon, 1992).
3.2 Subjectivity of talent identification process
Evaluations of performance and potential tend not to be based on objective indicators
alone but also reflect somewhat subjective judgments made by top and line managers
(Pepermans et al., 2003). Hence, the talent identification process is fundamentally
subjective, and at risk of bias (Silzer and Church, 2010). The assumption that talented
employees are essentially different from others might not take into account the fact that
‘A-players’ can look like ‘B-players’ under certain conditions, and vice versa (Netessine
and Yakubovich, 2012). Performance appraisals by an employee’s supervisor are likely
to be incorporated into most talent management systems, yet only provide information on
past performance against set objectives (McDonnell, 2011). Such appraisals tend not to
identify an employee’s potential to take on more important strategic roles (McDonnell
and Collings, 2011). In addition, more and more scholars realise that the manifestation of
talent in the workplace depends not only on innate factors, but that latent (i.e., hidden,
untapped), intervening (i.e., concerted, deliberate) and evolving (i.e., experience-based)
components also play a crucial role in talent formation (Dries, 2013; Meyers and
van Woerkom, 2014; Silzer and Church, 2010). Thus, the value and objectivity of
performance appraisals in the talent identification process remain questionable.
Some employees may take on highly visible project work or become members of
high-performing teams, which may increase their chances of being identified as talent
(Mäkelä et al., 2010). Yet, employees in less observable areas (both within organisational
ranks and geographically) may be particularly strong but fail to receive the same degree
of attention. “For example, in peripheral subsidiaries of which the decision makers
have relatively little knowledge, persons who have gained more visibility through, e.g.,
superior language skills, may be more likely to be included in a talent pool than others
who have similar performance appraisal evaluations but who have not been equally
visible” (Mäkelä et al., 2010, p.140). This may lead to feelings of injustice and unfair
treatment among those employees who have not been identified as talent. Some
researchers associate organisational injustice with retaliation, turnover, lower job
satisfaction, and lower organisational commitment (Simons and Roberson, 2003).
Enhancing the transparency and objectivity of talent identification is likely to reduce
negative intentions to leave the organisation expressed by people who have not been
identified as talent due to their limited “visibility” in the organisation. Furthermore,
decision makers may intentionally or unintentionally favour members of their own
groups. Alternatively, decision makers may be either hesitant or unwilling to identify
their best employees as talent because of the risk of losing them due to their increased
expectations and perceived employability (Mäkelä et al., 2010).
4 Discussion and conclusions
Talent management has emerged as a distinct strategic activity, because it calls for a
greater focus on employees and positions that have the greatest differential impact on

34 V. Khoreva, V. Vaiman and E. Kostane
k
business strategy (Beamond et al., 2016; Collings et al., 2011; Morris et al., 2015;
Tatoglu et al., 2016). Talent management endeavours are considered very positive acts –
doing something for your best employees, investing in their development, building
on their potential and, consequently, assisting talent in making the best use of their
strengths and diminishing their weaknesses. At the same time, in many companies even
mentioning talent identification can make employees feel rather nervous. They might
think ‘What if I am not a talent?’, or ‘If I am a manager, will I need to tell some of my
subordinates that they are not as talented as they think they are?’
Talent management is a young and still developing research field (Collings, 2014;
Tatoglu et al., 2016), and scholars need to incorporate multiple perspectives in order to
gain a profound understanding of this prominent yet under-researched topic. While the
majority of the literature indicates that talent identification transparency produces
positive outcomes (e.g., Björkman et al., 2013; Stahl et al., 2012), our paper focuses on
the critical issue of informing employees of their talent pool status. We first examined
talent identification transparency from an employee perspective. Despite the positive
outcomes of talent identification transparency for those employees identified as talent
and informed of their talent pool membership, we suggest such transparency may also
have negative consequences for them. In line with the social exchange perspective, we
argue those employees may view the acquired rank as an indication of the employer’s
higher expectations of them, which may in turn result in an increase in their own
expectations and ambitions. If these aspirations are not fulfilled in a timely manner, talent
may face stress, job dissatisfaction, and anxiety, and consequently may start seeking job
opportunities elsewhere.
Furthermore, according to the social exchange perspective, one of the intentions of
talent identification transparency is the creation of durable ties between employees and
employers, which is likely to lead to psychological contract fulfilment for those
employees who are identified as talent and informed of their talent pool membership. But
once the employee is informed of their status, they may closely monitor how the
employer delivers on its promises. If the employer does not deliver, the psychological
contract is likely to be violated, which may subsequently lead to various negative
attitudinal and behavioural outcomes.
In this paper, we have also discussed negative consequences of talent identification
transparency for those employees who are not identified as talent. We further contend
there can be negative consequences attached to designating someone as a talent, because
the corresponding meaning could be interpreted as everyone else is talentless, which can
in turn promote feelings of unfairness. As noted by Larsen et al. (1998), the more
attention and resources top managers invest in those employees identified as talent and
informed of their talent status, the more others become jealous. Following the social
exchange perspective, we thus propose that those employees who are not identified as
talent may suffer from demotivation and dissatisfaction, and may view their ‘non-talent
status’ negatively in terms of not feeling appreciated by the employer. This can cause
increased stress levels, frustration, and decreased confidence and self-esteem, resulting in
increased turnover intentions and poorer performance.
We have also raised several general comments related to the negative side of talent
identification transparency from an employer perspective. Particularly, we discuss the
organisational consequences of identifying a minority of employees as talent and
informing them of their talent pool membership, and the corresponding meaning of this
to the majority of employees who might perceive themselves as ‘talentless’. A strong

Talent identification transparency: an alternative perspective 35
focus on employees identified as talent and informed of their talent pool membership
may discourage the development of the overall organisational spirit and promote
destructive internal competition among those not identified as talent. We have also
discussed the drawbacks of an excessive focus on the work of employees identified as
talent and informed of their status, and of undervaluing teamwork, and the significance
of those employees not identified as talent but whose work is crucial to overall
organisational performance.
Finally, we have expressed our concerns about the ambiguity and subjectivity of the
entire talent identification process, which may instigate arrogance in employees
identified as talent and informed of their talent pool membership, and bitterness in those
not identified as talent.
5 Implications and recommendations for managers
Companies are currently investing significantly in talent management development, and
the consequences of talent identification transparency are crucial to their future
competitiveness (Dries, 2013). Thus, a better understanding of ‘the dark side’ of talent
identification transparency and the overall talent identification process may enable more
accurate choices on the part of organisational decision makers. Companies should bear in
mind that even though the reactions of employees identified as talent and informed of
their talent pool membership may seem to be positive, they may be outweighed by the
negative reactions of employees who are identified as talent and informed accordingly
but whose expectations are not then met, and by the negative reactions of the employees
not identified as talent – which is arguably the majority of the employee population in
most companies.
If a company decides to inform the selected employees of their talent pool status
openly, the following processes should be implemented. First, on informing employees
of their status, organisational decision makers should bear in mind that employee
expectations and ambitions may rise as a result. While employees may interpret talent
pool membership as a signal from the employer that they can expect preferential
treatment from now on, employers might not share that concept of the implications of
talent identification. They may see it as an opportunity for newly informed talent to
demonstrate their capabilities and take their career into their own hands (Dries and De
Gieter, 2014). Therefore, if a company decides to inform the selected employees of their
talent pool membership, it needs to discuss the expectations and obligations of both
parties (employer and employee) openly and straightforwardly.
Second, all the procedures related to the talent identification process should be clear
and fair. Managers need to remember there is no such thing as ‘a little transparent’.
Cropanzano et al. (2007, p.43) noted that “if you can’t give people the outcome they
want, at least give them a fair process”. When procedures are transparent and in
accordance with the rules set, and clear and adequate explanations for not being a
member of a talent pool are provided, employees may find it harder to misinterpret and
imagine overly positive outcomes, making them less likely to perceive unfairness and
react with negative attitudes and behaviours (Gelens et al., 2013).
Overall, companies are advised to demonstrate consistency in the way they identify
talent, engage in shared decision-making to avert personal self-interest, and provide
employees with opportunities to express their thoughts and opinions (Lind and Kulik,

36 V. Khoreva, V. Vaiman and E. Kostane
k
2009). Although the introduction of talent identification and talent pool membership
may be an organisation’s legitimate response to a changing business environment, and
signal a shift to a more proactive culture of employee development and performance
management, it needs to fit with other talent management practices and reinforce the core
values and mission of the company.
6 Future research
Despite massive interest, it remains somewhat unclear how talent identification
transparency affects employees either psychologically, in terms of their attitudinal
outcomes, or physically. We therefore need to improve our understanding of the concept
of talent identification transparency and how best to deal with it. More theoretical and
empirical work is needed, and we hope the present article will stimulate researchers to
generate new empirical studies that advance our understanding of the concept.
Future research should pay more attention to the impact of talent identification
transparency on the realisation of individual well-being for both members and non-
members of the designated talent pool. Furthermore, because talent identification
transparency is a dynamic and on-going concept, future longitudinal research is
encouraged to investigate whether attitudinal and behavioural outcomes of members of
the designated talent pool and non-members transform over time in response to talent
identification.
Next, it would be particularly valuable to uncover whether employee and employer
attitudes to talent identification transparency depend on a societal context, specifically
national culture. For instance, power distance, the extent to which employees tolerate and
expect an unequal distribution of power in the company, might impact the extent of talent
identification transparency (Gelens et al., 2013). Employees in high power distance
cultures may be more likely to accept interpersonal inequalities, compared with
employees in low power distance cultures who tend to emphasise equality. In a similar
vein, we suggest that companies with high power distance cultures will experience a
greater likelihood of informing the selected employees of their talent pool membership,
while companies with low power distance cultures may be more likely to construct a
benevolent and equality-sensitive organisational atmosphere, where talent identification
transparency will not be relevant.
Employee and employer attitudes towards talent identification transparency may also
depend on a company’s strategy, convictions and culture. Companies that believe
employees can only make decisions about their future within a company if they know the
company believes in their potential, will experience a higher likelihood of informing the
selected employees of their talent pool membership, while companies that believe talent
identification transparency may inflate the expectations of some (i.e., those identified as
talent) and destroy the hopes of others (i.e., those not identified as talent) may be less
optimistic about talent identification transparency. Furthermore, whereas an exclusive,
output-oriented approach to talent identification transparency is more likely to be a
good fit in a company with a meritocratic, competitive environment and an up-or-out
promotion system, an inclusive, process-oriented approach may be more likely to fit well
in a company with an egalitarian, diverse-friendly and team-oriented environment. We
believe our critical review of talent identification transparency will help set the stage for
what we hope will be an abundance of new research on talent management.

Talent identification transparency: an alternative perspective 37
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the Foundation for Economic Education (Liikesivistysrahasto)
(Dec. 2015) for financing this research.
References
Al Ariss, A., Cascio, W. and Paauwe, J. (2014) ‘Talent management: current theories and future
research directions’, Journal of World Business, Vol. 49, pp.173–179.
Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P.R., Liden, R.C. and Rousseau, D.M. (2010) ‘Good citizens in poor-quality
relationships: idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality’, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 53, No. 5, pp.970–988.
Ballinger, G., Craig, E., Cross, R. and Gray, P. (2011) ‘A stitch in time saves nine: leveraging
networks to reduce the costs of turnover’, California Management Review, Vol. 53, No. 4,
pp.111–133.
Beamond, M., Farndale, E. and Härtel, C. (2016) ‘MNE translation of corporate talent management
strategies to subsidiaries in emerging economies’, Journal of World Business, Vol. 51, No. 4,
pp.499–510.
Becker, B.E., Huselid, M.A., Pickus, P.S. and Spratt, M.F. (1997) ‘HR as a source of shareholder
value: research and recommendations’, Human Resource Management, Vol. 36, pp.39–47.
Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Höglund, M., Mäkelä, K., Smale, A. and Sumelius, J. (2013) ‘Talent
or not? Employee reactions to talent identification’, Human Resource Management, Vol. 52,
No. 2, pp.195–214.
Blau, P.M. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York.
Bothner, M., Podolny, J.M. and Smith, E. (2011) ‘Organizing contests for status: the Matthew
effect versus the Mark effect’, Management Science, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp.439–457.
Bournois, F. and Rousillon, S. (1992) ‘The management of high flyer executives in France’,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.37–56.
Campbell, M. and Smith, R. (2008) High-potential Talent: A View from Inside the Leadership
Pipeline, Center for Creative Leadership. Available online at: www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/
research/highPotentialTalent.pdf
Cascio, W.F. and Boudreau, J.W. (2016) ‘The search for global competence: from international HR
to talent management’, Journal of World Business, Vol. 51, pp.103–114.
Collings, D.G. (2014) ‘Integrating global mobility and global talent management: exploring the
challenges and strategic opportunities’, Journal of World Business, Vol. 49, pp.253–261.
Collings, D.G., Scullion, H. and Vaiman, V. (2011) ‘European perspectives on talent management’,
European Journal of International Management, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp.453–462.
Collings, D.G., Scullion, H. and Vaiman, V. (2015) ‘Talent management: progress and prospects’,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 25, pp.233–235.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall. A. and Ketchen, D. (2006) ‘How much do high-performance work
practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance’, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp.501–528.
Cooke, F.L., Saini, D.S. and Wang, J. (2014) ‘Talent management in China and India: a
comparison of management perceptions and human practices’, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 49, pp.225–235.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005) ‘Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review’,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31, pp.874–900.
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D.E. and Gilliland, S.W. (2007) ‘The management of organizational
justice’, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.34–48.

38 V. Khoreva, V. Vaiman and E. Kostane
k
DeLong, T.J. and Vijayaraghavan, V (2003) ‘Let’s hear it for B players’, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 81, No. 6, pp.96–102.
Dries, N. (2013) ‘The psychology of talent management: a review and research agenda’, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 23, pp.272–285.
Dries, N. and De Gieter, S. (2014) ‘Information asymmetry in high potential programs’, Personnel
Review, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp.136–162.
Dries, N. and Pepermans, R. (2008) ‘“Real” high potential careers: an empirical study into
the perspectives of organizations and high potentials’, Personnel Review, Vol. 37, No. 1,
pp.85–108.
Dries, N., Vantilborgh, T. and Pepermans, R. (2012) ‘The role of learning agility and career variety
in the identification and development of high potential employees’, Personnel Review,
Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.340–358.
Dulac, T., Coyle-Shapiro, J.A-M., Henderson, D.J. and Wayne, S.J. (2008) ‘Not all responses to
breach are the same: the interconnection of social exchange and psychological contract
processes in organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51, pp.1079–1098.
Eisenberg, E.M. and Witten, M. (1987) ‘Reconsidering openness in organizational
communication’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp.418–426.
Evans, P., Pucik, V. and Björkman, I. (2011) The Global Challenge: International Human
Resource Management, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY, pp.325–326.
Festing, M. and Schäffer, L. (2014) ‘Generational challenges to talent management: a framework
for talent retention based on the psychological-contract perspective’, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 49, pp.262–271.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E. and Thunnissen, M. (2016) ‘Standing on the shoulders of giants? A critical
review of empirical talent management research’, Employee Relations, Vol. 38, pp.31–56.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N. and Gonzalez-Cruz, T.F. (2013) ‘What is the meaning of ‘talent’
in the world of work?’ Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23, pp.290–300.
Gelens, J., Dries, N., Hofmans, J. and Pepermans, R. (2013) ‘The role of perceived organizational
justice in shaping the outcomes of talent management: a research agenda’, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 23, pp.341–353.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960) ‘The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement’, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 25, pp.161–178.
Gould-Williams, J. and Davies, F. (2005) ‘Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of
HRM practice on employee outcomes’, Public Management Review, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.1–24.
Haas, D.F. and Deseran, F.A. (1981) ‘Trust and symbolic exchange’, Social Psychology Quarterly,
Vol. 44, No. 1, pp.3–13.
Höglund, M. (2012) ‘Quid pro quo? Examining talent management through the lens of
psychological contracts’, Personnel Review, Vol. 41, No. 2, 126–142.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D.M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P. and Weigl, M. (2010) ‘Beyond top-down and
bottom-up work redesign: customizing job content through idiosyncratic deals’, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp.187–215.
Ishida, H., Su, K. and Spilerman, S. (2002) ‘Models of career advancement in organizations’,
European Sociological Review, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.179–198.
Joyce, W. and Slocum, J. (2012) ‘Top management talent, strategic capabilities, and firm
performance’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 41, pp.183–193.
Kierein, N.M. and Gold, M.A. (2000) ‘Pygmalion in work organizations: a meta-analysis’, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp.913–928.
King, K. (2016) ‘The talent deal and journey: understanding how employees respond to talent
identification over time’, Employee Relations, Vol. 38, No. 1 pp.94–111.
Kotlyar, I., Karakowsky, L., Ducharme, M.J. and Boekhorst, J.A. (2014) ‘Do “rising stars” avoid
risk? Status-based labels and decision making’, Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.121–136.

Talent identification transparency: an alternative perspective 39
Krupp, S. (2008) ‘Bench strength: How are you developing your high-potential leaders?’ Oliver
Wyman Journal, Vol. 24, Spring, pp.32–39.
Kuvaas, B. and Dysvik, A. (2010) ‘Exploring alternative relationships between perceived
investment in employee development, perceived supervisor support and employee outcomes’,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.138–156.
Larsen, H.H., London, M., Weinstein, M. and Raghuram, S. (1998) ‘High-flyer management
development programs: organizational rhetoric or self-fulfilling prophecy?’ International
Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.64–90.
Lind, E.A. and Kulik, C.T. (2009) ‘Hear me out: voice and justice’, in Greenberg, J. and Edwards,
M.S. (Eds): Voice and Silence in Organizations, Emerald, Bingley, UK, pp.135–156.
Mäkelä, K., Björkman, I. and Ehrnrooth, M. (2010) ‘How do MNCs establish their talent?
Influences on individuals’ likelihood of being labelled as talent’, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 45, pp.134–142.
Marescaux, E., De Winne, S. and Sels, L. (2013) ‘HR practices and affective organizational
commitment: (When) does HR differentiation pay off?’ Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.329–345.
McCall, M.W. (1998) High Flyers: Developing the Next Generation of Leaders, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
McDonnell, A. (2011) ‘Still fighting the “War for Talent”? Bridging the science versus practice
gap’, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 26, pp.169–173.
McDonnell, A. and Collings, D.G. (2011) ‘The identification and evaluation of talent in MNEs’, in
Scullion, H. and Collings, D.G. (Eds): Global Talent Management, Routledge, London and
New York, pp.56–73.
McNatt, D.B. (2000) ‘Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: a meta-analysis of the
result’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp.314–322.
Meyers, M.C. and van Woerkom, M. (2014) ‘The influence of underlying philosophies on talent
management: theory, implications for practice, and research agenda’, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 49, pp.192–203.
Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L. and Niehoff, B.P. (1998) ‘Does perceived organizational support
mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior?’
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.351–357.
Morris, S., Snell, S. and Björkman, I. (2015) ‘An architectural framework for global talent
management’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 47, No. 6, pp.723–747.
Netessine, S. and Yakubovich, V. (2012) ‘The Darwinian workplace’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 90, No. 5, pp.25–28.
Paauwe, J. (2004) HRM and Performance: Achieving Long-Term Viability, Oxford University
Press, New York.
Pepermans, R., Vloeberghs, D. and Perkisas, B. (2003) ‘High potential identification policies:
an empirical study among Belgian companies’, The Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 22, No. 8, pp.660–678.
Rousseau, D. (1995) Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and
Unwritten Agreements, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Saks, A. (2006) ‘Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement’, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp.600–619.
Silzer, R.F. and Church, A.H. (2009) ‘The pearls and perils of identifying potential’, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, pp.377–412.
Silzer, R.F. and Church, A.H. (2010) ‘Identifying and assessing high-potential talent. Current
organizational practices’, in Silzer, R.F. and Dowell, B.E. (Eds): Strategy-Driven Talent
Management: A Leadership Imperative, JosseyBass, San Francisco, pp.213–279.

40 V. Khoreva, V. Vaiman and E. Kostane
k
Simons, T. and Roberson, Q. (2003) ‘Why managers should care about fairness: the effects of
aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 88, pp.432–443.
Sonnenberg, M., van Zijderveld, V. and Brinks, M. (2014) ‘The role of talent-perception
incongruence in effective talent management’, Journal of World Business, Vol. 49,
pp.272–280.
Sparrow, P.R. and Makram, H. (2015) ‘What is the value of talent management? Building value-
driven processes within a talent management architecture’, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 25, pp.249–263.
Stahl, G.K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S.S., Paauwe, J. and Stiles, P. (2012)
‘Six principles of effective global talent management’, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 53, No. 2, pp.24–32.
Stiglitz, J. (2002) ‘Information and change in the paradigm of economics’, American Economic
Review, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp.460–501.
Tatoglu, E., Glaister, A.J. and Demirbag, M. (2016) ‘Talent management motives and practices in
an emerging market: a comparison between MNEs and local firms’, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 51, pp.278–293.
Vaiman, V., Collings, D. and Scullion, H. (2012) ‘Talent management decision making’,
Management Decision, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp.925–941.
Walker, J.W. and LaRocco, J.M. (2002) ‘Talent pools: the best and the rest’, Human Resource
Planning, Vol. 25, pp.12–14.
Yining, C., Gupta, A. and Hoshower, L. (2006) ‘Factors that motivate business faculty to conduct
research: an expectancy theory analysis’, The Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 81,
No. 4, pp.179–189.