Content uploaded by Karin King
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karin King on Jul 22, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 1
Enabling Effective Talent Management through a Macro-Contingent Approach:
A Framework for Research and Practice.
Business Research Quarterly. Special Issue. June 2019
Talent Management: Quo Vadis?
Karin A. King
London School of Economics and Political Science, London, WC2A 2AE. U.K.
k.a.king@lse.ac.uk
Vlad Vaiman
California Lutheran University, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 U.S.A.
vvaiman@callutheran.edu
(version: pre-press, accepted)
Please cite as:
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). Enabling effective talent management through a macro
contingent approach: A framework for research and practice. BRQ Business Research
Quarterly, 22(3), 194-206. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 2
Abstract
The forces and systems which shape the available supply, composition and flow of talent into and out
of organisations today has become increasingly complex and fluid. Most firms today extend their
operations across regions and many compete globally, existing within one or more external contexts,
known as macro talent management systems (MTM). Shaped by economic, political, regulatory,
technological, and cultural conditions, MTM has the potential to directly or indirectly empower or
disrupt organisational ability to attract, engage, and retain the talent crucial to achieving competitive
business objectives. Yet organisations today may overlook the influence of external MTM systems to
complement or constrain organisational talent management effectiveness, limiting the firm’s ability to
generate benefit and mitigate risk stemming from variance in macro talent contexts. Introducing a
macro-contingent view of talent management, this paper identifies three pivotal shifts needed to enable
effective talent management practice and proposes a framework for future research.
Keywords
Talent management, contingency model, systems theory, micro, macro, cross-level
Highlights
Organisational talent management is directly influenced by one or more macro-level talent
systems within which the organisation may operate.
Talent management is an organisationally-based strategic system inherently embedded in
one or more macro-talent contexts.
Talent management practice based on an intra-organisational view may necessarily address
internal system requirements but will not be sufficient for effective talent management at
the firm level without consideration of the external macro level talent system.
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 3
Critical consideration of how macro talent management structures and systems, which exist
and operate at the national level, directly or indirectly contribute to or constrain
organisational-level talent management practices is crucial for businesses if to access
competitive advantage through talent management and human capital strategy.
Three limitations constrain organisational talent management which require corresponding
directional shifts:
o A firm-level orientation to talent management limits the cross-level integration of talent
strategy and results in a micro-macro gap in the nested talent system.
o A primarily HR-centric orientation towards organisational talent management may
constrain the primacy of talent management as a crucial lever of business strategy.
o A primarily intra-organisational focus may limit management agency due to a lack of
contextual integration with the external talent management context.
Adopting a macro-contingent view for further cross-level conceptualisation and empirical
study is required to lift current constraints on the topic’s conceptual utility and to bridge
the micro-macro gap in the talent management literature.
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 4
1. Introduction
The talent management literature has emerged rapidly, however its conceptual utility
remains indistinct (Morley, Valverde, & Farndale, 2017). At its essence, talent management
is purported to create value (Sparrow & Makram, 2015), primarily for the firm, through
strategic management of talented employees as a differentiated and strategic resource of the
firm (Barney, 1991; Barney, Wright, & Ketchen, 2001) who possess human capital (G. S.
Becker, 2008). Management of talent as a strategic resource is coordinated through strategic
human resource management decisions (Vaiman, Scullion, & Collings, 2012) and practices
(Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001) as a differentiated activity with an associated differentiated
HRM architecture (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). Talent management therefore presents a
significant potential source of value for a firm (Huselid & Becker, 2011), however its
contribution to the firm remains challenged (Collings, 2014a).
The forces, systems and structures which shape the available supply, composition and
flow of talent into, within and out of organisations today has become more complex and fluid
than ever before. Firms exist today within a complex environment. Most firms not only operate
and compete nationally, but extend their operations across one or more regional and national
setting to compete internationally. Each regional or national environment in which a firm
operates represents a contextually-based macro talent management (MTM) system (Khilji,
Tarique, & Schuler, 2015), shaped by national and regional economic, political, regulatory,
technological, and cultural conditions, which in turn influences the organisations embedded
within it. As such, macro talent management has the potential to directly or indirectly empower
or disrupt the ability of organisations to attract, engage, and retain the talented employees and
human capital they require to achieve their competitive business objectives, that is, talent
management (TM) undertaken by the firm. Yet organisations today may be overlooking the
influence of respective national macro talent management systems to either complement or
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 5
constrain their intra-organisational talent management strategy and practices. To do so may
limit the effectiveness of the firm’s talent strategy and overlook the opportunity to leverage
benefit and mitigate risk stemming from variance in macro talent contexts. We define
effectiveness in organisational talent management as the design and implementation of the
business-centric talent strategy, which considers cross-level interactions influenced by one or
more external macro talent contexts to leverage strategic advantage and to mitigate talent risk
generated by variance in the embedded system.
Enterprises may operate within one or more macro talent contexts. Whether singular- or
multi-national in their strategy and operation, organisations exist as systems embedded within
regional and national contexts which establish the institutional, political, market and cultural
conditions in which the firm operates. Multi-national corporations operate in multiple national
contexts, each of which have distinct macro talent contexts. Business subsidiaries may adopt
commonly-held core strategies (such as mining companies which conduct mining operations
in multiple continents and institutional contexts) or may strategically vary and disperse their
business segments nationally or by region for firm advantage (such as organisations which
adopt a distributed global supply chain in manufacturing). Where firms operate only within a
single national context, they may be subject to variance in macro talent contexts across regions
which can inform their talent strategy and its effectiveness. One example is the relative talent
attractiveness of cantons or regions in Switzerland resulting in part from between-canton
variance in taxation policy as a business tax-related location strategy (SwissInfo, 2018). The
emergence of industry-centric regions which build conditions attractive for investment in a
common competence is a further example of macro level talent systems within which a firm
may operate. Examples of this include Silicon Valley, the preferred location for information
technology start-ups, and Bangalore, India which has established a reputation for world-leading
call centre infrastructure and business process outsourcing. In both instances the firms which
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 6
operate within the regional talent system can draw on the benefits of the system to support their
organisational talent strategy, such as high quality workforce, but will also be subject to its
challenges, such as intense regional competition for talent. Research has shown that firms must
actively consider and make decisions about their talent in order to be effective in
implementation of business strategy through human capital (Khoreva & Vaiman, 2019). In
order to do so, it is imperative that firms understand the conditions and consequences of the
macro contexts in which the firm operates, and how macro-level characteristics and outcomes
of the system will inevitably influence the firm’s ability to access, retain, and deploy talent to
positions most pivotal to strategic advantage.
Evidence of the limitations of organisational talent management are seen in the continued
struggle by organisations with mis-matched skills supply and demand (Cappelli, 2015),
overlooking possible macro-level interventions which could serve to develop talent pipelines
or reconfigure organisational staffing across multiple macro talent contexts. This prevailing
micro-level orientation towards a firm’s talent requirements may also be reflected in the
continued struggle of organisations to implement HR practices consistently globally (Morris et
al., 2009). Such variance may not only be indicators of the challenges firms experience when
striving to implement standardised HRM processes across national contexts, but may indeed
signal important variations in across the multiple macro level talent systems in which the firm
operates which necessitate global-local flexibility in implementation of talent management
across the enterprise. However, rather than leveraging macro-context variance for enterprise
advantage, a one-sized-fits-all approach is often adopted through what is commonly perceived
to be best-practice (Vaiman & Collings, 2014) which ironically results in organisations
becoming increasingly similar (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) rather than differentiated for
competitive advantage. In contrast, an integrated micro-macro talent strategy could offer firms
not only a solution to the challenges of implementation inconsistency but also distinct strategic
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 7
advantage through greater interaction with the one or more macro talent contexts at play across
the enterprise. Evidence for this can be seen, for instance, in organisations where talent strategy
aligns closely with business strategy such that talent strategy varies with business context, and
the firm interacts closely with the macro talent system(s) regionally in which it is embedded.
For example, researchers have found that leading multinational organisations, argued to
demonstrate greater effectiveness in talent management, draw on both local and global
considerations when directing their talent management practices (Stahl et al., 2007).
In this paper we argue that three predominant orientations exist which constrain talent
management currently. First, that a micro-macro gap exists in talent management such that the
dominance of the micro-level perspective, that is, a focus of talent management largely at the
firm-level of measurement, constrains the organisation’s effectiveness in talent management
through lack of strategic consideration of the influence of the macro talent system in which the
enterprise operates. We argue that while organisational talent management takes place largely
within the organisational context, to be effective, talent management requires a focus well
beyond the organisation itself to look across multiple external talent systems. Second, that a
primarily HR-centric orientation towards organisational talent management may constrain the
primacy of talent management as a crucial lever of business strategy. Third, that a primarily
intra-organisational focus may limit management agency due to a lack of contextual integration
of the firm talent strategy within the external talent environment. Drawing on contingency and
systems theories, this paper introduces a contingency-based approach to organisational talent
management and argues that macro talent management directly influences organisational talent
management and therefore the use of commonly accepted organisational talent management
practices is necessary but not sufficient for effective talent management at the firm level.
Effective organisational talent management cannot be achieved in an organisational “vacuum”,
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 8
but requires integrated consideration of the macro talent context(s) in order to influence
effectiveness of the embedded micro talent system.
This paper is a critically reflective conceptual study presented in three sections.
Following this introduction, a review of the extant literature and theoretical foundations is
presented which identifies three current limitations. In the subsequent section, a macro-
contingent approach to organisational talent management is introduced along with a framework
for future research. In the final section, limitations of the macro-contingent approach are
discussed along with implications for research and management practice.
2. Theoretical foundations
Talent management is concerned with the systematic identification of positions which
are key to the organisation’s competitive advantage sustainably over time, coupled with the
identification, development and management of one or more talent pools which are comprised
of high performing individuals with the high potential to be appointed to work in these positions
now and in the future (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). Given its strategic relevance to the
organisation’s ability to compete, a differentiated HR architecture is applied to manage
employees identified as talent and positions considered pivotal to the company’s future
competitive performance (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). This is an established form of workforce
differentiation (B. E. Becker, Huselid, & Beatty, 2009; Huselid, Beatty, & Becker, 2005) and
is applied in practice through the identification of relative potential of employees to contribute
to the competitive performance and advantage of the firm in future.
In the exclusive philosophy of talent management, some proportion of an organisation’s
employees are seen as the organisation’s “talent” (Stahl et al., 2012) and managed as a strategic
resource of the firm, as they hold some form of valued human capital. This is in contrast to the
inclusive philosophy whereby the full workforce is conceptualised as being the organisation’s
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 9
talent (Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014). While most organisations which adopt talent
management do apply some form of workforce differentiation methods in identifying and
managing talent (which is indicative of the exclusive approach) (Meyers & van Woerkom,
2014), this paper adopts a hybrid approach. The hybrid approach to talent management
recognises both exclusive and inclusive definitions of talent. We define the hybrid philosophy
of talent management as an integrative and inclusive philosophy of talent management whereby
the organisation’s full workforce is seen as organisational talent in complement to the
differentiated identification of specific workforce segments and individuals who are identified
as having higher relative potential to contribute to the firm’s performance and advantage
through active development, retention and deployment in strategic positions. The hybrid
philosophy is an integrative approach to talent management in that it considers both the overall
organisational workforce as its foundational talent pool as well as the identification and
management of specific workforce segments as specific talent pools for business strategic
capability requirements.
While the scholarly talent management literature has developed significantly in the past
decade (Gallardo-Gallardo, Nijs, Dries, & Gallo, 2015), limitations exist which may hinder its
continued development. The remainder of this section presents a review of the literature which
illustrate three main limitations.
2.1. Talent management as a micro-level construct and measure
The topic of talent management has developed quickly in the scholarly literature
(Vaiman & Collings, 2013) and is currently characterised by a dominant focus on talent
management at the firm level (Gallardo-Gallardo & Thunnissen, 2016; Khilji et al., 2015) and
at a single level of empirical enquiry (Collings, 2014a). At the firm level, organisational talent
management can also be referred to as micro talent management (Sparrow, Vaiman, Schuler,
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 10
& Collings, 2018), and as such, for the balance of this paper, we refer to organisational talent
management and micro talent management interchangeably. While the literature which
considers the employee response to talent management at the individual level is still developing
following multiple calls (Tarique & Schuler, 2010), a micro-level orientation continues to be
illustrated by the focus of the current literature in large part on frameworks and empirical
studies which consider the management of talent at the firm level. This is also illustrated by a
focus on firm performance as a priority but distal outcome of talent management (Collings,
2014a). The management of talent by the organisation has been conceptualised as a talent
system comprised of key components which interact to generate outcomes for the firm (King,
2015a). As a strategic system of the firm, a firm-level orientation is therefore necessary to
support monitoring, intervention and effectiveness of the strategic system.
However limited consideration of cross-level interaction of macro level factors on
micro talent system is constraining (Sparrow et al., 2018) and if unexamined, may assume
limited relevance of macro level factors or greater than actual firm-level agency. For example,
lack of effective consideration of cross-level interactions can result in unforeseen barriers to
access of reliable talent supply from external markets in either quality or quantity or both. Such
macro talent constraints are currently faced by a range of UK businesses in the context of the
UK’s planned exit from the European Union and the uncertainty of the macro talent context
which it currently entails. A fresh example of this is the UK’s National Health Service (NHS)
which is reported to be experiencing not only an acute shortage of staff due to constraints in
their ability to attract non-UK talent related to macro level change, such as country-level talent
attractiveness and institutional changes in access to employment visas, but coupled with high
levels of turnover in the existing UK-based workforce (Foundation, 2019). Cross-level
modelling could enable a more informed and proactive view of the organisation’s talent
strategy and practice vis-à-vis the wide range of macro level factors and conditions which may
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 11
support or constrain the organisation’s effectiveness and could support greater management
agency, even proactively.
Multi-level research and cross-level modelling has been called for repeatedly in
management literature (Hitt, Beamish, Jackson, & Mathieu, 2007; Hox, Moerbeek, & Van de
Schoot, 2017), specifically in human resources management (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000), and in
talent management (Collings, Mellahi, & Cascio, 2018). Introducing a multi-level model of the
link between global talent management and performance in multi-national enterprises (MNEs),
scholars have conceptualised the influence of global talent management on organisational
performance outcomes through multi-level theorising (Collings et al., 2018), arguing that
routines are used to coordinate the firm’s use of talent across multiple levels including
headquarters, subsidiary and individual levels. A further example is presented by Tarique and
Schuler (2018) which introduces a conceptual model of the influence of expatriate talent across
subsidiaries in the context of multinational organisations. While these two models have yet to
be empirically examined, they extend the literature by presenting talent management as systems
conceptualised across levels. Further, where the importance of macro contexts is recognised in
the talent literature (Khilji et al., 2015) the contexts are thus far framed within the scope of
multi-national enterprises and their management of talent globally (Collings et al., 2018).
However, cross-level frameworks are required which can be used to critically consider macro
level factors which influence talent management whether local or regional, national or multi-
national to support effectiveness in micro talent management.
In summary, a predominantly micro-level or firm-level orientation to talent
management limits the cross-level integration of talent strategy and maintains a micro-macro
gap in the integrated talent system. Cross-level consideration of the interaction of macro and
micro talent systems is required for effectiveness in talent management.
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 12
2.2. Talent management as an HR-centric practice
In addition to the predominant focus on the firm level and generally as a single level of
measurement, a prevailing orientation towards talent management as a component of human
resource (HR) practice may also constrain organisational talent management. While talent
management can be readily recognised as a people-centred strategic practice, a review of the
current literature illustrates why an HR-centric view may be limiting. Talent management has
emerged as a scholarly topic from within the strategic human resource management (SHRM)
literature, in part due to its close relationships with the field of human resources (Vaiman &
Collings, 2014) and given its phenomenologically-driven development as a practitioner
focused topic (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2015) within the practitioner field of HR. HRM is
concerned with linking human resources with the needs of the firm and in doing so considers
largely “internal aspects” (Schuler & Jackson, 2008, p. 5).
There is some degree of argument for a close alignment between talent and SHRM.
Within the scope of HRM, there are several points of relatedness or interface including the
concept of talent being directly related to human resources, as opposed to other resources and
given the practical implementation of talent management as an activity implemented within the
organisation’s overall suite of workforce practices. For example, recruitment: HRM is
concerned with the attraction and retention of the wider workforce for business operational
requirements (Torrington, Hall, Atkinson, & Taylor, 2017), and talent management is
concerned with the secure access to talent for specific strategic positions such as leadership
candidates for appointment to leadership positions (Collings & Mellahi, 2009) and specific
talent pools as identified by the business (Collings & Mellahi, 2009).Training and
development: HRM is concerned with the training requirements of the full workforce
(Torrington, Hall, & Taylor, 2007), and talent management may specifically be concerned with
the development of leadership competence and the development of individual potential for
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 13
deployment to pivotal roles in future (Vaiman & Collings, 2014). Compensation: HRM is
concerned with the organisation’s compensation strategy and the administration of pay
programs across the annual performance cycle as part of an overall bundle of SHRM practices
(Schuler & Jackson, 2008), while talent management is concerned specifically with the
differentiated management of pay and rewards for employees identified as high performers or
as having high potential, as well as their retention and deployment to strategic positions in the
organisation (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). This may include expatriation, individualised
retention plans and differentiated investment in development, each of which may require
differentiated pay structures. Finally, as a strategic activity of the firm, undertaken to support
firm performance as a strategy directly related with differentiated human capital, talent
management garners the direct attention and involvement of the CEO and executive
management team (Cappelli & Keller, 2014) in most organisations today and requires strategic
alignment beyond the prevailing focus of implementation as a strategic HRM practice.
Despite these points of interface and commonality between the topics of talent
management and strategic HRM, talent management has been identified as a bridging literature
(King, 2017) which spans topics beyond the scope of SHRM. Other scholars have also stressed
the importance of talent as a strategic imperative beyond the essentials of effective human
resources management. For example, scholars have articulated the relevance of talent
management to business strategy and business growth (Teece, 2011), the management and
development of human capital (Delery & Roumpi, 2017), executive decision making (Khoreva
& Vaiman, 2019; Vaiman et al., 2012), corporate social responsibility (Bhattacharya, Sen, &
Korschun, 2008), diversity (Sheehan & Anderson, 2015), and to the concept of leadership
potential, whether viewed as being innate or developable (Meyers, van Woerkom, & Dries,
2013). Talent management is a form of workforce differentiation (B. E. Becker et al., 2009)
and relies on a differentiated architecture for its management (Collings & Mellahi, 2009), some
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 14
of which may lay outside of the HR architecture, as can be argued by the direct involvement
of management to develop talent in the line and through in-role assignments. The literature has
also argued the importance of alignment of talent management as a component of business
strategic competitiveness (Collings, 2014a).
However, a recent review confirmed that the majority of scholarly TM literature is
currently positioned within the strategic human resource management literature and HRM
journals (Gallardo-Gallardo & Thunnissen, 2016), despite the topic’s acknowledged relevance
to multiple other literatures (Collings, Scullion, & Vaiman, 2015). While this current proximity
to the SHRM literature has been valuable in the early emergence of the talent management
literature, forward development will be supported by further specification of interfaces with
other literatures. While close linkages to HRM are necessary to implement effective talent
management, such as for the development of potential to be deployed in key leadership
positions, talent management is inherently a differentiated and strategic activity (Collings &
Mellahi, 2009). We argue that without sufficient delineation of scope, clarity of management
directive, and board-level governance, talent management may be constrained by a
conventional, albeit strategic-HRM-centric orientation.
In summary, a primarily HR-centric orientation towards organisational talent
management may constrain the primacy of talent management as a crucial lever of business
strategy. As stated earlier, talent management is neither the conceptual nor the practice
equivalent of effective HRM, and this paper has argued that a business-centric orientation
extended beyond an HR-practice orientation towards talent management is required for
effective talent management.
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 15
2.3. Talent management as an internal focus of the firm.
The firm’s management of talent is implemented within the firm as an internal firm-
based system (King, 2015a). Correspondingly, management’s focus on talent management
within the firm is a necessary component of management of the internal system. Management
involvement has been identified as one element of good practice in the implementation of talent
management in large multi-national organisations (Stahl et al., 2012). This is achieved in large
part through a focus internally on two key activities within the organisation: first, the in-line
identification of talent through ratings of relative potential; and second, the annual review of
talent within the organisation (Mäkelä, Björkman, & Ehrnrooth, 2010). In contrast, one
component of implemented talent management in practice which adopts an external orientation
to some extent, for example, is the recruitment and selection of talent to meet business strategic
requirements. Recruitment is a significantly outward facing activity, as few firms today rely
solely on an internal labour market (Bidwell, 2017). As such, talent recruitment is one activity
in which talent management may more sufficiently engage with the external macro talent
context. For example, this could be particularly important when selection for a strategic
position has not been successful through use of the firm’s the internal labour market and an
external candidate is required. However, talent recruitment is a largely reactive and vacancy-
driven activity. Beyond recruitment, organisational talent management often turns inward in
focus (Sparrow et al., 2018) and is known to be a time-intensive activity of internal focus,
particularly for management (Vaiman et al., 2012).
The predominance of an internal orientation to talent management in the extant
literature is illustrated by the conceptual frameworks and empirical studies which are
concerned with various aspects of the design and implementation of talent management within
the firm and its effectiveness. For example, whether the firm elects to apply an inclusive or
exclusive definition of talent (Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014), and how employees perceive
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 16
these philosophies in practice (Sonnenberg, van Zijderveld, & Brinks, 2014) and the study of
individual justice reactions of employees to their firm’s use of talent management practices
(Gelens, Hofmans, Dries, & Pepermans, 2014). An inward orientation towards talent
management necessarily directs management attention to the strategic management of the
firm’s talent within the organisation and may support critical review of the effectiveness of
implemented talent practices. Some consideration has been given to the relevance of talent
management to stakeholders of the firm (Collings, 2014b; King, 2015b), extending beyond
those which are internal (namely the firm’s management and employees, who may be both job-
holders and share-holders), reinforcing its strategic relevance beyond the management of
human resources as an internal activity of the firm.
However the shared interests, challenges and strategic priorities of what might be
described as the firm and its external “talent ecosystem” which is comprised of the firm and its
diverse range of stakeholders at all levels (individual, organisational, community, societal,
national) is as yet largely unconsidered and this may in part be resulting from by a predominant
internal orientation to talent management, with the external orientation toward recruitment
being the main exception. Widening the lens to further consider a range of parties which might
be concerned with the extent to which an organisation’s talent management is effective, or not,
researchers have considered the wider community in which employees and their families
reside, local educational institutions which participate in the development of talent potential
(King, 2015b), and regionally-based industries which establish business ecosystems which
share complementary reliance on the quality and quantity of talent supply (King, 2018).
A predominant internal focus may contribute to the often reactive nature of talent
attraction rather than supporting a strategic approach to talent recruitment through examination
of cross-level interactions and the opportunity for the firm to forecast and proactively manage
externally-driven talent risk or to develop firm-specific competitive opportunities. Here again,
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 17
the stark contrast of the UK National Health Service’s requirements for nursing talent and
qualified medical doctors relative to its low talent attractiveness and complex sourcing issues
(CIPD, 2018), presents a compelling example of the urgent need for organisations to engage
actively with the complex macro level talent conditions in which the organisation is embedded,
if to successfully manage talent within the organisation, in this case in service of high quality
patient care in the UK. Although context is understood to be inherently relevant to TM
(Schuler, Jackson, & Tarique, 2011), and greater calls for contextual consideration of talent
management exist (Thunnissen, Boselie, & Fruytier, 2013), a wider contextually-based view
of talent management has yet to be sufficiently adopted in literature and in practice, which is
in part constrained by the predominant internal orientation to talent management.
In summary, a primarily internal orientation to talent management may limit
management agency due to a lack of contextual integration with the external macro talent
management context. Adoption of an external orientation to complement the internal focus on
talent management is required for effective talent management. In the section which follows,
the paper draws on systems and contingency theories and introduces a framework for future
research along with three proposed shifts in orientation to address these limitations.
3. Introducing a macro-contingent approach to talent management and research
framework
Macro talent management (MTM), which has recently been introduced in the literature,
refers to “the activities that are systematically developed by governmental and
nongovernmental organizations expressly for the purpose of enhancing the quality and quantity
of talent within and across countries and regions to facilitate innovation and competitiveness
of their citizens and corporations” (Khilji et al., 2015, p. 237). The concept of MTM contributes
to the developing literature by introducing and specifying the macro talent environment, its
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 18
core processes and functions and the outcomes of national level talent activities such as national
educational achievement levels, employment rates, and country competitiveness outcomes
(Sparrow et al., 2018). However, the interface between organisational talent management and
its corresponding macro talent environment (including contextual factors, core processes and
activities, and consequences), is not yet developed in the literature’s conceptualisation of
MTM, such that a micro-macro gap can be said to persist.
The existing macro level literature is largely comparative in nature (comparison of
variance between countries), and the literature has not yet sufficiently explored micro-macro
integration or cross-level study (Al Ariss et al., 2014). For example, cross-level examination
could consider the consequences of macro talent management outcomes for organisational
talent management strategy; which macro talent context and environment factors present
barriers to effective organisational talent management and how they might be overcome (Al
Ariss et al., 2014). As a result of limited cross-level modelling or study, research questions
remain focused at the separate micro or macro levels, and multi-level modelling in talent
management is yet undeveloped and required (Khilji et al., 2015). As the scope and boundaries
of the talent management literature continues to evolve with further study (Mellahi & Collings,
2010), future research will be necessary to identify intersections across a multi-level model of
GTM (Khilji et al., 2015). This is consistent with calls in the ongoing development of the
SHRM literature for greater clarification of the micro-macro divide and cross-level empirical
measurement (Molloy, Ployhart, & Wright, 2011).
In this section, we now introduce a macro-contingent approach to organisational talent
management and argue that effectiveness of the micro talent system can be influenced by an
integrative cross-level consideration of one or more extra-organisational macro talent systems.
We further argue that the effectiveness of a macro-contingent approach to talent management
will vary to the extent to which the firm adopts three orientations: first, shifting upward from
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 19
a single-level of measure at the micro level to adopt a cross-level orientation; second, shifting
across from an HR-centric to a business-strategic orientation; and third, shifting outward from
an internal to an external orientation. These three shifts are explained in detail in the remainder
of this section.
3.1. Conceptualising talent management as a nested system
This paper argues that organisational talent management occurs within a wider macro-
level external context within which the organisational talent system is inherently embedded or
nested. As such we argue that the micro talent management is a system inter-related with the
macro talent system, and thereby with its inputs, activities and outcomes.
Two theoretical foundations can be used to argue the importance and relevance of
broadening and extending our view of talent management, to integrate the macro-level,
business-centric and extra-organisational context into organisational talent management. First,
contingency theory (Luthans & Stewart, 1977), which has been widely used in management
sciences, explains that the preferred approach to organising must be informed by the context in
which the organisation is functioning and aims to perform (Luthans & Stewart, 1977). Based
on contingency theory then, an organisation’s practice of talent management which is designed
to fit in the context in which it operates would be more likely to be effective than one which
ignores the context or does not take context into account. Second, systems theory in
management (Von Bertalanffy, 1972) has been used to develop systematic frameworks (such
as conceptual, theoretical or operational) which aim to describe relationships (Boulding, 1956;
Johnson, Kast, & Rosenzweig, 1964; Von Bertalanffy, 1972). Systems theory explains that the
interaction of the main elements in a system will result in outcomes of that system (Anderson,
1999). Previous literature has proposed systems-based views of human resource management
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 20
(Bowen & Ostroff, 2004), organisational talent management (King, 2015a) and of global talent
management (Collings et al., 2018).
Figure 1 that presents the macro-contingent view of organisational talent management
and aims to illustrate the dynamic interface of micro and macro level talent systems, extending
the view of organisational talent management into the wider context of the macro system(s) in
which the organisation is embedded and operates.
Figure 1 - Enabling effective talent management through a macro-contingent approach
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 21
Figure 1 illustrates a nested system comprised of two inter-related systems:
organisational talent management which is an intra-organisational system and macro talent
management which is an extra-organisational system. The micro talent system (the inner of the
two rings in Figure 1) is embedded within one or more macro talent contexts which operate
with direct or indirect influence on the firm by virtue of shared national or regional context.
The macro talent system (the outer of the two rings in Figure 1) is comprised of three
components, as specified by the Khilji et al framework (2015). They are: the MTM context and
environment; processes and functions; and the macro level outcomes (Khilji et al., 2015).
Conditions generated by the outcomes of the macro talent system are therefore consequential
to the organisations operating within these contexts. For example, outcomes such as the quality
and quantity of talent the macro system produces or country competitiveness for global talent,
etc. (Khilji et al., 2015).
The micro talent system is comprised of eight components as specified in the figure.
This framework draws on the Stahl et al framework (Stahl et al., 2012) which specified six
talent practices. We have re-specified these practices as components of the micro level talent
system and extended its specification to include two additional components: management
involvement and talent review; and board reporting and governance.
Further, as indicated in Figure 1, the two systems are dynamic and interactive in nature.
That is, the micro and macro systems, as indicated by the inner and outer rings respectively,
interact and as functional systems are dynamic. This is denoted by cross-over arrows which
illustrate the fluid interplay between the two nested systems. There are multiple points of
interface between the micro and macro system which can be further specified in future
development of the framework. Khilji et al (2015) explain that conditions in the macro context
and environment interact with core processes and functions in the macro talent context which
together generate macro talent outcomes. We further argue that interactions between the micro
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 22
and macro systems across each of the specified components generate change in the dynamic
integrated system, and that such interactions can cause change to any component of the macro
or micro system. For example, the action of a firm(s) to influence macro level processes, such
as industry-education partnership which prioritise scare skills development for industry
specific strategic positions, can influence not only internal firm outcomes (such as talent
development), but also external macro outcomes such as aggregate regional talent supply,
which then subsequently influences micro level talent outcomes (such as attraction or
retention).
As a cross-level contingent model, the macro-contingent view of organisational talent
management integrates both a greater concern with the extra-organisational context for talent
and a greater concern for the adaptation of the intra-firm talent system in consideration of the
external context.
3.2. Three shifts in orientation towards a macro-contingent view of talent management
First, a shift upward from a single, micro or firm-level orientation to an integrated
cross-level micro-macro view of talent management is required.
As an established practitioner topic viewed as one of the most strategic issues faced by
management today (Mellahi & Collings, 2010), the critical importance of talent has been
argued, requiring that an organisation knows its pivotal talent (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005),
identifies its “experts” (Idinopulos & Kempler, 2003), and that organisations carefully manage
their “A-players” (Huselid et al., 2005), while developing the competence needed to build star
teams (Mankins, Bird, & Root, 2013). However, this intense and largely internal focus has not
reliably resulted in expected performance outcomes attributable to talent management
(Collings, 2014a). Despite intense executive focus on talent, challenges persist which range
from claims of insufficient supply (Cappelli, 2015), through to retention of talented employees
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 23
once employed in an organisation (Lawler Iii, 2008). Considering this in the wider context of
a fiercely competitive global economy, the unwavering focus on talent is unsurprising;
however, the lack of organisational intervention in the wider macro contexts in which they
operate, may be surprising.
Seeking wider context, firms do consider talent management practices relative to peer
organisations which can provide relevant micro-level comparative insight. However between-
firm comparison may result in mimicking of best practice as a form of collective rationality,
rather than being strategically aligned to the firm-specific requirements (DiMaggio & Powell,
1983). Consideration of the external competitive talent context does not by definition require
consideration of the one or more macro level contexts in which the firms may compete and
operates. Rather a shift across levels is required, upward from micro to macro, in addition to
consideration of talent management effectiveness between organisations at the micro level.
Beyond the organisational level of focus, talent management occurs within a wider
context which is external to the organisation, shaped by contextual and environmental factors
(Khilji et al., 2015), which in turn set the national or regional context(s) within which
organisations seek, attract, engage and manage their talent. For example, macro factors which
shape the macro context in which firms operate include government policies for educational
attainment, immigration, and labour legislation. National and regional processes influence
macro level development, quality and availability of talent. For example, such processes
include national planning for labour supply, educational interventions for skills development,
targeted visa initiatives to facilitate access to talent and programmes to enhance cross-regional
labour mobility (Vaiman, Schuler, Sparrow, & Collings, 2018). The interaction of these
contextual factors and core processes influence and shape a nation’s macro level talent
outcomes (Khilji et al., 2015). For example, macro level national outcomes influenced by
macro talent factors include economic development measures such as productivity and
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 24
employment, educational attainment and workforce quality, and the extent to which a country
is viewed as being able to compete for global talent, known as talent attractiveness. This is
consistent with the concept of environmental fit which suggests that organisations must make
a link between their HR strategy and the institutional environment the organisation exists
within (Boselie, 2014).
An integrated approach to the management of organisational talent requirements with
critical consideration of the macro-level external context and factors within which they operate
is largely overlooked. The predominant single-level focus on talent management at the firm or
micro level has resulted in limited cross-level conceptual or empirical research in the literature.
Where talent management has been examined at the macro level, studies have primarily been
limited to a single level, the macro level specifically (Vaiman et al., 2018). Multiple calls for
cross-level conceptual and empirical research (Collings, 2014b; Minbaeva, 2016; Thunnissen,
2016) restate the importance of cross-level research in advancing the literature. We, therefore,
propose the following:
Proposition 1: The effectiveness of organisational talent management will be positively
associated with the extent to which the talent system is designed to consider both micro
and macro and cross-level interactions, across one or more macro contexts relevant to
the enterprise.
Second, a shift to widen the orientation from an HR-centric orientation to a business-
centric imperative is required.
The scholarly strategy literature acknowledges a close alignment between business
strategy and external factors which are used to identify strategic opportunity (Hill, Jones, &
Schilling, 2015) and explain that competitive advantage is enabled through differentiated
resources of the firm (Barney, 1991). However the value and definition of exclusive talent may
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 25
vary by business (Sparrow & Makram, 2015) and with changes in strategy over time. Access
to individual human capital resources (Ployhart, Nyberg, Reilly, & Maltarich, 2014) in service
of the strategy therefore requires a direct alignment between talent management and the
business strategy. This close alignment of talent strategy to business advantage may be
constrained by a primarily HR-centric orientation to talent management.
The talent management literature has specified four ways in which talent management
is differentiated from strategic human resource management. Specifically: talent management
is a component of the strategic advantage which requires the involvement of management and
board-level governance; talent management is of strategic import to a wider and more diverse
range of stakeholders than is HRM; talent management is defined and directed with a narrower
focus related to its specification of human capital; and talent management by definition requires
high degrees of differentiation from the approaches taken to manage the wider workforce of
the organisation (Vaiman & Collings, 2014). A primarily HR-centric orientation towards talent
management in the exclusive approach, may constrain its operationalisation as a driver of
strategic advantage and the imperative of direct management involvement and board
governance of talent outcomes. We propose the following:
Proposition 2: The effectiveness of organisational talent management will be
positively associated with the extent to which the talent system is designed to align
with and enable business strategy.
The third shift in orientation required is a shift outwards, from a primarily internal focus
to an external, contextually-based orientation which informs the internal perspective through
critical integration of the firm’s talent strategy and practice within the external macro talent
system in which the firm is contextually anchored.
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 26
A review of the extant literature indicates that talent management is as yet largely
viewed as a within-organisation concern (Collings et al., 2018; King, 2017; Vaiman &
Collings, 2014) and correspondingly, effective talent management necessarily requires an
intra-organisational focus. However, this prevailing focus of talent management as existing and
occurring within the organisation may limit management’s consideration of external contexts
which influence talent management outcomes at the firm or micro level. Consistent with the
prevailing micro-perspective as explained earlier, talent management is also therefore
primarily concerned with the internal functioning of the organisation and its performance
outcomes through talent. As a result, the critical integration of externally-oriented
considerations into talent strategy, frameworks, and practice is as yet limited.
In addition to our argument that cross-level consideration of macro factors is imperative
for effective micro talent management, likewise, it is imperative that a shift to consider the
external environment is integrated into micro talent management. This external context is the
context in which micro talent management is embedded, as depicted in figure 1. For many
firms today, this contextual domain is comprised of multiple varying contexts, defined by the
firm’s unique strategic and operational positioning and its participation in a range of markets.
Each of these, domestically and internationally, present strategic risk and opportunity, through
variance.
External conditions exist which influence internal firm processes and practices. For
example, an organisation’s available quality and supply of talent is influenced by external
factors External factors may include the extent to which peer-businesses compete for common
talent requirements (an example of a micro level external condition) and national talent pool
quality (an example of a macro level external condition).While these factors are external to the
firm’s internal talent system, the organisation’s talent strategy is contingent upon consideration
of a range of external factors, at various levels, micro and macro. Adopting an external
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 27
orientation towards talent strategy and talent management supports organisations to
complement a primarily internal view of talent management through integration of context into
organisational talent strategy.
However, consideration of the multiple facets of the external talent context is
insufficient as yet in the literature. For example, limited consideration of the range of
stakeholders of effective talent management beyond the shareholder orientation of
organisations (Collings, 2014b) may reflect a narrow view of talent management as only of
relevance within an organisation and of limited relevance to the broader society or industry
sector. However sector-specific talent constraints are not uncommon, such as a visible national
or regional mismatch of talent supply and demand (Cappelli, 2015), whether in leadership,
technical or skill-specific talent pools. Consistent with the prevailing internal orientation
toward talent management underpinned by an HR-centric orientation, the external conditions
which influence the firm’s implementation of micro talent management, may not readily appear
to fall within the accountability of the firm to shape, manage or govern are generally not
accounted for in organisational talent management. This inward orientation to talent
management is further evidenced by the absence of contextually relevant conceptual
frameworks in talent management(Thunnissen et al., 2013). We propose the following:
Proposition 3: The effectiveness of organisational talent management will be
positively associated with the extent to which the talent system is designed to consider
the external talent context(s) within which the firm operates.
In summary, this framework proposes an externally-orientated, cross-level, macro-
contingent approach to organisational talent management and argued the importance of three
shifts in orientation in both literature and practice. First, from a primarily micro level of focus
and measurement to include a cross-level micro-macro orientation; second, from a primarily
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 28
HRM-centric orientation to a business-centric orientation; and third, outward from a
predominant internal orientation to talent management to integrate consideration of the external
contextual conditions and factors which interact with and shape the organisation’s opportunity
to excel in its management of talent as a strategic resource of the firm. Figure 1 illustrates these
shifts by presenting the micro system as embedded within the macro system, requiring a shift
up across levels, outward from the internal firm orientation and across, from a primarily HR-
centric perspective.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
An organisation-specific lens on talent management has provided a helpful foundation
for the emerging talent management literature thus far. To support the forward development of
the literature and greater implementation effectiveness in practice, this paper has presented a
reflective conceptual review of the talent management literature and identified three extant
limitations which constrain forward development of the topic. To address these limitations, the
paper draws on the theory of a strategic system, the components of which function to create
system outcomes (whether effective or not so) (Von Bertalanffy, 1972), and on contingency
theory, which explains that the system operates within and is influenced by the contextual
conditions which exist around it (Luthans & Stewart, 1977). A contextually-anchored cross-
level view of talent management was introduced, extending beyond a prevailing firm-level,
HR-centric and internal orientations.
4.1. Implications for research & limitations
This paper makes three main contributions to the literature. First, this paper has
presented a macro-contingent view of talent management. The paper has argued that context
inextricably matters in talent management and argues that micro talent management is a
contextually-anchored system embedded within one or more macro talent systems, such that
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 29
effectiveness in organisational talent management is dependent upon the unique composition
of the various macro talent contexts in which it operates. The paper has reasoned that the macro
talent system (comprised of context and environment, core processes and functions and
outcomes) cannot be ignored if the firm is to be effective in organisational talent management,
thus responding to calls in the literature for a more contextual approach to talent management
(Thunnissen et al., 2013), one which extends consideration of stakeholders beyond a simplified
shareholder view (Collings, 2014b). Second, the paper has presented an integrated cross-level
view of talent management, which contributes to calls for cross-level conceptual models of
talent management (Al Ariss, Cascio, & Paauwe, 2014; Khilji et al., 2015), including
consideration of macro talent management (Khilji et al., 2015), and has introduced a research
framework which supports future empirical cross-level research in the topic (Collings et al.,
2015; Paauwe, Wright, & Guest, 2013). Third, the paper has argued the conceptual distinction
between strategic HRM and talent management, consistent with calls for greater conceptual
utility of talent management as a scholarly topic distinct from SHRM (Morley et al., 2017).
As a conceptual study, there are two main limitations which could also be considered
opportunities for further research. First, as the conceptual framework adopts a systems
perspective of organisational talent management, further specification of the micro and macro
talent systems is necessary to advance the future study of cross-level interactions and outcomes.
Second, as the conceptual framework adopts a contingent view, further conceptual and
empirical study is required across varying contexts to further inform the approach and its
relevance across a range of contexts in which organisational talent management is strategically
anchored and implemented.
Practically, the macro-contingent TM framework can be tested in several ways. As a
concept in development, an exploratory mixed-methods empirical design can be used to
explore management’s current attempts to engage with and influence the macro talent contexts
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 30
in which the firm operates to identify points of integration between the micro and macro
contexts which are perceived to provide most utility to the management vis-à-vis business-
centric talent strategy. Alternatively, a quantitative cross-level between firm comparison study
can be used to examine the relationship between macro level talent conditions, processes and
environmental factors and a selection of priority competitive outcomes. More specifically, a
within-firm case study design could examine variance in firm outcomes by macro talent context
across multiple regional, national or sector-specific contexts in which the enterprise operates.
4.2. Implications for management practice
The integration of macro talent management into organisational talent management
literature also presents a crucial opportunity for management practitioners. Organisations have
intensively pursued talent management as a path to value of utmost priority to the management
team, and talent continues to be a top priority reported by CEOs worldwide (Cappelli, 2008;
PwC, 2017). However, adopting perceived best practices, sometimes simply as isomorphic
mimicking of the practices of competitors (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), organisations may have
adopted an inward, HR-centric practice orientation toward talent management (Vaiman &
Collings, 2014), inadvertently becoming more similar (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) and less
strategically differentiated. This paper has argued that while organisations may perceive direct
agency in talent management which adopts an unwavering internal focus, this may
inadvertently result in organisations becoming reactive participants in the extra-organisational
macro talent system which may have both enabling and constraining influences on the
effectiveness of a firm’s talent strategy.
Consider the attraction of talent, for example. Organisations often aim to improve their
attractiveness to future employees through efforts such as employer branding efforts (Stahl et
al., 2012) including commitments to corporate social responsibility (Bhattacharya et al., 2008),
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 31
however such attractiveness efforts risk limited influence on overall supply or quality of the
supply for which the organisation competes, if they are not designed to influence the wider
macro talent system, focused on competing for existing, often limited, supply. The often-
priority focus on the initial attraction of talent to a company may overlook the strategic
requirement to examine wider, external, macro talent conditions which affect the firm’s
sustainable supply of talent. The repeated reporting of “talent shortage” (Dobbs, Lund, &
Madgavkar, 2012; Economist, 2007, 2009), which has been challenged by some researchers
who have examined macro level data (Cappelli, 2015), may be one indicator of a reactive
approach to macro talent management. An example of an unsustainable response to macro
conditions is illustrated in cases of talent poaching across peer organisations in a constrained
talent pool rapidly escalating recruitment and retention costs for all stakeholders involved
(Dobbs et al., 2012). A more sustainable macro-contingent approach can be established
whereby the micro level system is designed based on critical consideration of macro conditions,
whether favourable or unfavourable. On critical consideration of the strengths and limitations
of the macro talent system(s) in which the firm operates, management may generate new
dimensions of agency to influence the external environment, processes and conditions of
strategic priority or concern to the firm.
Such proactive influence at the macro level for firm level talent strategy are not without
precedent. Examples include: business-education partnerships (such as to prime the supply of
future talent); adaption of global-local talent management (such as to leverage varying macro
talent conditions across the strategic reach of the firm); industry collaborations (such as
regional branding activities for talent-specific regional talent attraction); and policy
interventions (such as to reduce mobility and employment barriers or enhance talent
immigration programs). In the case of multinational enterprises, management can consider how
to optimise their organisational talent system across the multiple macro talent contexts in which
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 32
they operate to optimise talent supply, quality and retention in specific contexts and across the
enterprise for business-specific priority purposes (i.e., talent “for what” purpose in a given
context).
In conclusion, while management agency is potentially at its strongest when applied
internally, that is, in direct management of the organisation, a primarily intra-organisational
focus on talent management may in fact limit management agency, if not sufficiently informed
by the wider macro external context. Organisational talent systems which are designed to
consider cross-level micro-macro interactions in the embedded talent system are better
positioned to both mitigate external talent risk and to leverage the conditions within the external
macro talent which offer competitive advantage. While deploying valuable differentiated
SRHM practices operationally to manage talent internally within the organisation, management
is further encouraged to extend beyond traditional orientations in organisational talent
management to shift upward, outward, and across to identify, influence, interact with the macro
talent systems in which it operates, to enable greater management agency and effectiveness in
talent strategy.
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 33
References
Al Ariss, A., Cascio, W. F., & Paauwe, J. (2014). Talent management: Current theories and
future research directions. Journal of World Business(0). doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.001
Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity Theory and Organization Science. Organization Science,
10(3), 216-232.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99-120. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108
Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten
years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6), 625-641. doi:
10.1177/014920630102700601
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Beatty, R. W. (2009). The differentiated workforce:
Transforming talent into strategic impact: Harvard Business Press.
Becker, G. S. (2008). Human Capital. In e. David R. Henderson (Ed.), The Concise
Encyclopedia of Economics.: Library of Economics and Liberty. .
Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2008). Using Corporate Social Responsibility
to Win the War for Talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 37-44.
Bidwell, M. (2017). Managing talent flows through internal and external labor markets. . In
D. G. Collings, K. Mellahi, & W. F. Cascio (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Talent
Management Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press
Boselie, P. (2014). Strategic human resource management: A balanced approach (2 ed.):
McGraw-Hill Education.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Where's Your Pivotal Talent? Harvard Business
Review, 83(4), 23-24.
Boulding, K. E. (1956). General Systems Theory—The Skeleton of Science. Management
Science, 2(3), 197-208. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2.3.197
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–Firm Performance Linkages: The
Role of the “Strength” of the HRM System. Academy of Management Review, 29(2),
203-221. doi: 10.5465/amr.2004.12736076
Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent Management for the Twenty-First Century. Harvard Business
Review, 86(3), 74-81.
Cappelli, P. (2015). Skill Gaps, Skill Shortages, and Skill Mismatches: Evidence and
Arguments for the United States. ILR Review, 68(2), 251-290. doi:
10.1177/0019793914564961
Cappelli, P., & Keller, J. (2014). Talent Management: Conceptual Approaches and Practical
Challenges. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 1(1), 305-331. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091314
CIPD. (2018). Experts warn government not to prioritise high-skilled roles for post-Brexit
visas [Press release]. Retrieved from
https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/experts-say-do-not-prioritise-
high-skilled-roles
Collings, D. G. (2014a). The Contribution of Talent Management to Organization Success
The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Training, Development, and
Performance Improvement (pp. 247-260): John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Collings, D. G. (2014b). Toward Mature Talent Management: Beyond Shareholder Value.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(3), 301-319. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21198
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 34
Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and research
agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304-313. doi:
10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.04.001
Collings, D. G., Mellahi, K., & Cascio, W. F. ( 2018). Global talent management and
performance in multinational enterprises : a multilevel perspective. Journal of
Management, (In press).
Collings, D. G., Scullion, H., & Vaiman, V. (2015). Talent management: Progress and
prospects. Human Resource Management Review, 25(3), 233-235. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.04.005
Delery, J. E., & Roumpi, D. (2017). Strategic human resource management, human capital
and competitive advantage: is the field going in circles? Human Resource
Management Journal, 27(1), 1-21.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). THE IRON CAGE REVISITED:
INSTITUTIONAL ISOMORPHISM AND COLLECTIVE RATIONALITY IN
ORGANIZATIONAL FIELDS. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
Dobbs, R., Lund, S., & Madgavkar, A. (2012). Talent tensions ahead: A CEO briefing.
McKinsey Quarterly(4), 92-102.
Economist. (2007, 2007 Aug 18). Capturing talent - Asia's skills shortage; Asia's skills
shortage. The Economist, 384, 58.
Economist. (2009, 2009 Oct 31). International: A tough search for talent; Public-service
careers. The Economist, 393, 70-71.
Foundation, T. H. (2019). A critical moment:NHS staffing trends, retention and attrition.
London UK.: The Health Foundation.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Nijs, S., Dries, N., & Gallo, P. (2015). Towards an understanding of
talent management as a phenomenon-driven field using bibliometric and content
analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 25(3), 264-279. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.04.003
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., & Thunnissen, M. (2016). Standing on the shoulders of giants? A
critical review of empirical talent management research. Employee Relations, 38(1),
31-56. doi: doi:10.1108/ER-10-2015-0194
Gelens, J., Hofmans, J., Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2014). Talent management and
organisational justice: employee reactions to high potential identification. Human
Resource Management Journal, 24(2), 159-175. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12029
Hill, C. W., Jones, G. R., & Schilling, M. A. (2015). Strategic management theory: Cengage
Learning.
Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building theoretical and
empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(6), 1385-1399.
Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & Van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and
applications: Routledge.
Huselid, M. A., Beatty, R. W., & Becker, B. E. (2005). A Players or A Positions? Harvard
Business Review, 83(12), 110-117.
Huselid, M. A., & Becker, B. E. (2011). Bridging Micro and Macro Domains: Workforce
Differentiation and Strategic Human Resource Management. Journal of Management,
37(2), 421-428. doi: 10.1177/0149206310373400
Idinopulos, M., & Kempler, L. (2003). Do you know who your experts are? McKinsey
Quarterly(4), 60-69.
Johnson, R. A., Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1964). Systems Theory and Management.
Management Science, 10(2), 367-384.
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 35
Khilji, S. E., Tarique, I., & Schuler, R. S. (2015). Incorporating the macro view in global
talent management. Human Resource Management Review, 25(3), 236-248. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.04.001
Khoreva, V., & Vaiman, V. (2019). Talent Management: Decision Making in the Global
Context. In I. e. Tarique (Ed.), Routledge Companion to Talent Management. London:
Routledge.
King, K. A. (2015a). Global talent management: Introducing a strategic framework and
multiple-actors model. Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate
Management Research, 3(3), 273-288. doi: doi:10.1108/JGM-02-2015-0002
King, K. A. (2015b). Sustained Value through Talent Management: A multi-stakeholder
approach. . Paper presented at the European Institute for Advanced Studies in
Management (EIASM). 4th Workshop on Talent Management., Valencia, Spain.
King, K. A. (2017). ARCHITECTING ACROSS LEVELS TO ADVANCE THE EMERGING
LITERATURE: TOWARDS A MULTI-LEVEL MODEL OF TALENT
MANAGEMENT. Paper presented at the European Institute for Advanced Studies in
Management (EIASM). 6th Workshop on Talent Management., Barcelona, Spain.
King, K. A. (2018). Macro Talent Management in Canada: A Review of the National
Context, Competitive Strengths and Future Opportunities to Attract, Develop and
Retain Talent. In V. Vaiman, R. S. Schuler, P. R. Sparrow, & D. G. Collings (Eds.),
Macro Talent Management: A Global Perspective on Managing Talent in Developed
Markets. New York City/London: Routledge.
Lawler Iii, E. E. (2008). Why Are We Losing All Our Good People? Harvard Business
Review, 86(6), 41.
Luthans, F., & Stewart, T. I. (1977). A general contingency theory of management. Academy
of Management Review, 2(2), 181-195.
Mäkelä, K., Björkman, I., & Ehrnrooth, M. (2010). How do MNCs establish their talent
pools? Influences on individuals’ likelihood of being labeled as talent. Journal of
World Business, 45(2), 134-142. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.020
Mankins, M., Bird, A., & Root, J. (2013). Making Star Teams Out of Star Players. Harvard
Business Review, 91(1), 74-78.
Mellahi, K., & Collings, D. G. (2010). The barriers to effective global talent management:
The example of corporate élites in MNEs. Journal of World Business, 45(2), 143-149.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.018
Meyers, M. C., & van Woerkom, M. (2014). The influence of underlying philosophies on
talent management: Theory, implications for practice, and research agenda. Journal of
World Business, 49(2), 192-203. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.003
Meyers, M. C., van Woerkom, M., & Dries, N. (2013). Talent — Innate or acquired?
Theoretical considerations and their implications for talent management. Human
Resource Management Review, 23(4), 305-321. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.003
Minbaeva, D. (2016). Contextualising the individual in international management research:
black boxes, comfort zones and a future research agenda. European Journal of
International Management, 10(1), 95-104. doi: 10.1504/ejim.2016.073990
Molloy, J. C., Ployhart, R. E., & Wright, P. M. (2011). The Myth of “the” Micro-Macro
Divide: Bridging System-Level and Disciplinary Divides. Journal of Management,
37(2), 581-609. doi: 10.1177/0149206310365000
Morley, M. J., Valverde, M., & Farndale, E. (2017). Call for papers: Talent Management:
Quo Vadis? [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.journals.elsevier.com/brq-
business-research-quarterly/call-for-papers/call-for-papers-talent-management-quo-
vadis
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 36
Morris, S. S., Wright, P. M., Trevor, J., Stiles, P., Stahl, G. K., Snell, S., . . . Farndale, E.
(2009). Global challenges to replicating HR: The role of people, processes, and
systems. Human Resource Management, 48(6), 973-995.
Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and
organizational effectiveness. In K. J. Klein, Kozlowski, Steve W. J. (Ed.), Multilevel
theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new
directions. (pp. 211-266). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.
Paauwe, J., Wright, P. M., & Guest, D. E. (2013). HRM and performance: what do we know
and where should we go? In P. Wright (Ed.), HRM and Performance: Achievements
and Challenges (pp. 1-13). Chichester, Sussex: Wiley.
Ployhart, R. E., Nyberg, A. J., Reilly, G., & Maltarich, M. A. (2014). Human Capital Is Dead;
Long Live Human Capital Resources! Journal of Management, 40(2), 371-398. doi:
10.1177/0149206313512152
PwC. (2017). PwC CEO Survey., from http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ceo-
agenda/ceosurvey.html
Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (2008). Strategic human resource management: John Wiley
& Sons.
Schuler, R. S., Jackson, S. E., & Tarique, I. (2011). Global talent management and global
talent challenges: Strategic opportunities for IHRM. Journal of World Business,
46(4), 506-516. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.10.011
Sheehan, M., & Anderson, V. (2015). Talent management and organizational diversity: A call
for research. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(4), 349-358.
Sonnenberg, M., van Zijderveld, V., & Brinks, M. (2014). The role of talent-perception
incongruence in effective talent management. Journal of World Business, 49(2), 272-
280. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.011
Sparrow, P. R., & Makram, H. (2015). What is the value of talent management? Building
value-driven processes within a talent management architecture. Human Resource
Management Review, 25(3), 249-263. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.04.002
Sparrow, P. R., Vaiman, V., Schuler, R. S., & Collings, D. G. (2018). Macro Talent
Management in Developed Markets: Foundations for a Developing Field. Macro
Talent Management: A Global Perspective on Managing Talent in Developed
Markets. New York City/London: Routledge.
Stahl, G. K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S. S., Paauwe, J., & Stiles, P. (2012). Six
Principles of Effective Global Talent Management. MIT Sloan Management Review,
53(2), 25-32.
Stahl, G. K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S. S., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P., & Wright, P. M.
(2007). Global talent management: How leading multinationals build and sustain their
talent pipeline. Retrieved from:
http://720plan.ovh.net/~inseadpoq/knowledge2/stahl.pdf
SwissInfo. (2018). Switzerland stays attractive for companies and top earners. Taxation
Rates. Retrieved 2019 02 25, 2019, from
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/taxation-rates_switzerland-stays-attractive-for-
companies-and-top-earners-/43814048
Tarique, I., & Schuler, R. S. (2010). Global talent management: Literature review, integrative
framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of World Business, 45(2),
122-133. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.019
Teece, D. J. (2011). Human capital, capabilities, and the firm: Literati, numerati, and
entrepreneurs in the twenty-first century enterprise. The Oxford Handbook of Human
Capital, OUP, Oxford.
King, K. A., & Vaiman, V. (2019). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.04.005 page 37
Thunnissen, M. (2016). Talent management: For what, how and how well? An empirical
exploration of talent management in practice. Employee Relations, 38(1), 57-72. doi:
doi:10.1108/ER-08-2015-0159
Thunnissen, M., Boselie, P., & Fruytier, B. (2013). Talent management and the relevance of
context: Towards a pluralistic approach. Human Resource Management Review,
23(4), 326-336. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.004
Torrington, D., Hall, L., Atkinson, C., & Taylor, S. (2017). Human resource management
(Tenth edition ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson.
Torrington, D., Hall, L., & Taylor, S. (2007). Human Resource Management: Pearson
Education M.U.A.
Vaiman, V., & Collings, D. G. (2013). Talent management: advancing the field. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(9), 1737-1743. doi:
10.1080/09585192.2013.777544
Vaiman, V., & Collings, D. G. (2014). Global talent management. In D. G. Collings, G. T.
Wood, & P. M. Caligiuri (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to International Human
Resource Management: Routledge.
Vaiman, V., Schuler, R. S., Sparrow, P. R., & Collings, D. G. (Eds.). (2018). Macro Talent
Management: A Global Perspective on Managing Talent in Developed Markets. New
York City/London: Routledge.
Vaiman, V., Scullion, H., & Collings, D. G. (2012). Talent management decision making.
Management Decision, 50(5), 925-941. doi: 10.1108/00251741211227663
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The History and Status of General Systems Theory. Academy of
Management Journal, 15(4), 407-426. doi: 10.2307/255139
Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the resource
based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27(6), 701-721. doi:
10.1177/014920630102700607
