Talent Management in academia

Transcription

1 Talent Management in academia Talent Management in academia An exploratory study in Dutch universities using a multi-dimensional approach Marian Thunnissen Marian Thunnissen

2 Talent Management in academia An exploratory study in Dutch universities using a multi-dimensional approach Marian Thunnissen

3 Talent Management in academia. An exploratory study in Dutch universities using a multidimensional approach Marian Thunnissen ISBN Ontwerp binnenwerk en omslag: Madelief Brandsma grafisch ontwerp, Arnhem Drukwerk: CPI Koninklijke Wöhrmann Marian Thunnissen, All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author.

4 Talent Management in academia An exploratory study in Dutch universities using a multi-dimensional approach Talent management in universiteiten Een explorerend onderzoek bij Nederlandse universiteiten vanuit een multidimensionale benadering (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. G.J. van der Zwaan, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 9 januari 2015 des ochtends te uur door Maria Antonia Gerdina Thunnissen geboren op 10 juni 1971 te Renkum

5 Promotor: Copromotor: Prof. dr. J.P.P.E.F. Boselie Dr. B.G.M. Fruytier The work presented in this thesis was supported by the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht (HU).

6 Table of content 1. Introduction Introduction Aim of thesis Research questions Thesis structure A review of Talent Management: Infancy or adolescence? Introduction Research methods Findings Discussion: limitations and alternative perspectives Talent Management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach Introduction Adding new perspectives: expanding the TM paradigm TM and context: A multilevel, multi-value approach Discussion Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach Introduction Underlying research framework: a multiperspective approach Research methods Findings Discussion Research design Introduction Underlying principles of research design Research design Overview of research activities in empirical chapters A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia Introduction A multi-dimensional approach to talent Research methods 120 Talent Management in academia 5

7 6.4 Findings Discussion The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective Introduction Exploring alternative perspectives on the value of TM Research methods Findings Discussion The human side of Talent Management? The value of Talent Management from an employee perspective Introduction An exploration of the talents perspective on the value of TM Research Methods Findings Discussion Conclusions and discussion Introduction Main research findings Theoretical contributions Limitations Implications for practice 209 Appendix 221 Appendix 1: Facts and figures on publicly funded universities in the Netherlands 222 Appendix 2: Topic list interviews with HRM representatives Appendix 3: Topic list interviews with talented employees Appendix 4: Topic list interviews with HRM representatives Appendix 5: Questionnaire talented employees Summary (In Dutch) 233 Nederlandse samenvatting Acknowledgements (In Dutch) 241 Dankwoord 6 Table of Content

8 Chapter 1 Introduction

9 1.1 Introduction Today, the discovery and development of talent is a hot topic in several performance domains, such as sport, education but most of all in music, dance and entertainment. The term talent brings up nearly 26 million YouTube-videos of extraordinary music or dance performances on talent shows such as Idols, X-factor and Got Talent. However, the quest for talent is timeless. It goes back to the ancient Greeks. Originally, talent represented economic value: it was an equivalent of capital. The term tálanton referred to a unit of weight of precious metals (silver or gold). Later on, the ancient Greeks used talent to indicate a unit of money and talent became a coin (Tansley, 2011; Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries & Gonzalez-Cruz, 2013a). One talent represented the value of a large house, and therefore talent was something exclusive that only rich people could possess. In the Middle Ages the term talent acquired new meanings in Europe (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013a). A shift from economic capital to human capital became apparent, but the exclusive character of talent continued to exist. At first, the behavioral components of talent were highlighted, and talent was related to will and desire. Later, in the 15th and 16th century talent was seen as a special ability, aptitude or even a gift from God that needed to be used and developed. This interpretation of talent holds in the 17th century, although the link with divinity became less strong. From the 19th century talent was also regarded as a person, and those perceived as talented were able to demonstrate outstanding accomplishments in mental (the genius ) and physical domains (Tansley, 2011; Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013a). Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2013a) point to the rise of the talent scout (or spotter) in the 1930 s, referring to a person searching for new sport or acting talent. The first principles of talent management became apparent. Initially, the attention to talent was prominent in music, science or sport, but since McKinsey s proclamation of the war for talent in the 2000 s (Michaels, Handfield-Jones & Axelrod, 2001) talent has also been high on the strategic agenda of organizations. In the past ten years, talent management (TM) has become a key management issue. Several studies showed that business leaders consider finding talented people to be the single most important managerial preoccupation for this decade (e.g., Paauwe, 2007; Guthridge, Komm & Lawson, 2008; Deloitte, 2010). These authors expect that the intensifying competition for talent will have a major effect on companies. Despite the recession, many business leaders are adjusting their talent strategies to meet the upcoming talent shortages (Deloitte, 2010). The increasing attention to talent and the expected talent shortages in organizations are affected by several trends and factors, such as demographic changes caused by ageing and increasing mobility and globalization (e.g., Basri & Box, 2008; Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Tarique & Schuler, 2010; Schuler, Jackson Tarique, 2011a, 2011b). Transformational changes in business environments also affect the quantity, quality and characteristics of the talent needed (Ashton & Morton, 2005; Guthridge 8 Chapter 1 - Introduction

10 et al., 2008; Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Schuler et al. 2011a, 2011b; Vaiman, Scullion & Collings, 2012). This refers to developments such as the shift from product-based to knowledge-based economies, the need for employees who can handle more complex occupations, the changes in organizational structure (for example teamwork and network arrangements) and the growing importance of building and sustaining relationships. Schuler et al. (2011b) claim that the success of firms today is dependent on how effectively they identify and manage the talent challenges they are confronted with and adapt to these challenges as they evolve and develop. The question is whether the organization is able to get the right people in the right place at the right time and for the right price. These talent challenges have been intensively debated in popular and practitioner oriented literature, internet magazines and on social networking sites (Iles, Preece & Chai, 2010; Vaiman, et al., 2012). For example, at the moment (October 2014) LinkedIn has nearly 1500 professional groups discussing the ins and outs on TM. Over the past decade approximately 200 articles on talent and TM have been published in Harvard Business Review, of which 35 appeared in the last two years: articles written by consultants and CEO s, as well as scholars like John Boudreau and Peter Cappelli. Although scholars have also produced a considerable number of publications on talent and TM over the course of the past decade, the amount of scholarly peerreviewed literature is lagging behind. This illustrates a gap between the practitioner and academic interest in the subject (Dries, 2013; Al Arris, Cascio & Paauwe, 2013). In the academic field of human resources management (HRM), talent and TM seem to be relative poorly developed research subjects. The term TM lacks a clear distinct meaning, since many scholars approach TM as, for example, an equivalent of HRM, workforce planning or management development (Lewis & Heckman, 2006). To add a lasting contribution to the field of HRM, TM has to settle some limitations and difficulties. First, the field of TM lacks a stable theoretical foundation. Up till now, the literature on talent and TM has been highly conceptual (Lewis & Hackman, 2006). These conceptual papers explore the field in all possible directions, using a broad range of academic traditions, including international HRM, strategic HRM, and Organizational Behavior (OB). However, this does not imply that all scholars speak the same TM language. Theoretical approaches are hardly integrated or linked, and consensus on TM principles is therefore hard to find (Lewis & Heckman, 2006; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Al Arris et al., 2013; Nijs, Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, & Sels, 2013). According to Dries (2013, p.3) vague but appealing rhetoric even causes critics to question whether TM is not just a management fashion. Moreover, this criticism is endorsed by the lack of empirical evidence for the conceptual models and ideas (Lewis & Heckman, 2006; Dries, 2013). Only recently has the number of empirical studies increased, most of which are based on qualitative Talent Management in academia 9

11 research (Gallardo-Gallardo, Nijs, Dries & Gallo, forthcoming). According to Denzin and Lincoln (1994) this is quite normal in incipient fields of study in which the variables and theory-base are unknown. Third, the current TM literature reflects a biased view on talent and TM. In most publications discussing TM the organizational perspective is underlined, for example the contribution of TM to organizational objectives such as organizational flexibility, profit and organization s sustainable competitive advantage (e.g., Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Ulrich & Ulrich, 2010). This emphasis on organizations interest is also noticeable in empirical research on TM, in which HR professionals, managers and executives are the commonly targeted research population (e.g., Stahl et al., 2012). So, even though talent or talented employees are the central subjects in TM, there is little interest in their experiences and opinions. Just a few empirical studies examine TM from an employees perspective (e.g., Björkman et al., 2013; Dries & Pepermans, 2008; Dries, 2011; Tansley & Tietze, 2013). Fourth, the contemporary TM literature highlights the talent issues of a select category of organizations. There is a strong focus on TM in private sector organizations, multinationals and organizations in the US-context (Collings, Scullion & Vaiman, 2011; Powel et al., 2012). Yet, many scholars present their theoretical frameworks as universal models, suitable to explain TM in all kinds of organizations. However, Paauwe (2004; Paauwe et al., 2013) states that contextual factors affect the shaping of the employment relationship and HRM. Since the circumstances and characteristics of private sector organizations differ from those in, for example, public or non-profit sector organizations (Christensen, Laegrid, Roness & Rovik, 2007), the current concepts and assumptions in the TM literature related to the context of US-based, private and multinational organizations are probably less than adequate to describe and study TM in organizations in other contexts. The number of publications on TM in other continents than North-America has recently been increasing, such as publications on TM in Europe (e.g., Festing, Schäfer, & Scullion, 2013; Oltra, & Vivas-López, 2013), Asia (e.g., Preece, Iles & Jones, 2013; Vance, Chow, Paik & Shin, 2013) or the Middle East (Sidani & Al Ariss, 2014). However, TM issues in non-profit, public or voluntary organizations, such as health care institutes (e.g., Groves 2011; Powell et al. 2012), education institutes (e.g., Davies & Davies 2010; Van den Brink, Thunnissen & Fruytier 2013) or public sector organizations (e.g., Glenn 2012; Harrisr & Foster 2013), remain under-explored. 10 Chapter 1 - Introduction

12 1.2 Aim of thesis In sum, we notice that many business leaders, practitioners and academics attach great value to talent and TM, but there is still little known about how (and how well) TM really works in practice. In addition, current assumptions, viewpoints and actions appear to be based on a narrow and biased TM paradigm. This thesis aims to identify and explain what happens in practice, and intends to contribute to the building of a broader and more balanced theoretical framework for TM. To achieve these objectives an ongoing process of theory building and gathering data was conducted, as suggested by the analytical approach to HRM of Boxall, Purcell and Wright (2007). Boxall, Purcell and Wright (2007) claim that the fundamental mission of the academic discipline of HRM is not to propagate perceptions of best practices in excellent organizations but, first of all, to identify and explain what happens in practice (Boxall, Purcell & Wright, 2007, p. 4). Therefore, the analytical approach to HRM starts from descriptive research addressing the what, why, how and for whom questions that underpin the activity (Boxall, 2013). To get a rigorous understanding of what actually happens in practice and why, Boxall, Purcell and Wright (2007) emphasize the point that the impact of the broader organizational context has to be considered in both the theoretical frameworks (in search for moderators), and in empirical research (i.e. contextually based research). In order to clarify how HRM might work in practice, models and theories from related academic subfields need to be integrated in models on the HRM process. Moreover, to get a clear understanding of the chain of processes that make HRM work well or poorly (including the moderating factors), Boxall, Purcell and Wright (2007) argue that thorough evidence-based research is required. Finally, to get an answer to the questions of for whom? and how well?, analytical HRM is concerned with assessing outcomes at multiple levels: it is examining the extent to which employer and worker outcomes are mutually satisfying, and, thus, more sustainable in our society over the long run (Boxall, Purcell & Wright, 2007, p.7). Adopting the analytical approach to the study of TM contributes to previous knowledge on TM in a number of ways. First, in this thesis theoretical approaches from companion academic disciplines HRM, OB, organization theory and educational psychology are added as new building blocks and linked to the dominant viewpoints in the TM literature to create an integrated, multi-perspective approach to talent and TM. This is an important theoretical contribution to the field, since most publications and studies focus on a single aspect of TM. Second, to give counterbalance to the tendency to use universal models to explain TM in all organizations, this thesis contextualizes talent and TM: the impact of the context and its interrelated actors is taken into account (e.g., Greenwood, 2002; Paauwe, 2004; Boxall, Purcell & Wright, 2007). The broader model will help in studying and implementing TM across different contexts. Third, corresponding to analytical HRM, this study goes beyond a focus on management interests, and investigates to what extent other stakehold- Talent Management in academia 11

13 ers benefit from TM. In particular, the employee perspective on TM is included. The talents needs and preferences, and their perceptions of the value of the TM practices implemented by their employer are explored. In doing so, we acknowledge that TM is a mixture of a rational and a political process which may create variance and tensions. The integration of both the organizational and employee perspective is uncommon in the field of TM. Finally, the thesis bridges the gap between theory and practice. In contrast to many conceptual TM papers, the value of the new theoretical building blocks is explored in empirical research. The empirical data was collected in a specific context: Dutch publicly funded universities. The university is the outstanding example of a talent organization. The terms talent, highly-gifted or genius are often used to refer to a philosopher or scientist with extraordinary insights, a great mind who realized critical breakthroughs in his or her academic field. Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Immanuel Kant or Marie Curie are frequently mentioned as typical examples of genii. For centuries, the university tried to provide an independent intellectual space to nurture and nourish these genii. Today, universities are still looking for the most gifted and committed academics, even though the quest for talent seems to be more grounded in economic factors. The presence of highly qualified academic staff is extremely important for the quality of educational programs and academic research, the universities reputation, and the knowledge condition in a region (Florida, 1999; Enders, De Boer, File, Jongbloed & Westerheijden, 2011). This raises the question if, and how, this typical talent organization attracts and develops their employees. Because of the contextual relevance of TM, we will consider the specific characteristics of today s Dutch publicly funded universities, of academic work and academic workers, as well as their impact on the conceptualization of talent, TM and the effects of TM. Therefore, the thesis is also an opportunity to learn more about the talent issues in this specific subsector. The broader approach to talent and TM also has practical relevance. It provides organizations with opportunities to expand their view of talent and TM, and to use the multi-dimensional approach as a guide in the discussion of their own operationalization of talent and the outcomes of TM, and the design of their TM system. In this way organizations can build a well-thought out TM system in which all options are explicitly considered, and which anticipates the potential positive and negative effects of their talent decisions. 12 Chapter 1 - Introduction

14 1.3 Research questions The above reasoning results in the following main research question for the thesis: What is the potential and actual value of TM for the organization and the talented employees, and what factors affect the design, implementation and effectiveness of TM in Dutch universities? In order to answer this research question, we first need to gain insight into the lessons learned in TM so far, and to increase our understanding of the context in which the study takes place. Therefore, the following conceptual and contextual sub questions will be answered: 1. What are the dominant themes and the leading assumptions in the current TM literature, and what are possible omissions? 2. What are the most relevant developments in the external context of Dutch universities, how have they affected the academic organization, academic work and academic staff, and in what way do Dutch universities manage and mobilize their people? Subsequently, in the empirical study, the following, more specific sub questions will be answered: 3. How is talent defined by relevant actors in the context of Dutch universities? 4. What are (a) the goals the organization intends to achieve with TM; and what are (b) the needs and preferences of talented academic employees regarding their working environment and employment relationship? 5. What TM practices, activities and instruments have been (a) developed by the organization; and (b) implemented? 6. What are the employees experiences with, and perceptions of, the implemented TM practices and activities? 7. What are the perceptions of the outcomes by (a) the organization, and, (b) the talented employees? 8. What hindering and enabling factors affect the design, implementation and effectiveness of TM? Talent Management in academia 13

15 1.4 Thesis structure The overall study can be characterized as an explorative and descriptive study, in which several aspects of TM are profoundly examined in a continuing process of theory building and gathering data. In this exploration a mixture of qualitative and quantitative research activities is used. The thesis starts with a general exploration of the meaning of talent and TM. Chapter 2 offers a review of the academic TM literature to provide a clear understanding of the lessons learned so far (research question 1). For this purpose 62 articles on talent and TM are analyzed. The leading viewpoints regarding three dominant themes are explored in more detail: the exploration of the concept of talent, the intended outcomes or effects of TM and TM practices. In the discussion the one-dimensional and narrow approach to the topic is identified as a main limitation of the existing TM literature. Chapter 3 builds on these limitations, presents alternative perspectives, and the rudiments for a theoretical framework regarding the contextual relevance of TM are developed. We offer an in-depth discussion of the potential economic and noneconomic value created by TM at the individual, organizational, and societal level. The theoretical ideas developed in chapter 3 lay the foundation for further theoretical and empirical explorations in the empirical chapters, in which new theoretical building blocks are added to identify and clarify what happens in practice in more detail. The acknowledgement of the contextual relevance of TM also implies that, after two conceptual chapters, we make an attempt to get a profound understanding of the research context (as formulated in the 2nd research question). Chapter 4 describes how the academic organization, academic work and working as an academic have developed in interaction with recent reforms in the external environment, and discusses the effects on HRM policy and, subsequently, on academic TM. The information is gathered through a study of academic literature on studies in Higher Education (HE), policy documents on the Dutch HE system, and several empirical studies on HRM in Dutch academic organizations. To fill in the blanks of the literature study an additional, small explorative qualitative research study was conducted, i.e. interviews with fourteen representatives of relevant stakeholder groups in Dutch academia. Again, multiple integrated theoretical frameworks from different academic disciples are used in this contextual analysis to order the data and to describe the developments. The conceptual and the contextual chapters offered significant input for the design of the empirical study. A complete overview of the research methods for the empirical study is given in chapter 5. The preceding chapters also made it possible to identify the key issues which needed further empirical investigation, including the more specific theoretical buildings blocks necessary to complement the rudiments 14 Chapter 1 - Introduction

16 of the broader and more balanced theoretical framework for TM developed in chapters 2 and 3. A study on talent management would be incomplete without a detailed exploration of the definition of talent. Therefore, in chapter 6 the conceptualization of talent in the context of Dutch academia is made central (3rd research question). Instead of the one-dimensional approach to talent, which is so common in conceptual TM literature, this chapter explores the value of a multidimensional interpretation of talent. This multidimensional interpretation of talent is based on a widely recognized model in educational psychology: the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) by Gagné, (2004; 2010). This multidimensional approach to talent shows that different actors inside and outside the organization have divergent interpretations of talent, and clarifies that the interpretation of talent has an impact on the configuration of the TM system. For this chapter the data from two complementary studies on defining talent in Dutch academia are used. After a review of the definition of talent, we shift focus and investigate the management of talents to get an understanding of how TM works in practice and to what extent crucial stakeholders benefit from TM. We attempt to get an understanding of the value of TM from the perspective of two crucial actors in academic TM: the organization (represented by management and HR) and employees. In chapter 7 the experiences with TM on behalf of the organization are put central. We explore what the organization wanted to achieve with TM and how they did that (research questions 4 and 5). Since we gathered a set of longitudinal data in a multi-method study on TM policies and practices in five Dutch university departments, it is also possible to explore the outcomes perceived by the organization, as well as the difficulties they experienced in implementing TM (research questions 7 and 8). To enhance our understanding of the what, why, how and for who questions on TM on behalf of the organization, models on the characterization of HRM (e.g., Legge, 2005), the HRM process (Paauwe, 2007; Wright & Nishii, 2013) and contextual fit (e.g., Paauwe et al., 2013) are adopted to expand the narrow TM paradigm. In the longitudinal, multi-method study on TM policies and practices in five Dutch university departments we also collected data from a large group of talented employees. Therefore, chapter 8 discusses the value of TM from an employee s perspective. We focus on the experiences of the employees with their employers TM, by examining their needs and interests regarding their work and employment relationship, the talents perception of the TM practices implemented, and the effects talents perceived by the actual TM practices (research questions 4, 6 and 7). For this exploration models from the OB domain are applied to build theory, such as on work orientations (e.g., Kalleberg & Marsden, 2013; Oldman & Heckman, 2010), the employment relationship (e.g., Tsui & Wu, 2005) and psychological contract (e.g., Guest, 2013; Sonnenberg, 2006). Talent Management in academia 15

17 In the final chapter of the thesis, chapter 9, the findings and conclusions of the previous chapters are connected with each other. We answer the aforementioned research questions and discuss the usefulness of the added theoretical building blocks we have used in the study. At the end we give directions for future research, and practical implications are presented. A final remark concerning the thesis structure. This thesis is composed of (published or accepted for publication) peer-reviewed articles (chapter 2, 3 and 6), conference papers (chapter 4, 7 and 8) and chapters which have not been published or presented before (chapter 1, 5 and 9). The articles and conference papers are adapted and adjusted to construct a coherent and easy to read thesis. This implies that some terms have been replaced (for example the term paper is replaced by chapter ), terms in section headings are synchronized (for example, the consequent use of findings as a heading instead of results ), and that references to other articles or papers written by the author of this thesis are replaced by a reference to the specific thesis chapter. Also the introduction and discussion sections have been adjusted or shortened to create an optimal connection between the chapters. For example, in the article on which chapter 3 is based, the findings of chapter 2 (dominant themes and limitations) are discussed thoroughly again. For the readability of the theses, this section is cut back to a short summary in the introduction section of chapter 3. Lastly, since we were not restricted to a maximum amount of words, we have added some extra quotations in the empirical chapters (6, 7 and 8) to illustrate the findings. On the other hand, we tried to keep the content and overall structure of the articles and conference papers intact, so they are still readable as independent papers. This implies that, in particular in the empirical chapters, there is the possibility of some recurring information already presented in preceding chapters, for example in the methods section in which the research context and the methodology is presented. Table 1.1 gives an overview of the aims, specific research questions, resource methods and the source of the thesis chapters. 16 Chapter 1 - Introduction

18 Table 1.1: Overview of Chapters: Aim, research questions, research methods and source Chapter Research Methods Source 2. A review of talent management: Infancy or adolescence? Aim: gain a clear understanding of the lessons learned so far. Research question: What are dominant themes and the leading points of view and assumptions in the current talent management literature, and what are possible omissions? 3. Talent Management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach Aim: contribute to the development of a broader, more balanced approach to TM that will help in studying and implementing talent management across different contexts. 4. Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach Aim: provide a detailed contextual analysis. Research questions: What are the most relevant reforms in the external context of Dutch universities, How have they affected the academic organization, academic work and academic staff, and in what way do Dutch universities manage and mobilize their people? 5. Research design Literature review of 62 peer reviewed articles, book chapters, books and conference papers on TM Literature study and small qualitative study, i.e. interviews with 14 representatives stakeholders within Dutch academia Article published in International Journal of HRM (2013) Article published in Human Resource Management Review (2013) Papers presented at EGOS (2012; 2014), ECER conference (2013), and article published in Tijdschrift for HRM (2014) Talent Management in academia 17

19 Chapter Research Methods Source 6. A multi-dimensional approach to talent: an empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia Aim: contribute to the development of a multi-dimensional approach to talent Research questions: How is talent operationalized in Dutch academia? To what extend do universities TM systems pay attention to (the development of) the important characteristics? What are the difficulties in defining, selecting and developing talent? 7. The value of TM: An organizational perspective Aim: gain insight, through empirical research, in the intended and perceived outcomes of TM and the related TM activities and practices of organizations. Research questions: What are the goals the organization intends to achieve with TM? What TM practices, activities and instruments have been developed and implemented by the organization? Did the organization achieve their intended goals? What hindering and enabling factors affect the development/design, implementation and effectiveness of TM? Study 1: Case studies in 5 Dutch university departments (data 2009): document analysis, interviews with key figures TM (30), interviews/ focus groups with 70 academics Study 2: Identification of talents by members of grant committees: semi-structured interviews with 29 members of NWO-grant committee Case studies in 5 Dutch university departments: Data 2009: Document analysis Interviews with 30 key figures TM Data 2013: Interviews with 12 key figures TM Article accepted for publication in Personnel Review Paper presented at the Dutch HRM Conference (2013) 18 Chapter 1 - Introduction

20 Chapter Research Methods Source 8. The human side of TM? The value of TM from an employee perspective Aim: contribute to our understanding of the potential value of TM from the perspective of the organization. Research questions: What are the needs and preferences of talented academic employees regarding their working environment and employment relationship? What are the employees experiences with and perceptions of the TM practices and activities implemented? What are the employees perceptions of the outcomes? 9. Conclusions and Discussion Case studies in 5 Dutch university departments: Data 2009: Interviews/ focus groups with 70 talented academics Telephonic interviews with 10 departed talented academics Data 2013: Questionnaire interviewed talents 2009 (48) + analyses LinkedIn profiles (25) Paper presented at the 2nd EIASM workshop on TM (2013) Talent Management in academia 19

21 References Al Ariss, A.,, W. Cascio, & Paauwe, P., (2013) Talent management: Current theories and future research directions. Journal of World Business, 49(2), Ashton, C., & Morton, L. (2005), Managing Talent for Competitive Advantage. Taking a Systematic Approach to Talent Management, Strategic HR Review, 4, Basri, E., & Box, S. (2008), The Global Competition for Talent: Mobility of the Highly Skilled, Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Beechler, S., & Woodward, I.C. (2009), The Global War for Talent, Journal of International Management, 15, Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Höglund, M., Mäkelä, K., Smale, A., & Sumelius, J. (2013). Talent or not? Employee reactions to talent identification. Human Resource Management, 52(2), Boxall, P. (2013), Building Highly-Performing Work Systems: Analysing HR Systems and Their Contributions to Performance, in HRM and Performance. Achievements and Challenges, eds. Paauwe, J., Guest & Wright, P. (2013), Chichester: Wiley, pp Boxall, P., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. (2007), Human Resource Management: Scope, Analysis, and Significance, in The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, eds. Boxall, P., Purcell, J. & Wright, P. (2007), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp Christensen, T., Laegrid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rovik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory for the public sector. Instrument, culture and myth. Florence: Routledge. Collings, D.G., & Mellahi, K. (2009), Strategic Talent Management: A Review and Research Agenda, Human Resource Management Review, 19, Collings, D.G., Scullion, H. & Vaiman, V. (2011), European Perspectives on Talent Management, European Journal of International Management, 5, Davies, B., & Davies, B.J. (2010), Talent Management in Academies, International Journal of Educational Management, 24, Deloitte (2010), Talent Edge 2020: Blueprints for the New Normal, deloitte.com/ assets/dcomunitedstates/local%20assets/documents/imos/ Talent/us_talentedge pdf Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks. CA: Stage. Dries, N. (2011). Effects of the high potential label on performance, career success and commitment: A matter of communication? Congress paper, Dutch HRM-Conference Groningen Dries, N. (2013). The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), Chapter 1 - Introduction

22 Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2008). Real high-potential careers: An empirical study into the perspectives of organizations and high potentials. Personnel Review, 37(1), Enders, J., De Boer, H. F., File, J., Jongbloed, B., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2011). Reform of higher education in Europe. In J. Enders, H. F. De Boer & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reform of higher education in Europe (pp. 1-10). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Festing, M., Schäfer, L., & Scullion, H. (2013). Talent management in medium-sized German companies: an explorative study and agenda for future research. International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 24(9), Florida, R. (1999). The role of the university: leveraging talent, not technology. Issues in science and technology, 15, Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), Gagné, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High ability studies, 21(2), Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & González-Cruz, T. (2013a). What is the meaning of talent in the world of work? Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Nijs, S., Dries, N. & Gallo, P. (forthcoming). Towards an Understanding of Talent Management as a Phenomenon-Driven Field Using Bibliometric and Content Analysis. Human Resource Management Review. Glenn, T. (2012). The state of talent management in Canada s public sector, Canadian Public Administration, 55(1), Greenwood, M.R. (2002), Ethics and HRM: A Review and Conceptual Analysis, Journal of Business Ethics, 36, Groves, K. S. (2011). Talent management best practices: How exemplary health care organizations create value in a down economy, Health Care Management Review, 36(3), Guest, D. (2007), HRM and the Worker: Towards a New Psychological Contract? in: The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, eds. Boxall, P., Purcell, J. & Wright, P. (2007), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp Guthridge, M., Komm, A.B., & Lawson, E. (2008), Making Talent a Strategic Priority, McKinsey Quarterly, 1, Harrisr, L. & Foster, C. (2013). Aligning talent management with approaches to equality and diversity: Challenges for UK public sector managers, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29(5), Iles, P., Preece, D. & Chuai, X. (2010). Talent management as a management fashion in HRD: towards a research agenda. Human Resource Development International, 13(2), Talent Management in academia 21

23 Kalleberg, A. & Marsden. P. (2013). Changing work values in the United States, Social Science Research, 42(2), Legge, K. (2005). Human resource management: rhetorics and realities. Anniversary Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan Lewis, R.E., & Heckman, R.J. (2006), Talent Management: A Critical Review, Human Resource Management Review, 16, Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Nijs, S., Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & Sels, L. (2013). A multidisciplinary review into the definition, operationalization, and measurement of talent. Journal of World Business, 49(2), Oldham, G. & Hackman, J. (2010), Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Special Issue: Putting Job Design in Context. 31(2-3), Oltra, V., & Vivas-López, S. (2013). Boosting organizational learning through teambased talent management: what is the evidence from large Spanish firms?. International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 24(9), Paauwe, J. (2004), HRM and Performance: Achieving Long-Term Viability, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paauwe, J. (2007), HRM and Performance: In Search of Balance, Netherlands: Tilburg University. Paauwe, J., Boon, C., Boselie, P. & Den Hartog, D. (2013), Reconceptualizing Fit in Strategic Human Resource Management: Lost in Translation?, in HRM and Performance. Achievements and Challenges, eds. Paauwe, J., Guest & Wright, P. (2013), Chichester: Wiley, pp Powell, J., Durose, J., Duberly, J. Exworthy, M. Fewtrell, C. MacFarlane, F. & Moss, P. (2012). Talent Management in the NHS Managerial Workforce. Final report. NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme. Preece, D., Iles, P. & Jones, R. (2013) MNE regional head offices and their affiliates: talent management practices and challenges in the Asia Pacific. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(18), p Schuler, R.S., Jackson, S.E., & Tarique, I. (2011a), Framework for Global Talent Management: HR Actions for Dealing With Global Talent Challenges, in Global Talent Management, eds. Scullion, H. & Collings, D., London and New York: Routledge, pp Schuler, R.S., Jackson, S.E., & Tarique, I. (2011b), Global Talent Management and Global Talent Challenges: Strategic Opportunities for IHRM, Journal of World Business, 46, Chapter 1 - Introduction

24 Sidani, Y. & Al Ariss, A. (2014), Institutional and corporate drivers of global talent management: Evidence from the Arab Gulf region, Journal of World Business, 49(2), Sonnenberg, M. (2006). The signalling effect of HRM on psychological contracts of employees: A multi-level perspective. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam. Stahl, G.K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S.S., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P., Trevor, J., & Wright, P.M. (2012), Six Principles of Effective Global talent management, MIT Sloan Management review, 53, Tansley, C. (2011), What Do We Mean by the Term Talent in Talent Management? Industrial and Commercial Training, 43, Tansley, C. & Tietze, S. (2013). Rites of passage through talent management progression stages: an identity work perspective, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(9), Tarique, I., & Schuler, R.S. (2010), Global Talent Management: Literature Review, Integrative Framework, and Suggestions for Further Research, Journal of World Business, 45, Tsui, A. S. & Wu, J. B. (2005). The new employment relationship versus the mutual investment approach: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 44(2), Ulrich, D., & Ulrich, M. (2010), Marshalling Talent, Paper Accepted at the 2010 Academy of Management Annual Meeting. Vaiman, V., Scullion, H.& Collings, D. (2012), Talent Management Decision Making, Management Decision, 50, Vance, C., Chow, I., Paik, Y & Shin, K. (2013) Analysis of Korean expatriate congruence with Chinese labor perceptions on training method importance: implications for global talent management. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 24(5), Van den Brink, M., Fruytier, B. & Thunnissen, M. (2013), Talent management in academia: performance systems and HRM policies. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(2), Wright, P. & Nishii, L. (2013), Strategic HRM and Organizational Behaviour: Integrating Multiple Levels of Analysis, in HRM and Performance. Achievements and Challenges, eds. Paauwe, J., Guest & Wright, P. (2013), Chichester: Wiley, pp Talent Management in academia 23

25 24 Chapter 1 - Introduction

26 Chapter 2 A review of Talent Management: Infancy or adolescence? This chapter is based on: Thunnissen, M., Boselie, P., & Fruytier, B. (2013). A review of TM: infancy or adolescence? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(9),

27 2.1 Introduction In popular and practitioner oriented literature, internet magazines and on social networking sites there is an extensive debate on how organizations manage the talent challenges they are confronted with. Since 2001, academics have also produced a considerable amount of literature on talent management (TM) (Dries, 2013). In 2006, Lewis and Heckman concluded that, despite the volume of academic literature, TM was still in its infancy; it lacked a clear and consistent definition and scope as well as a conceptual framework based on empirical research. In 2009, this was again confirmed by Collings and Mellahi. Just two years later, Collings, Scullion and Vaiman (2011) concluded that the field had moved from infancy to adolescence, thanks to the contribution of many, mainly US-based, scholars using North American thinking and research. However, this resulted, in their view, in a dominant influence of the US context on the debate. In addition, Powell et al. (2012) state that there is also a strong focus on TM in the private sector and in multinationals. This is comparable to the general field of Human Resource Management (HRM) (Keegan & Boselie, 2006), but in the field of HRM there is a growing awareness of the relevant impact of contextual factors on the shaping of the employment relationship and HRM (Paauwe, 2004). Following this line of reasoning, we therefore assume that the current concepts and assumptions in the TM literature related to the context of US-based, private and multinational organizations are less than adequate to describe and study TM in organizations in other contexts, such as public or non-profit organizations or small and medium enterprises. Collings et al. (2011) urged the need for new influences on the TM debate in order to frame TM in more novel ways. They therefore called for a counterbalance from different perspectives and traditions. In this chapter we respond to the call of Collings et al. (2011). We offer a review of academic literature on TM, in which we present the dominant themes and the leading points of view and assumptions in the current TM literature. We also discuss possible omissions and limitations in the literature reviewed. To balance these limitations, we will suggest some alternative perspectives based on lessons learned from developments in the field of HRM. The Paauwe (2004) and Boselie (2010) approaches in HRM, for example, suggest a more balanced approach, taking into account institutional factors related to the organizational context, the inclusion of multiple stakeholders beyond the usual suspects (for example, shareholders and managers) and a balanced view on performance, including organizational effectiveness, employee well-being and societal well-being. Our central research question is: what has been achieved until now in the field of TM and what lessons can be learned from prior research and literature? 26 Chapter 2 - A review of Talent Management: Infancy or adolescence?

28 2.2 Research methods We started our search for academic literature on TM with a query in the Google Scholar search engine. The number of hits was too large to review (over 170,000 hits for publications on TM between 2001 and 2012). But this first search gave an insight into the broad range of publications and sources on the subject. For a more detailed search, we used the Academic Search Premier, Science Direct, Web of Knowledge and Scopus databases to collect academic literature on TM published between 2001 and Spring These databases were chosen because they are multidisciplinary and are supported by different publishers. They give access to a broad variety of academic journals and publications. Talent and TM were the keywords in our search. We restricted the literature review to publications in English. Only publications whose content entirely focused on talent and TM were selected. We included the most cited publications according to Google Scholar, Web of Science and Scopus. The field is relatively young, with many recent, not-yet-cited publications; so, it would be inappropriate to restrict ourselves only to the most-cited articles. Furthermore, we focused on peer-reviewed literature, such as articles in peer-reviewed journals. In addition to the query in search engines and databases, we used the reference lists of the assembled publications to gather interesting documents that did not appear in our search in the databases. We limited the number of publications on global TM. Analyzing all these articles would overemphasize the international or multinational context. We did, however, include the publications that appeared in the summaries of the most cited articles (for example, articles in the special issue of Journal of World Business (2010) on global TM). We also restricted the number of books, conference papers, et cetera, although we could not exclude all these non-peer reviewed documents. Some appeared in the list of most cited publications or in other reference lists. In total, we collected 62 documents on the subject. They are marked with an * in the reference list. Forty-three of the documents are (peer reviewed) articles from international journals (Table 2.1). The other documents are conference papers, dissertations and books (or book chapters) on TM. The number of publications is sufficient to accomplish the aim of the chapter, i.e. a description of the dominant themes, leading points of view and omissions. We cannot give a definitive, all inclusive review of every publication published in the field between 2001 and Spring The publications were analyzed in a number of ways. First, we wanted to attain an understanding of the general characteristics of the publications. We classified the nature (whether it had a conceptual nature or was based on empirical research) and the focus of the publication (strategic TM, global TM or (single) practice oriented based on the HRM subfields distinguished by Boxall, Purcell and Wright (2007)). Information on the backgrounds of the authors was obtained as well. Subsequently, the dominant themes in the publications were addressed. We examined the publications for their Talent Management in academia 27

29 definitions of TM and talent, the description of the intended outcomes and effects and the TM practices discussed. The dominant viewpoints and assumptions within the themes were explored. We also checked whether the authors paid attention to the stakeholders involved in TM, such as the role of human resources (HR), management or employees. Finally, we considered whether the authors discussed the link between TM and the internal and external organizational context (Paauwe, 2004; Boselie, 2010). The results of these analyses will be discussed in the next section. 2.3 Findings Mapping the field of TM Before discussing the central themes and dominant views in the TM literature, we will give a broad outline of the 62 publications we analyzed. Approximately two-thirds of these documents were articles published in peer-reviewed journals. The wide variety of journals is remarkable (see table 2.1). We not only found articles in typical HRM journals (such as Human Resource Management Review and Human Resource Planning) but also in international management journals (e.g., Journal of World Business), business journals (e.g., Harvard Business Review) and journals for specific sectors of industry (e.g., International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management and Health Care Management Review). The wide variety of journal outlets highlights the relevance of the TM theme for a wide audience, including an HRM audience, an international management audience (for example related to expatriate management), a general business audience (for example those potentially interested in succession planning and leadership development) and sector- specific TM themes, such as health care. A query in the academic databases showed a large increase in the number of publications and citations since A wide variety of authors is also prevalent. The majority of scholars is situated in the USA (also noted by Collings et al. (2011)). Scholars from the fields of strategic HRM (for example Cappelli, Boudreau, Becker, Huselid and Stahl) and international HRM (e.g., Schuler and Scullion) are active in the field of TM. In other words, the TM literature is built on a broad range of academic traditions, including international HRM (for example closely related to expat management), strategic HRM (for example linking strategy and managing valuable talents) and Organizational Behavior (OB) (for example related to career development and management development). These different traditions bring in multiple lenses and approaches. In the field of HRM, there is little consensus on the concept of HRM (Boselie, Dietz & Boon, 2005). Based on the findings presented above, we expect even less consensus in the TM domain given the diversity in approaches (for example strategic HRM, OB and international management). 28 Chapter 2 - A review of Talent Management: Infancy or adolescence?

30 Table 2.1: Journals and literature analyzed International Journals: Develop Harvard Business Review Human Resource Planning Human Resource Management Review Employment Relations Today European Journal of International Management Health Care Management Review Industrial and Commercial Training International Journal of Business Management and Economic Research International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management International Journal of Education Management Journal of Business and Psychology Journal of Business Studies Quarterly Journal of International Management Journal of Knowledge Management Journal of World Business Journal of Vocational Behavior Management Decision Mc Kinsey Quarterly MIT Sloan Management Review Organizational Dynamics Outlook. The Journal of high-performance business Personnel Review Public Personnel Management Strategic HR Review The Journal of Quality and Participation Transfusion Books or sections of books Papers Publications of institutes and universities (e.g., INSEAD, OECD, CIPD, Deloitte) Total 62 Number of publications Lewis and Heckman (2006) and Collings and Mellahi (2009) concluded that TM lacks empirical research. This is confirmed by our literature review. One third of the articles in our literature study presented the results of empirical research. Nevertheless, the number of empirical research papers has increased since The scope of the empirical research papers is broad. We found several case studies which describe practices in a single organization or in a certain region and country (e.g., Ready & Talent Management in academia 29

31 Conger, 2007; Kirkland, 2009; Burbach & Royle, 2010; Makela, Björkman & Ehrnrooth, 2010). Other studies focus on sub-functions of TM; examples are the studies of Dries and others on the careers of high potential and on the effects of the high potential label on performance, career success and commitment (Dries & Pepermans, 2008; Dries 2011; Dries, Van Acker & Verbruggen, 2011) and the study of Höglund (2012), who applied psychological contract theory to explore the direct and indirect linkages between skill-enhancing HRM and human capital. Finally, we came across (mainly quantitative) studies presenting the TM challenges and factors in success experienced by CEOs, HRM departments or talent specialists (e.g., Guthridge, Komm & Lawson, 2006, 2008; Stahl et al. 2007, 2012; Powell et al. 2012). Two-thirds of the analyzed academic papers on TM is conceptual, exploring the field of TM. The focus of the publications is diverse. All the HRM subfields strategic HRM, international HRM and practice-oriented HRM (Boxall et al., 2007) are discussed. Approximately half of the conceptual papers address the link between TM and strategy and discuss how TM can contribute to organizational performance and competitive advantage (e.g., Cappelli, 2000, 2008a; Boudreau, 2005; Farley, 2005; Ready and Conger, 2007; Somaya & Williamson, 2011). Scholars like Pfeffer (2001), Martin and Schmidt (2010) and Burkus and Osula (2011) make critical remarks on the link between TM and strategy. They describe misguided assumptions or the negative effects of TM. The challenges in managing global talent, TM in multinationals and TM in key or emerging economies are addressed by numerous publications (e.g., Beechler & Woodward. 2009; Mellahi & Collings, 2010; McDonnell, Hickey & Gunnigle, 2011; Schuler, Jackson & Tarique, 2011b). Most of these articles were published in the special issue on global TM in the Journal of World Business (2010) and in a book on global TM (Scullion & Collings, 2011). Third, single HR practices, such as recruitment and selection, talent pools and development, are covered in conceptual papers as well (e.g., Blass & April, 2008; Jansen & Van der Pool, 2009; Kirkland, 2009). Finally, we found articles focusing on one aspect of TM, for example the definition of talent (Tansley, 2011; Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries & Gonzalez-Cruz, 2012) and the role of the HR function (Farley, 2005; Farndale, Scullion & Sparrow, 2010). It should be noted that the TM literature does not enter upon new or unknown matters. The issues are similar to the ones in the field of strategic or international HRM, but now use excellence or the management of (scarce) talents as a starting point. In summary, Lewis and Heckman already concluded in 2006 that the empirical research on TM is underrepresented. Until now, the majority of the academic literature is still conceptual, trying to respond to the question of what TM is. The scope of this exploratory expedition has been broad, considering the wide variety of journals, authors and subjects discussed. 30 Chapter 2 - A review of Talent Management: Infancy or adolescence?

32 2.3.2 Dominant themes in TM literature After we established a general picture of the literature on TM, we started the detailed exploration of the concept of talent and TM (definitions). In their review of TM literature, Lewis and Heckman (2006) pointed out that it is difficult to come to an unambiguous definition and conceptualization of TM. They identified three streams of thought regarding TM. The first stream labels regular HRM practices as TM with some minor differences ( doing it faster or across the enterprise ). This stream is related to the concept that talent equals human capital; so, TM equals HRM. According to Lewis and Heckman (2006), the second stream of the TM literature focuses primarily on the concept of talent pools and regards TM as a process to ensure an adequate flow of employees throughout the organization. They see a great deal of resemblance to succession planning or human resource planning intended to fill specific (mainly management) positions. The third perspective on TM, as identified by Lewis and Heckman, focuses on talent generically without any regard to specific positions or organizational boundaries. Within this perspective, there are two different points of view: the first focuses on high-performing talent or talent with high potential (the recruitment and development of A-performers ) and the second view states that everyone has their own talents and HR should help everyone achieve high performance. These three perspectives show a tendency to concentrate on one single aspect of TM. Collings and Mellahi (2009) sought a multiple-aspect approach of TM to overcome the deficiencies of other perspectives. They based their definition of TM on a combination of several theories on human capital and TM. The definition given by Collings and Mellahi, and some other authors, is presented in Table 2.2. Table 2.2: Examples of definitions of TM Talent management is the process through which employers anticipate and meet their needs for human capital (Cappelli, 2008b, pp. 1); Activities and processes that involve the systematic identification of key positions which differentially contribute to the organization s sustainable competitive advantage, the development of a talent pool of high potential and high performing incumbents to fill these roles, and the development of a differentiated human resource architecture to facilitate filling these positions with competent incumbents and to ensure their continued commitment to the organization (Collings & Mellahi, 2009, pp. 304); Talent management is the systematic attraction, identification, development, engagement/retention and deployment of those individuals with high potential who are of particular value to an organization (Davies & Davies, 2010, pp. 419); Global talent management includes all organizational activities for the purpose of attracting, selecting, developing, and retaining the best employees in the most strategic roles (those roles necessary to achieve organizational strategic priorities) on a global scale (Scullion & Collings, 2011, pp. 7). Talent Management in academia 31

33 Many of these interpretations of TM present TM as a transformation process (input, process and output), i.e. we use talent(s) as input, process and develop it (them) with HR practices in order to get the desired output. In accordance with the three elements of the transformation process, three central issues emerge in publications on TM: the definition of talent (theme 1), the intended effects and outcomes of TM (theme 2) and the TM practices (theme 3) necessary to obtain the intended outcomes. In the next section, we will discuss the three dominant themes in more detail. Theme 1: The definition of talent Half of the articles we studied for this chapter contain a definition of talent. The other publications lacked a clear description of talent. According to Tansley (2011) and Gallardo- Gallardo et al. (2012), the conceptualization of talent has become increasingly relevant for scholars and practitioners to make advances in the study of TM. Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2012) made a literature review of definitions of talent in the business context and concluded that two dimensions are of importance in defining talent. They found a distinction between a subject approach (talent as people) and an object approach (talent as characteristics of people, such as abilities, knowledge and/ or competencies). The second dimension relates to differentiation of the workforce. Definitions can be divided into an inclusive (all employees) or an exclusive (a select group) approach (see also Powell et al., 2012; Stahl et al., 2012). According to Sparrow, Hird and Balain (2011) and Stahl et al. (2012), organizations use both the inclusive and exclusive approach, although the exclusive conceptualization seems to be most preferred. In their study on global TM, Stahl et al. (2012) found that many companies used a combination of both. Stahl et al. (2012) claim that a hybrid approach allows for differentiation and skirts the controversial issue of whether some employee groups are more valuable than others (p. 26). Collings and Mellahi (2009) also highlight the importance of a differentiated HR architecture. Taken together, the two dimensions of Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2012) represent different typologies of talent definitions. We will discuss these typologies, building on the publications included in our literature review. The first typology based on Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2012) concerns the inclusive approach to talent as a subject and is addressed by authors who understand talent as the entire workforce of an organization. The terms talent and people or human capital are interchangeable, as in, for example, the definition of Cheese, Thomas and Craig (2008): Talent, therefore, is used as an all-encompassing term to describe the human resources that organizations want to acquire, retain and develop in order to meet their business goals (p. 46). In this view, TM is equal to HRM. This typology has been criticized for being too broad and as completely meaningless (Lewis & Heckman 2006; Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2012). The second typology, the inclusive approach and talent as an object, allows every employee to reach his or her potential (Ashton and Morton 2005; Gallardo-Gal- 32 Chapter 2 - A review of Talent Management: Infancy or adolescence?

34 lardo et al., 2012). It can be characterized as a positive approach to HRM in which the development and training of the exceptional abilities (i.e. talents) of all employees is emphasized. This approach shows a great deal of resemblance to human resource development or competency management. The third interpretation of talent, the exclusive approach to talent as a subject, is based on segmentation or differentiation of a small segment of the workforce (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2012). In this approach, talent refers to those employees who rank at the top in terms of capability and performance and who make a significant difference to the current and future performance of the organization (e.g., McCauley & Wakefield, 2006; Stahl et al., 2007; Davies & Davies, 2010; McDonnell, 2011). These employees are often called A-players, high performers or high potentials. One can differentiate the workforce by (excellently performing) individuals, positions or functions. A commonly used differentiation is based on executive functions; TM equals management development. This is not sufficient for some authors; so, they offer a more profound description of the positions TM should focus on (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Lewis & Heckman, 2006; Becker, Huselid & Beatty, 2009; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Whelan, Collings & Donnelan, 2010). These authors state that TM should concentrate on key (or pivotal) positions, namely those positions that differentially contribute to the organization s sustainable competitive advantage. The focus should be on strategic jobs or jobs that can provide an above-average impact over non-strategic jobs and jobs with marginal impact (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). Lepak and Snell (2002), Lewis and Heckman (2006) and Collings and Mellahi (2009) apply the concepts of value, rareness, inimitability and uniqueness based on the resourcebased view (Wright, Dunford & Snell 2001) to determine which jobs are strategic and have an above-average impact. Whatever distinction is made, based on person or on position, the third interpretation of talent ( exclusive-subject approach) emphasizes selection and output in terms of (potential) performance. This typology has attracted adverse comments. Pfeffer (2001) claims that an exclusive approach to top performers, the happy few (Keegan & Boselie, 2006), will lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy in reverse, as in, those labeled as less able become less able because they are asked to do less and get fewer resources (training, mentoring, et cetera), so they will not be able to develop themselves. Another point of criticism is the overemphasis on individual performance. Pfeffer (2001) thinks it is hazardous for the organization because it diminishes teamwork and creates a destructive internal competition that hinders learning and the spread of best practice across the organization. Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2012) criticize the defining of talent through its output. High performance is not a talent. It is an output obtained from applying one s talents to a specific task. The fourth typology of talent, the exclusive approach to talent as an object, concentrates on those employees in the organization who have exceptional, aboveaverage abilities, and who are able to apply those abilities to achieve excellent per- Talent Management in academia 33

35 formance. According to Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2012) and Tansley (2011), one cannot separate the exceptional abilities from performance. In order to achieve exceptional results, employees must apply their above-average, differentiated competencies. They also have to be willing to put their energy and effort into doing their job; a talented employee is a committed employee. Moreover, scholars like Collings and Mellahi (2009), Ulrich and Ulrich (2010), Boudreau and Ramstad (2005), Martin and Schmidt (2010), Tansley (2011) and Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2012) stress the importance of elements such as (job and organizational) commitment, engagement and aspiration to put up an extraordinary performance now and in future positions. This exclusive-object interpretation of talent is related to the AMO-framework (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg & Kalleberg, 2000), which proposes that employee performance (P) is a function of the employee s ability (A), motivation (M) and opportunity (O) to perform. TM should give talented employees, with outstanding abilities, and who are highly motivated, the opportunity to develop themselves and to achieve a high performance. In summary, scholars are divided on whether or not to differentiate the workforce, and if so, on what basis (talent as an object or a subject). Despite different interpretations of talent, scholars agree on the impact of the context on the exact and precise description of talent. Talent is not absolute, it is relative and subjective. The mix of differentiating competencies and abilities varies according to the organizational environment (e.g., sector, labor market, customer orientation), the type of work, the internal and external circumstances of an organization and across time (Ashton & Morton, 2005; Lewis & Heckman, 2006; McCauley & Wakefield, 2006; Tansley, 2011; Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2012). Theme 2: Intended effects and outcomes of TM Nearly 60% of the publications in our review refer to the intended effects and outcomes of TM. In the literature, different levels of outcomes and effects are distinguished. According to some authors, the purpose of TM is to attract, develop, motivate and retain talent (McCauley & Wakefield, 2006; Ready & Conger, 2007; Christensen Hughes & Rog, 2008; Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Davies & Davies, 2010). TM is mainly meant to fulfill the needs for human capital and to narrow the demand-supply gap. Cappelli (2008a) criticizes this. Talent management is not an end in itself. It is not about developing employees or creating succession plans, nor is it about achieving specific turnover or any other tactical outcome. It exists to support the organization s overall objective, which in business essentially amounts to making money (p. 3). Cappelli argues that the output of the organization as a whole, rather than the HR-subsystem, must prevail. But in this view, firm performance is narrowed down to meeting shareholder and financial needs. More than half of the scholars who make a remark on the intended effects share Cappelli s opinion and state that TM should contribute to the overall firm performance (e.g., Frank 34 Chapter 2 - A review of Talent Management: Infancy or adolescence?

36 & Taylor, 2004; Clake & Winkler, 2006; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Ulrich & Ulrich, 2010; Bethke-Langenegger, Mahler & Staffelbach, 2011; Groves, 2011; Moczydlowska, 2012) or to an increase in the competitive advantage of the organization (e.g., Ashton & Morton, 2005; Stahl et al., 2007; Lewis & Heckman, 2006; Cheese, Farley & Gibbons, 2009; Mellahi & Collings, 2010; Schuler et al., 2011b). On account of the talented human capital and their outstanding performance, the organization will be able to outperform the competition as the economy turns around (Cheese et al., 2009, p. 2). Boudreau and Ramstad (2005) challenge the traditional shareholder value paradigm by the argument that organizations should strive for a societal goal: sustainability. Sustainability, besides financial viability, includes goals such as diversity, social responsibility, supporting human and employee rights, protecting the environment and contributing to the economy (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005, p. 294). They point out that sustainability rarely appears in strategic HR plans or in TM. In their paper about Marshalling Talent, Ulrich and Ulrich (2010) link TM to community results. An increased community reputation enables organizations to attract better employees (Ulrich & Ulrich, 2010; Stahl et al., 2012). However, even in the article of Ulrich and Ulrich, general societal well-being is not mentioned as an equal outcome of TM; it is all for the benefit of the organizational performance and, as Cappelli (2008a) puts it, making money. Collings and Mellahi (2009) argue that effective TM will have an indirect positive relationship with organizational performance mediated by work motivation, organizational commitment and extra-role behaviour. These aspects have a positive impact on individual performance. To enhance organizational performance, an organization should focus on individual performance by means of increasing motivation, commitment and extra-role behavior (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Höglund, 2012). Moreover (work and organizational) engagement and alignment are mentioned as indirect objectives of TM (Cheese et al., 2008, 2009; Christensen Hughes & Rog, 2008; Martin & Groen-in t Woud, 2011). Highly engaged workers produce better business results than disengaged workers, measured in terms of higher productivity, improved customer satisfaction and better employee retention (Cheese et al., 2009). In summary, various levels of output and effects are detected: the individual level, the level of the HR-subsystem and the organization as a whole. Within the organizational level, there is no unanimity on the intended objective: profit, competitive advantage or sustainability. However, the main objective of TM is firm performance, which can be influenced by increased employee well-being. Theme 3: TM practices and activities Nearly 70% of the publications in our literature review refer to TM practices and activities. The main focus is on (1) recruitment, staffing and succession planning, (2) training and Talent Management in academia 35

37 development and (3) retention management. In their research on global TM, Stahl et al. (2007, 2012) present a set of best principles or important elements of successful TM. We will discuss those elements and add the remarks of other scholars. Regarding recruitment, staffing and succession planning, Stahl et al. (2012) found in their study that most companies follow a talent pool strategy. Employees, the talented ones, in this pool get special treatment in order to accelerate their development and performance. This pool develops talent with a particular succession or career path in mind or within a broader organizational context (Stahl et al., 2007; Collings & Mellahi, 2009). This entails a shift from vacancy-led recruitment towards recruiting ahead of the curve and is preferred by several scholars such as Cappelli (2008a), Stahl et al. (2007), Collings and Mellahi (2009) and McDonnell and Collings (2011). According to Stahl et al. (2007), companies must see their recruits as customers and apply sophisticated marketing models and tools for the recruitment of talents. They also remark that there should be a cultural fit between the organization and the recruited employee. Stahl et al. (2007), as well as Christensen Hughes and Rog (2008), Jansen and Van der Pool (2009) and Martin and Groen-in t Woud (2011) identify branding as an essential element in TM. Martin and Groen-in t Woud (2011) assume a relationship between employer branding and engagement, but also remark that this relationship needs further research. Concerning training and development, Stahl et al. (2007, 2012) point to the importance of line management involvement, the use of open job posting systems and internal talent marketplaces. They also discuss the promote-from-within policy many companies adopt. The authors warn of the risks of this policy, such as the tendency towards excessive inward thinking. Other scholars also make remarks about making or buying talent (Cappelli, 2008a, 2008b; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Ulrich & Ulrich, 2010; Burkus & Osula, 2011; McDonnell & Collings, 2011; Pfeffer, 2001). McDonnell and Collings (2011) advise getting the correct balance between internal and external talent. Cappelli (2008b) developed a talent on demand framework to control the demandsupply gap based on supply chain management. He refers to the optimal equilibrium between recruiting on the external labor market and the training and development of internal candidates. Ulrich and Ulrich (2010) come up with six strategies to invest in talent. The buying and borrowing strategies refer to the recruitment of talents on the external labor market. The building, bounding (promoting the right people to the right place), bouncing (removing poor performers) and binding of top talent concerns the development of internal talent. Pfeffer (2001) sees some shortcomings with buying talent and warns about the glorification of the talents of those outside the company while playing down the talents of insiders. Outsiders have the advantage of mystery and scarcity value, and an organization has to put effort into catching the big fish. But it is uncertain if they are able to meet the high expectations (Groysberg, Nanda & Nohria, 2004). 36 Chapter 2 - A review of Talent Management: Infancy or adolescence?

38 Finally, with regard to retention, Stahl et al. (2007) claim that creating and delivering a compelling employee value proposition, personalized career plans, highly competitive compensation and a healthy balance between personal and professional lives are elements of successful TM. Stahl et al. (2007, 2012) emphasize the importance of the alignment of TM practices and activities with the internal and external environment of the organization. Practices are only best in the context for which they were designed (Stahl et al., 2012, p. 26). Most companies in their study consider benchmarking a useful tool, but do not imitate the policies of other companies. Several scholars in our literature review stress the importance of a best fit model as well (e.g., Cappelli, 2000; Pfeffer, 2001; Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005, 2006; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Sparrow et al., 2011; Vaiman, Scullion & Collings, 2012). This is based on the assumption that an organization is a social system that interacts in its own way with one s environment (Nadler & Tushman, 1980). Many scholars do not prescribe specific practices and activities, but refer to, for example, recruitment or training in general. In summary, the dominant practices and activities in the TM approaches are activities to attract, develop and retain talent. Common HR practices and activities are now applied to the field of TM or to the management of excellence and talent. The majority of scholars remark that context matters and do not prescribe specific practices but promote a best fit model. 2.4 Discussion: limitations and alternative perspectives In the first section of the chapter, we paid attention to the dominant topics in the literature on TM, including leading points of view. In the debate about the definition of talent, the intended outcomes or effects, and TM practices and activities many TM scholars tend to approach TM as a transformation process; talents are used as inputs in order to achieve outputs strongly related to organizational objectives. TM practices and activities serve to manage (recruit, develop and retain) talents so that the goals of the organization are met. There is no unanimous definition of talent in the academic TM literature. Opinions differ on whether or not to differentiate the workforce (inclusive or exclusive approach) and on what basis (talent as an object or as a subject). To add a lasting contribution to the field of HRM, TM has to overcome some limitations and omissions. These limitations will be addressed in the following section. Talent Management in academia 37

39 2.4.1 Limitations and omissions in TM literature Our main critical comment on the contemporary TM literature is that it has a narrow and one-dimensional approach. First of all, the mainstream TM literature has a managerialist orientation, comparable to criticism of the field of HRM (see for example Delbridge & Keenoy, 2010; Delbridge, Hauptmeier & Sengupta, 2011; Paauwe, 2009). The managerialist orientation can be recognized in the definition of talent. Every typology as described by Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2012) is based on the assumption that the person (subject approach) or competencies (object approach) has/have to meet the requirements of the organization. The description of the intended effects of TM also shows a managerialist orientation. Firm performance and the achievement of organizational goals prevail. Other goals, such as employee well-being and societal well-being, are left out of the equation. Furthermore, TM is presented as a tool to improve the performance of employees (mainly job performance) with the ultimate goal of improving organizational performance, for example, in terms of productivity, quality and profitability. This could be the result of the US-based character of the mainstream literature on TM (as noted earlier by Collings et al. (2011)), with the more dominant short term shareholder approach as the starting point. Second, the dominant viewpoints on TM can also be labeled as unitarist. Multiple actors are identified. Top management or CEO, line management and HR have a role in the practice of TM (e.g., Stahl et al., 2007, 2012; Guthridge et al., 2008; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Farndale, Scullion & Sparrow, 2010; Ulrich & Ulrich, 2010). But the main focus is on how management can achieve the organizational strategic goals. The implicit assumption is that all actors serve this general organizational interest and do not have their own needs, views and goals. Although some authors describe an active role for the employee (for example Ready & Conger, 2007; Garrow & Hirsh, 2008; Stahl et al., 2012), the responsibility of the employee for his or her own career and development is not made more explicit. The TM approaches therefore mainly represent a classic top-to-bottom manageralist approach with little leeway for employee involvement or employee agency. The dominant unitarist TM approaches are also implicitly based on the mutual gains assumption, in which all the stakeholders inside and outside the organization have the same goals and interests (Susskind & Movius, 2009). The leading assumption seems to be that all stakeholders share the same definition of talent. Divergent opinions on the differentiated competencies are not taken into account. From this point of view, what is good for the employer is also good for the employee and vice versa. In practice, this is often not the case. The consequence of this unitarist approach towards conceptualizing talent can be that only firm specific talents or competencies are developed. Competencies useful in the external labor market, which can increase the external employability of an employee, are not developed. This is a disadvantage for the employee and for society as well. Another limitation of the approaches presented above is the focus on 38 Chapter 2 - A review of Talent Management: Infancy or adolescence?

40 talents and the lack of attention on the non-talented and drop-outs. The latter two groups may suffer from the exclusive happy few approaches to TM, causing diminishing employee well-being for these groups in terms of, for example, job satisfaction, and also negative effects on societal well-being if the non-talented and drop-outs lose their jobs. What is good for the organization and talented is not necessarily good for the non-talented and drop-outs of the organization. Third, besides a managerialist and unitarist view of talent and TM objectives, the mainstream approach to TM practices and activities is one-sided as well. Our critique is that the academic literature on TM emphasizes a limited range of practices and activities. A great deal of attention is paid to the attraction, development and retention of talents. Discharge and turnover are not issues. Only one article discusses the benefits of turnover (Somaya & Williamson, 2011). All other authors try to convince organizations to prevent turnover and keep talented employees indoors, taking control over their investments. However, in view of the increased mobility of employees and the proactive role of the employee in shaping his or her career (e.g., Baruch, 2004; Sullivan & Baruch, 2009; Biemann, Zacher & Feldman, 2012), it is not realistic to assume that talented employees will never leave the organization as long as you take good care of them. Somaya and Williamson wrote that inter-company mobility has become the career path norm for employees: Perhaps it is time to declare that the war for talent is over... talent has won! (Somaya & Williamson, 2011, p. 75). They think organizations should accept and embrace turnover and use it for their own benefits. Former employees can be a strategic asset if ties to them are developed and utilized appropriately. By maintaining the relationships with the departing employees, the social capital of the organization increases. They see several benefits: client access, human capital access and generation of goodwill. Another comment on mainstream TM practices and activities is that it has a one-sided point of view on people management practices, i.e. it emphasizes the importance of employment practices (Boxall & Macky, 2009), but neglects practices beyond the management of people, such as work practices like work design. Although many scholars attach great value to commitment, engagement and motivation, none of the articles include a discussion of which practices are most suitable for this purpose. Studies on engagement and commitment in general show the importance of a resourceful job environment, which is facilitated by job design (Hakanen, Schaufeli & Ahola, 2008; Bakker & Bal, 2010; Gruman & Saks, 2010). Examples of job resources are autonomy, supervision, coaching and opportunities for development. The importance of job design is rarely mentioned in the TM literature. According to Stahl et al. (2007) job rotation and challenging assignments are seen as useful instruments, but are seldom used because of the strong tendency of management to focus on their own unit rather than on the whole organization. Talent Management in academia 39

41 Our final comment on the mainstream literature on TM practices and activities concerns the relation between TM and the internal and external context. As noted in a previous section of this chapter, most scholars prefer a best fit model and suggest that TM practices and activities should be adjusted to the internal and external organizational context. Boselie (2010) distinguishes four types of fit: (1) a fit with the organization s strategy (strategic/vertical fit); (2) a fit between individual HR practices (internal/horizontal fit); (3) a fit between the HR strategy and other organizational systems, such as the production system, communication and information system, financial system and legal system (organizational fit) and (4) the link between the HR strategy and the institutional environment of an organization (environmental fit). In the TM literature, the main focus is on the strategic fit and, to a lesser degree, on the internal fit of the TM practices and activities (e.g., Ashton & Morton, 2005; Stahl et al., 2012). Organizational fit, besides an occasional remark on alignment with organizational culture (Stahl et al., 2007, 2012; Garrow & Hirsh, 2008; Davies & Davies, 2010), is seldom discussed. The current TM literature overemphasizes the importance of human capital or talents and does not pay attention to other systems and resources that affect firm performance as well. Finally, the TM literature rarely refers to environmental fit. In the case of the external environment and environmental fit, Paauwe s contextually based human resources theory (2004) makes a distinction between a product-market-technology dimension (competitive mechanisms) and a socialcultural-legal dimension (institutional mechanisms). The focus in the TM literature is on a single aspect of the environment, i.e. the labor market. Authors examine the general impact of developments and trends in the labor market on TM and the effects of the supply-demand gap on the availability of human capital for the organization. The impact of other competitive and institutional mechanisms is underexplored Towards a pluralist and balanced view of TM: adding new perspectives In the field of HRM, critical theorists tend to have a more balanced and pluralist view of the workplace (Greenwood 2002). They are aware of the various stakeholders in a workplace. Acknowledgement of multiple stakeholders also results in the acknowledgment of multiple goals or outcomes. According to Greenwood (2002), referring to stakeholder theory, managers have an obligation to attend to all those who are at stake in or have a claim on the organization. A company has the potential to affect its stakeholders, but the stakeholders have the capacity to affect the company. Adopting the pluralist view of the workplace in the field of TM has several consequences. The managerialist and unitary orientation on the achievement of organizational goals needs to be expanded. The orientations, needs and goals of stakeholders other than management need to be considered as well. According to Boselie (2010), HRM in general involves management 40 Chapter 2 - A review of Talent Management: Infancy or adolescence?

42 decisions aimed at achieving individual, organizational and societal goals. In the case of TM, individual and societal goals must be added as equivalent objectives of TM. Employee well-being is no longer a means to achieve organizational goals, but a separate objective. However, only few studies discuss the preferences of talented employees, for example the studies of Dries and Pepermans (2008) and of Dries et al. (2011) on the careers of high potentials. What is new in this pluralist approach to TM is the introduction of societal well-being as a goal or effect of TM. Only Boudreau and Ramstad (2005) referred to these goals as an aspect of sustainability. Acknowledgement of a pluralist view also implies that it is not just management that has a say in the typical features of talent (definition of talent), but also other stakeholders, such as employees, colleagues, peers and society as well. Organizations need to bear in mind that the needs and interests of multiple stakeholders may conflict with the organizational goals. The war for talent is not fought outside the organization with competitors in the labor market, but inside the organization as well. Managers, HR and employees are all warring powers fighting for their own honor and virtue. Some authors address the conflicting goals. In their article on failures in TM, Martin and Schmidt (2010) warn us not to delegate talent development to line managers. Talents are a long term corporate asset and should be treated as such. Line managers are short term focused and not willing to share their talents (Martin & Schmidt,2010). A diversity of (conflicting) interests and goals can have a negative impact on the effectiveness of TM if TM is still focusing primarily on organizational performance and organizational effectiveness. As far as TM practices and activities are concerned, a more extended, multiaspect approach is necessary. TM needs to be regarded as a people management system. This term was used by Wright et al. (2001) to discuss the resource based view and is still useful: By using the term system, we turn focus to the importance of understanding the multiple practices that impact employees rather than single practices. By using the term people rather than HR, we expand the relevant practices to those beyond the control of the HR function, such as communication (both upward and downward), work design, culture, leadership and a host of others that impact employees and shape their competencies, cognitions and attitudes (Wright et al., 2001, p. 705). This view entails that TM could be a system, a complete and interrelated set of practices and activities, as well. This implies that the set of practices and activities to attract, develop and retain talent needs to be expanded with activities on turnover and exit. The expression people in the definition of Wright et al. (2001) entails that TM is about managing people and their work (see also Boxall & Macky, 2009). Consequently, work practices need to be included. We also advocate a greater awareness of contextual fit, beyond the usual focus on strategic or cultural fit. In summary, the field of TM has evolved in the past decade, but there is still only a limited amount of empirical research. The current academic literature is concep- Talent Management in academia 41

43 tual, exploring the topic in all its elements. We can conclude that the field is at least partly in its infancy with some progress towards adolescence (Collings et al., 2011). The important lesson we have learned from prior research is that academic TM literature has a narrow and one-dimensional approach. We argued that it is necessary to broaden this view to a more balanced or pluralistic approach to TM. New perspectives are essential for a theoretical framework for TM in organizations in diverse contexts, for example in different branches of industry, or in public or private organizations. The new perspectives presented in the discussion section of this chapter serve as a starting point for the next chapter. In chapter 3 we elaborate in more detail on the importance and impact of the context and its multiple stakeholders at multiple levels and their needs and preferences. This results in a theoretical framework on the potential value of TM for these stakeholders. This chapter on contextual relevance is a bridge to studying TM in the context of public sector organizations, i.e. publicly funded universities in the Netherlands. 42 Chapter 2 - A review of Talent Management: Infancy or adolescence?

44 References The references in this list marked with * are used in the literature review. Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000), Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off., Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. *Ashton, C., & Morton, L. (2005), Managing Talent for Competitive Advantage. Taking a Systematic Approach to Talent Management, Strategic HR Review, 4, Bakker, A.B., & Bal, P.M. (2010), Weekly Work Engagement and Performance: A Study Among Starting Teachers, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83, Baruch, Y. (2004). Transforming careers: From linear to multidirectional career paths. Organizational and individual perspectives. Career Development International, 9(1), *Basri, E., & Box, S. (2008), The Global Competition for Talent: Mobility of the Highly Skilled, Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). *Becker, B.E., Huselid, M.A., & Beatty, R.W. (2009), The Differentiated Workforce: Transforming Talent Into Strategic Impact, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. *Beechler, S., & Woodward, I.C. (2009), The Global War for Talent, Journal of International Management, 15, *Bethke-Langenegger, P., Mahler, P., & Staffelbach, B. (2011), Effectiveness of Talent Management Strategies, European Journal of International Management, 5, Biemann, T., Zacher, H. & Feldmann, D. (2012). Career patterns: A twenty-year panel study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(2), *Blass, E., & April, K. (2008), Developing Talent for Tomorrow, Develop, 1, Boselie, P. (2010), Strategic Human Resource Management. A Balanced Approach, Birkshire: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005), Commonalities and Contradictions in Research on Human Resource Management and Performance, Human Resource Management Journal, 15, *Boudreau, J.W. (2005), Talentship & the New Paradigm for Human Resource Management: From Professional Practices to Strategic Talent Decision Science, Human Resource Planning, 28, *Boudreau, J.W., & Ramstad, P.M. (2005), Talentship, Talent Segmentation, and Sustainability: A New HR Decision Science Paradigm for a New Strategy Definition, in The Future of Human Resource Management, eds. M. Losey, S. Meisinger & D. Ulrich, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, pp Talent Management in academia 43

45 *Boudreau, J.W., & Ramstad, P.M. (2006), Talentship and Human Resource Measurement and Analysis: From ROI to Strategic Organizational Change, Human Resource Planning, 29, Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009), Research and Theory on High-Performance Work Systems: Progressing the High-Involvement Stream, Human Resource Management Journal, 19, Boxall, P., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. (2007), Human Resource Management: Scope, Analysis, and Significance, in The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, eds. P. Boxall, J. Purcell and P. Wright, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp *Burbach, R., & Royle, T. (2010), Talent on Demand? Talent Management in the German and Irish Subsidiaries of a US Multinational Corporation, Personnel Review, 39, *Burkus, D., & Osula, B. (2011), Faulty Intel in the War for Talent: Replacing the Assumptions of Talent Management with Evidence-based Strategies, Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 3, 1-9. *Cappelli, P. (2000), A Market-Driven Approach to Retaining Talent, Harvard Business Review, 78, *Cappelli, P. (2008a), Talent Management for the Twenty-First Century, Harvard Business Review, 86, *Cappelli, P. (2008b), Talent on Demand, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. *Cheese, P., Thomas, R.J., & Craig, E. (2008), The Talent Powered Organization: Strategies for Globalization, Talent Management and High Performance, London: Kogan Page Ltd. *Cheese, P., Farley, C., & Gibbons, A. (2009), The New Talent Equation, Outlook: The Journal of High-Performance Business, *Christensen Hughes, J., &Rog, E. (2008), Talent Management: A Strategy for Improving Employee Recruitment, Retention and Engagement Within Hospitality Organizations, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20, *Clake, R., Winkler, V. (2006), Change Agenda: Reflections on Talent Management, London: Chartered Institute for Personnel Development (CIPD). *Collings, D.G., & Mellahi, K. (2009), Strategic Talent Management: A Review and Research Agenda, Human Resource Management Review, 19, *Collings, D.G., Scullion, H., & Vaiman, V. (2011), European Perspectives on Talent Management, European Journal of International Management, 5, *Davies, B., & Davies, B.J. (2010), Talent Management in Academies, International Journal of Educational Management, 24, Delbridge, R., Hauptmeier, M. & Sengupta, S. (2011). Beyond the enterprise: Broadening the horizons of International HRM. Human Relations, 64(4), Chapter 2 - A review of Talent Management: Infancy or adolescence?

46 Delbridge, R. & Keenoy, T. (2010). Beyond managerialism? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(6), *Deloitte (2010), Talent Edge 2020: Blueprints for the New Normal, com/ assets/dcomunitedstates/local%20assets/documents/imos/ Talent/us_talentedge pdf *Dries, N. (2011), Effects of the High Potential Label on Performance, Career Success and Commitment: A Matter of Communication? Dutch HRM-Conference 2011, Groningen, The Netherlands. Dries, N. (2013). The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), *Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2008), Real High-Potential Careers: An Empirical Study into the Perspectives of Organizations and High Potentials, Personnel Review, 37, *Dries, N., Van Acker, F., & Verbruggen, M. (2011), How Boundaryless are the Careers of High Potentials, Key Experts and Average Performers? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, *Farley, C. (2005), HR s Role in Talent Management and Driving Business Results, Employment Relations Today, 32, *Farndale, E., Scullion, H., and Sparrow, P. (2010), The Role of the Corporate HR Function in Global Talent Management, Journal of World Business, 45, *Frank, F.D., & Taylor, C.R. (2004), Talent Management: Trends that will Shape the Future, Human Resource Planning, 27, *Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & Gonzalez-Cruz, T. (2012), What Do We Actually Mean by Talent in Business? 1st EIASM Workshop on Talent Management, April 16-17, 2012, Brussels, Belgium. *Garrow, V., & Hirsh, W. (2008), Talent Management: Issues of Focus and Fit, Public Personnel Management, 37, Greenwood, M.R. (2002), Ethics and HRM: A Review and Conceptual Analysis, Journal of Business Ethics, 36, *Groves, K.S. (2011), Talent Management Best Practices: How Exemplary Health Care Organizations Create Value in a Down Economy, Health Care Management Review, 36, *Groysberg, B., Nanda, A., & Nohria, N. (2004), The Risky Business of Hiring Stars, Harvard Business Review, 82, Gruman, J.A., & Saks, A.M. (2010), Performance Management and Employee Engagement, Human Resource Management Review, 21, *Guthridge, M., Komm, A.B., & Lawson, E. (2006), The People Problem in Talent Management, McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 6-9. *Guthridge, M., Komm, A.B., & Lawson, E. (2008), Making Talent a Strategic Priority, McKinsey Quarterly, 1, Talent Management in academia 45

47 Hakanen, J.J., Schaufeli, W.B., & Ahola, K. (2008), The Job Demands-Resources Model: A Three-Year Cross-Lagged Study of Burnout, Depression, Commitment, and Work Engagement, Work & Stress, 22, *Höglund, M. (2012), Quid Pro Quo? Examining Talent Management Through the Lens of Psychological Contracts, Personnel Review, 41, *Jansen, M., & Van der Pool, H. (2009), Employer Branding. Five Building Blocks to Attract, Select and Retain Young Talent Through the Recruitment Strategy, in Competing for Talent, eds. L. Van der Sluis and S. Van de Bunt-Kokhuis, Assen: Van Gorcum, pp Keegan, A., & Boselie, P. (2006), The Lack of Impact of Dissensus Inspired Analysis on Developments in the Field of Human Resource Management, Journal of Management Studies, 43, *Kirkland, S. (2009), Creating a Common Language for Building a Successful Talent Management Program: Paving the Path for Succession, and Success, Within Your Organization, Transfusion, 49, Lepak, D.P., & Snell, S.A. (2002), Examining the Human Resource Architecture: The Relationships Among Human Capital, Employment, and Human Resource Configurations, Journal of Management, 28, *Lewis, R.E., & Heckman, R.J. (2006), Talent Management: A Critical Review, Human Resource Management Review, 16, *Makela, 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, *Martin, G., & Groen-in t Woud, S. (2011), Employer Branding and Corporate Reputation Management in Global Companies: A Signaling Model and Case Illustration, in Global Talent Management, eds. H. Scullion and D.G. Collings, London and New York: Routledge, pp *Martin, J., & Schmidt, C. (2010), How to Keep Your Top Talent, Harvard Business Review, 88, *McCauley, C., & Wakefield, M. (2006), Talent Management in the 21st Century: Help Your Company Find, Develop, and Keep Its Strongest Workers, The Journal for Quality & Participation, 29, 4-7. *McDonnell, A. (2011), Still Fighting the War for Talent? Bridging the Science Versus Practice Gap, Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, *McDonnell, A., & Collings, D.G. (2011), The Identification and Evaluation of Talent in MNEs, in Global Talent Management, eds. H. Scullion and D.G. Collings, New York and London: Routledge, pp *McDonnell, A., Hickey, C., & Gunnigle, P. (2011), Global Talent Management: Exploring Talent Identification in the Multinational Enterprise, European Journal of International Management, 5, Chapter 2 - A review of Talent Management: Infancy or adolescence?

48 *Mellahi, K., & Collings, D.G. (2010), The Barriers to Effective Global Talent Management: The Example of Corporate Elites in MNEs, Journal of World Business, 45, *Moczydlowska, J. (2012), Talent Management: Theory and Practice of Management: The Polish Experience, International Journal of Business Management and Economic Research, 3, Nadler, D.A., & Tushman, M.L. (1980), A Model for Diagnosing Organizational Behavior, Organizational Dynamics, 9, Paauwe, J. (2004), HRM and Performance: Achieving Long-Term Viability, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paauwe, J. (2009). HRM and performance: Achievements, methodological issues and prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), *Pfeffer, J. (2001), Fighting the War for Talent is Hazardous to Your Organization s Health, Organizational Dynamics, 29, *Powell, J., Durose, J., Duberly, J., Exworthy, M., Fewtrell, C., MacFarlane, F., & Moss, P. (2012), Talent Management in the NHS Managerial Workforce, Final report, National Institute for Health Research, pp *Ready, D.A., & Conger, J.A. (2007), Make Your Company a Talent Factory, Harvard Business Review, 85, *Schuler, R.S., Jackson, S.E., & Tarique, I. (2011a), Framework for Global Talent Management: HR Actions for Dealing With Global Talent Challenges, in Global Talent Management, eds. H. Scullion and D.G. Collings, London and New York: Routledge, pp *Schuler, R.S., Jackson, S.E., & Tarique, I. (2011b), Global Talent Management and Global Talent Challenges: Strategic Opportunities for IHRM, Journal of World Business, 46, Scullion, H., & Collings, D.G. (2011), Global Talent Management, London and New York: Routledge. *Somaya, D., & Williamson, I.O. (2011), Embracing Turnover: Moving Beyond the War for Talent, in Global Talent Management, eds. H. Scullion and D.G. Collings, London and New York: Routledge, pp *Sparrow, P., Hird, M., & Balain, S. (2011), Talent Management: Time to Question the Tablets of Stone? White paper 11/01, October, Lancaster University Management School. Sullivan, S. E., & Baruch, Y. (2009). Advances in career theory and research: A critical review and agenda for future exploration. Journal of Management, 35(6), *Stahl, G.K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S.S., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P., Trevor, J., & Wright, P.M. (2007), Global Talent Management: How Leading Multinationals Build and Sustain Their Talent Pipeline, Faculty and research working paper, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. Talent Management in academia 47

49 *Stahl, G.K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S.S., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P., Trevor, J., & Wright, P.M. (2012), Six Principles of Effective Global talent management, MIT Sloan Management review, 53, Susskind, L., & Movius, H. (2009), Built to Win: Creating a World Class Negotiating Organization, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. *Tansley, C. (2011), What Do We Mean by the Term Talent in Talent Management? Industrial and Commercial Training, 43, *Tarique, I., & Schuler, R.S. (2010), Global Talent Management: Literature Review, Integrative Framework, and Suggestions for Further Research, Journal of World Business, 45, *Ulrich, D., & Ulrich, M. (2010), Marshalling Talent, Paper Accepted at the 2010 Academy of Management Annual Meeting. *Vaiman, V., Scullion, H., & Collings, D. (2012), Talent Management Decision Making, Management Decision, 50, *Whelan, E., Collings, D.G., & Donnellan, B. (2010), Managing Talent in Knowledge- Intensive Settings, Journal of Knowledge Management, 14, Wright, P.M., Dunford, B.B., & Snell, S.A. (2001), Human Resources and the Resource Based View of the Firm, Journal of Management, 27, Chapter 2 - A review of Talent Management: Infancy or adolescence?

50 Chapter 3 Talent Management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach This chapter is an adapted version of: Thunnissen, M., Boselie, P., & Fruytier, B. (2013). Talent management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4),

51 3.1 Introduction In chapter 2 we gave an overview of the results of a literature review in which 62 academic publications on talent management (TM) (published between 2001 and Spring 2012) were analyzed. In sum, over the course of the last decade TM has received a great deal of attention in the academic literature. Scholars from a broad range of academic traditions, such as strategic Human Resources Management (HRM), international HRM, and Organizational Behavior (OB) have contributed to the debate. These different lenses have each in their way contributed to our current understanding of the various important aspects and issues concerning TM. The definition of talent and TM, its intended outcomes and effects, and talent management practices and activities are key issues. Even though the field has evolved, scholars did not succeed in establishing unambiguous definitions of talent and TM. TM is a relatively young academic field that lacks a solid base of empirical research to test and validate core conceptual ideas. Therefore, we concluded that the field is partly still in its infancy, with some progress towards adolescence. Moreover, chapter 2 showed that although the field of TM is built on a broad range of HRM and OB theories, in most academic publications TM is approached from a single perspective. The academic traditions are rarely integrated or linked and put into a broader perspective. In addition to being one-dimensional, the dominant views in academic TM management literature are too narrow and biased. We argued that in the literature TM is often narrowed down to (the impact of) a limited set of HRM practices and activities, and contemporary TM literature was criticized for being unitarist and managerialist. We see these issues as crucial gaps in the academic TM literature. The one-dimensional and biased approach to TM may be suitable for studying and implementing TM in multinational and private organizations, but it is probably inadequate to describe TM in, for example, public organizations or small enterprises. In this chapter we argue that it is necessary to broaden the existing one-dimensional and narrow approach to TM into a more pluralistic one. A pluralistic approach implies the use of multiple perspectives at the same time: using theories in concert (Greenwood & Miller, 2010, p. 82). The main aim of this paper is the development of a broader, more balanced approach to TM that takes into account the importance of context, and of the different actors involved. This approach to TM will support the study and implementation of talent management practices in a wider range of organizations than has been the case to date. The chapter builds on the limitations discussed in chapter 2, and starts with adding new perspectives originating in organization theory and strategic HRM, thus placing talent management in a broader perspective. These new perspectives are then integrated into a multilevel, multi-value approach to TM, which offers an in-depth discussion of the potential economic and non-economic value of TM at the 50 Chapter 3 - Talent Management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach

52 individual, organizational, and societal level. From all of the above, we suggest new directions for empirical research in a wide range of organizations, with the ultimate goal of advancing academic knowledge about TM processes and success factors. 3.2 Adding new perspectives: expanding the TM paradigm According to Greenwood and Miller (2010) scholars in the field of organization theory, in their need to understand complex organizations, have narrowed their scope of interest from organizational-level phenomena to understanding parts of the overall organization. The authors acknowledge the growing complexity of organizations, but they claim that focusing on a single aspect of the organization, disconnected from the full pattern, is not an adequate way to gain understanding of complex organizations and their functioning in relation to their environment. They make a plea to refocus on the organization as a whole again, and to use multiple theoretical lenses together to fully understand the nuances and complexity of an organization and its behavior. We support this recommendation and believe that a pluralistic approach, using multiple lenses or frames, is most likely to lead to an enriched and complete view of organizations and the talent challenges they face. To put TM in a wider perspective and to build a broader, more balanced theoretical framework, we will introduce new viewpoints which take into account the organizational context and its interrelated actors. Many of the theories and models cited here originated in organization theory, and are already generally accepted within the field of Table 3.1: Identification of limitations in the existing TM literature and new perspectives Limitations: One-dimensional and biased approach Focus on a narrow set of HR practices Unitarist approach Organization presented as unified actor unanimously working to obtain organizational goals Managerialist view Instrumental point of view and economic orientation New perspectives Focus on people and their work i.e., both on the employment and the work relationship (Boxall & Macky, 2009) Consider the influence and well-being of actors at multiple levels Organizations are neither purely instrumental systems (i.e., system-structural view) nor purely political arenas (i.e., action theory approach) (e.g., Bourdieu, 1988) Consider the multifaceted value creation of TM Impact of economic and institutional pressures on value creation by the organization and HRM (e.g., Suchman, 1995; Kalleberg, 2009) Talent Management in academia 51

53 strategic HRM (see Paauwe & Boselie, 2003; 2007; Boxall & Purcell, 2011). Nevertheless, they are still quite uncommon in the field of TM. Below, we present three new perspectives that are to be seen as extensions to the existing literature on TM. An overview of the new perspectives is presented in table 3.1. Subsequently, we will discuss to what extent the existing TM literature pays attention to these alternative views Focus on both the employment and the work relationship One of the critical argument we raised in chapter 2 was that in many TM publications the scope is narrowed down to (the impact of) a limited set of HR practices. In line with Boxall and Macky (2009) we argue that this scope should be broadened from a narrow focus on practices to a focus on the people in the organization and their work (Boxall & Macky, 2009). The importance of people to organizations in today s knowledge economy is widely recognized. It is exactly this sense of importance that has put TM high on the strategic agenda of CEOs and management (Paauwe, 2007; Guthridge, Komm & Lawson, 2008; Deloitte, 2010). In an organization, the employee and the organization in its role as an employer enter into a cooperative framework for the supply of labor services (Marsden, 2004, p. 674), i.e. an employment relationship. Basically, this relationship is an exchange relationship. The employer wants employees who contribute to the production of goods and services. Therefore, the relationship needs to be productive, minimizing the costs and risks to the organization. The employee offers his or her time and capabilities to the organization, expecting financial and non-financial rewards in return (Rubery & Grimshaw, 2003). However, the employment relationship is more than just an economic exchange. As Tsui and colleagues state, it rests on the logic of social exchange: employees reciprocate in ways comparable to how they are treated by their organizations (Tsui et al., 1997; Tsui & Wu, 2005; Hom et al., 2009). If an employer invests in the well-being of its employee (for example, by offering job security and developmental opportunities), the employee is willing to do more than the prescribed tasks and shows extrarole behavior, such as helping co-workers. This refers to what Marsden calls (2004) the informal rules and non-codified elements of the psychological contract. Boxall and Macky (2009) expand the organization-employee relationship beyond the usual employment relationship, and add the work relationship. This expansion enables organizations to apply a wider set of practices and activities than the limited set of practices discussed in the existing TM literature, even activities beyond the control of the HR department. Although there is a tendency in the current TM literature to emphasize employment practices, the employment relationship itself is not an issue that is widely discussed in the TM literature. In fact, only a handful of TM publications pay attention to the employment relationship. Cappelli (2000, 2008), for instance, refers to the economic 52 Chapter 3 - Talent Management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach

54 aspects of the employment relationship. He discusses how organizations can gain control over insecurity in the employment relationship, and how they can maximize organizational flexibility while maintaining increasing employee performance (Tsui et al., 1997). Other authors do not explicitly mention the employment relationship, but do pay attention to the psychological contract, which has to be managed effectively to retain talented employees (Blass & April, 2008; Garrow & Hirsh, 2008; Höglund, 2012; Sonnenberg, 2010). To date, the work relationship has attracted hardly any attention in the TM literature Consider the influence and well-being of actors at multiple levels In our critique of the existing TM literature, we also described the literature as unitarist and predominantly orientated towards systems and instruments. This approach in the TM literature fits the system-structural view in organizational theory. The systemstructural approach considers an organization as a system that consists of interrelated elements, and that interacts with its environment (Nadler & Tushman, 1980; Astley & Van der Ven, 1983). The structural elements are interrelated in such a way that they serve the achievement of shared organizational goals in a highly instrumental fashion. The basic components of the structure are roles and functions. Human beings occupy these roles and therefore must be carefully selected, trained and controlled to meet the requirements of the position they occupy. The system-structural view of organizations is challenged by scholars who believe that organizational behavior is strongly influenced by the needs and preferences of different actors inside and outside the system (Astley & Van der Ven, 1983). One of the schools is better known as the action theory approach. According to action theory, organizations are continuously constructed, sustained and changed by different actors definitions of the situation. The goals, preferences and views of these actors can differ, and even be conflicting (Christensen, Laegrid, Roness & Rovik, 2007). Pluralists in organization theory stress that an organization is neither an instrumental system, nor a political arena (e.g., Bourdieu, 1988). According to their pluralist view, the system affects the actors and vice versa. Adopting this pluralist view towards TM entails an expansion of the systemstructural view on TM and admits that the needs, preferences and beliefs of stakeholders beyond management have an impact on the employee-organization relationship and its outcomes. Most importantly, TM should include the preferences and intensions of the other leading figure in the employment relationship: the employee. Moreover, an organization is not an isolated entity. It interacts with its environment. The environment also puts constraints and demands on the relationship between the organization and its employees, for example in legal terms. Organizations must try to incorporate and respond to these demands (Christensen et al., 2007). In sum, the Talent Management in academia 53

55 employee-organization relationship needs to be productive, contribute to employee well-being, and fulfill the norms, values and expectations of its environment (Paauwe & Boselie, 2003; 2007). Neither the well-being of the individual employee nor the well-being and expectations of society receive a great deal of attention in the academic TM literature. When employee and societal well-being are addressed, it is because they are believed to have a positive effect on organizational performance, as we have already argued in previous sections of the chapter. The effects of TM on the societal level are addressed by a few scholars. For instance, Boudreau and Ramstad (2005) challenge the traditional shareholder value paradigm by introducing the argument that organizations should strive for sustainability. Besides financial viability, sustainability includes goals such as diversity, social responsibility, supporting human and employee rights, protecting the environment, and contributing to the economy (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005). They point out that sustainability rarely appears in strategic HR plans, nor in TM strategies. In their chapter about marshalling talent Ulrich and Ulrich (2010) link TM to community results. In their view, an increased community reputation enables organizations to attract better employees. General societal well-being is, even in the article of Ulrich and Ulrich, not (yet) mentioned as an equal outcome of TM; rather, it is all about the associated benefit of improved organizational performance Consider the economic and non-economic value of TM Our third point of critique was that the TM literature can be described as managerialist. It accentuates the economic side of work and represents economic value and objectives such as performance, effectiveness and efficiency. Institutional theories in the organizational theory domain stress that many dynamics in the organizational environment do not stem from material and technical imperatives, but rather from non-rational processes such as cultural norms, symbols, beliefs and rituals (Suchman, 1995; Greenwood & Hinings, 1996; Christensen et al., 2007). According to the New Institutionalist School, organizations operate within institutional environments where they are confronted with socially created norms for how they should be designed and how they should function. Organizations must try to incorporate and reflect these norms outwardly, even if they do not necessarily make the organization s activities more effective (Christensen et al., 2007, p. 57). In other words, along with rational and economic oriented values, moral and social values related to ethical, political, and religious ideals affect organizations as well. These values put pressure on organizations to respond to them in terms of social and moral outcomes i.e., to create non-economic value in order to gain legitimacy and to increase the probability of their survival (Paauwe & Boselie, 2003; 2007). More specifically, both economic and institutional pressures have an impact on HRM and on the organization-employee relationship (Boxall, 2007; Suchman, 1995; Kostova & Zaheer, 1999; Kalleberg, 2009; 54 Chapter 3 - Talent Management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach

56 Paauwe, 2004; Paauwe & Boselie, 2003; 2007). This discussion of the potential impact of moral and social values on organizational objectives and behavior in the organization theory literature raises the question about the manner in which the field of TM addresses non-economic (i.e., social and moral) value. Up until now, with the exception of a few remarks on sustainability (e.g., Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005), little attention has been paid to the potential non-economic value of TM, either at the organizational, the individual, or the societal level. 3.3 TM and context: A multilevel, multi-value approach In the previous section we proposed that TM serves several masters and should satisfy multiple goals. We can make a distinction between the economic and non-economic value of TM at the individual, organizational and societal level. In this section we will develop our ideas in more detail, and discuss to what extent the current TM literature addresses the potential economic and non-economic value created by TM at these three levels. An overview is given in table 3.2 Table 3.2: A multilevel, multi-value approach to TM Economic value of TM Noneconomic value of TM Individual level Organizational level Societal level Financial rewards Job security Meaningful and challenging work Growth and social needs Fair and just treatment Profitability Organizational flexibility Efficiency and effectiveness Competitive position Legitimacy Economic condition and (inter)national competitive position of an industry, region, or country Social responsibility, i.e., contributing to the social/ moral development of society Value of TM at the individual level First, we will pay attention to the value of TM at the level of the individual employee. Here, we examine the needs and goals of the (talented) employee that can be fulfilled in the employee-organization relationship. In 2013 Kalleberg and Marsden published a longitudinal study on work values and job preference orientations among workers in the US. The authors define work values as the characteristics that workers find most Talent Management in academia 55

57 important in their jobs (Kalleberg and Marsden, 2013, p. 255). They asked employees to rank high income, job security, short working hours, chances for advancement, and a sense of accomplishment fully acknowledging the absence of other important job characteristics in their research design, such as the relation with co-workers and a degree of autonomy. Kalleberg and Marsden (2013) found changes in workers job preference orientations over the past three decades; while a sense of accomplishment and importance was consistently rated the most preferred work aspect, the emphasis participants placed on jobs that pay high incomes and provide more security has steadily increased. The job preference orientations examined by Kalleberg and Marsden (2013) can be categorized into economic and non-economic outcomes or value of TM, respectively (at the employee level). From an economic perspective, the individual employee wants to see his or her efforts rewarded by financial or other material rewards, such as income. Moreover, the employee wants his or her need for job security to be fulfilled, now and in the future (Oldham & Hackman, 2010; Kalleberg & Marsden, 2013). From a non-economic point of view, employees attach major importance to work that is meaningful and challenging, matches personal interests, and gives a feeling of accomplishment (Oldman & Hackman, 2010; Kalleberg & Marsden, 2013). According to Oldham and Hackman (2010) an individual has growth needs and social needs in addition to mere economic needs. Growth needs refer to the desire for personal accomplishment, learning, and career development, and social needs involve the desire for significant relationships and interactions with others at work (Oldham & Hackman, 2010). A resourceful work environment thus provides employees with opportunities to fulfill these non-economic outcomes (Hakanen, Schaufeli & Ahola, 2008; Bakker & Bal, 2010; Oldham & Hackman, 2010). It offers possibilities for cooperation with colleagues, provides learning, development, and promotion opportunities, and challenging work conditions that match its employees personal interests and motives. An organization can only demand productivity from its employees if it takes proper care of their needs (Paauwe, 2009). This implies that employees be treated fairly and with due consideration for their well-being (Paauwe, 2009). According to Greenberg (1990), social scientists have long recognized the ideals of justice as a basic requirement for the effective functioning of organizations and the personal satisfaction of the individuals they employ (p. 339). Therefore, we posit that just and fair treatment is an important non-economic outcome of TM at the individual level (see also Gelens, Dries, Hofmans & Pepermans, 2013). Colquitt, Coolon, Wesson, Porter and Yee Ng (2001) define an act as just if most individuals perceive it to be so. The literature on organizational justice makes a basic distinction between the fairness of outcome distributions and allocations (i.e., distributive justice) and the fairness of the procedures used to determine the outcomes and distributions (i.e., procedural justice) (Greenberg, 1990; Colquitt et al., 2001). Colquitt et al. (2001) add the importance of the quality of the interpersonal treatment people receive whilst procedures are imple- 56 Chapter 3 - Talent Management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach

58 mented (i.e., interactional justice). A meta-analysis by the same authors shows that perceived justice has a positive effect on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, performance, employee trust, and organizational citizenship behavior. In the current TM literature, the economic value created by TM at the individual level is indirectly addressed. Rewards and incentives are seen as relevant TM instruments, although scholars have warned about the limited and negative effects of an overreliance on rewards because people who come for money will leave for money (e.g., Pfeffer, 2007; Stahl et al., 2012). The potential non-economic value of TM for the employee is a minor topic of discussion in the TM literature, as well. If the TM literature does address the individual employee level, it tends to emphasize employee growth needs but again, these are primarily discussed as a mediator between TM initiatives and organizational performance. Just a handful of scholars have addressed the importance of fairness and justice in TM, especially in approaches where the workforce is differentiated into a group of talents and a group of non-talents (i.e., the exclusive approach) (e.g., Frank & Taylor, 2004; Garrow & Hirsh, 2008; Geelens et al., 2013)). It is believed that this type of exclusive approach promotes inequality between employees (Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries & González-Cruz, 2013) and thus, perceived injustice (Gelens et al., 2013). After all, in these types of TM system the organization invests more time and money in attracting, developing, and retaining the employees within the talent pool than those outside of it. Pfeffer (2001) criticizes the focus on top performers. In his opinion, this will lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy in reverse : those labeled as less able become less able, because they are asked to do less and get fewer resources, training and mentoring. Although Mäkelä, Björkman and Ehrnrooth (2010) and Vaiman, Scullion and Collings (2012) do not explicitly pay attention to fairness and justice issues, they do address the unequal treatment of employees in TM, because managers make decisions based on limited and subjective information (they refer to bounded rationality ) Value of TM at the organizational level Boxall and Purcell (2011) identify three critical HR goals: (1) labor productivity, (2) organizational flexibility, and (3) social legitimacy and employment citizenship. According to Boxall and Purcell (2011), productivity and flexibility reflect the business agenda. They are needed to sustain profitability and economic survival over time. But, the authors argue, organizations operate within societies, making use of human capacities that citizens and the state have nurtured and generated. Therefore, the organization is also concerned with its standing as an employer in society, or with its employment citizenship. Boxall and Purcell (2011) claim that legitimacy should be an employer goal alongside the more market-oriented ones. Legitimacy refers to the acceptance of an organization by its environment, and is of vital importance for the continued existence and success of an organi- Talent Management in academia 57

59 zation (Kastova & Zaheer, 1999). Legitimacy can be described as a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions (Suchman, 1995, p. 574). Suchman (1995) divides research on legitimacy into two streams. The first is the strategic tradition, which adopts a managerial perspective and emphasizes the ways in which organizations instrumentally manipulate and deploy evocative symbols in order to gain societal support so that organizational goals can be reached. The second is the institutional tradition, which accentuates the way a set of constructive beliefs from the institutional environment puts pressure on the actions of the organization. These pressures can limit the organization s room to maneuver in terms of decision-making. In previous sections of this chapter we have already addressed the dominance of economic goals of TM at the organizational level: increasing workforce flexibility, profitability, organizational performance, et cetera. Legitimacy, in contrast, can be classified as an important non-economic outcome of TM at the organizational level. In the contemporary TM literature legitimacy is an underexplored topic. However, a few authors have discussed topics related to legitimacy, most notably employer branding. The notion of the importance of employer branding and the formulation of an employee value proposition, as discussed by scholars such as Stahl et al. (2007), Christensen Hughes and Rog (2008), Jansen and van der Pool, (2009) and Martin and Groen-in-het-Woud (2011), are primarily derived from marketing models, with the intention of positioning the organization as an appealing employer in order to recruit and retain the best and most talented employees. For example, Stahl et al. (2007) advise companies to see their recruits as customers and to use sophisticated marketing analysis tools to identify key competitors so as to determine which corporate attributes matter most to specific recruits and to understand how to reach those customers. The question is whether we can interpret employer branding as conforming to institutional pressures, or rather, as a way to appeal to market pressures and to keep ahead in the war for talent. According to Deephouse and Carter (2005), organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation are related concepts, but there are also important differences. Legitimacy emphasizes the social acceptance resulting from adherence to social norms and the expectations of stakeholders in the organization s environment, whereas reputation refers to comparisons among organizations on various attributes. Legitimacy is necessary to survive as an organization. Having less of a reputation, however, does not threaten the organization s continued existence as long as the organization s legitimacy remains unchallenged (Deephouse & Carter, 2005). The way employer branding is addressed in contemporary TM literature corresponds to Schuman s strategic view on legitimacy, and is in line with the general tendency to approach TM in a managerial and instrumental way. 58 Chapter 3 - Talent Management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach

60 3.3.3 Value of TM at the societal level The external environment i.e., society at large is confronted with the consequences of the way organizations manage their employees, and their employment and work relationships (Rubery & Grimshaw, 2003). In addition to the production of goods and services, organizations offer employment opportunities to citizens and affect the distribution of income in a region (Rubery & Grimshaw, 2003). For that reason, we argue that TM affects societal well-being as well. To obtain insight into the relevant aspects of societal well-being we turn to the literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR). The pyramid of Carroll (1991) encompasses several important elements of CSR and distinguishes four components: economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic. He states, [ ] the total corporate social responsibility of a business entails the simultaneous fulfillment of the firm s economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities. Stated in more pragmatic and managerial terms, the CSR firm should strive to make a profit, obey the law, be ethical, and be a good corporate citizen (p. 43). According to Carroll (1991), historically the economic and legal responsibilities of the organization were seen as an organization s most important value. Later on, ethical and philanthropic functions of organizations also assumed a significant place: Although economic and legal responsibilities embody ethical norms about fairness and justice, ethical responsibilities embrace those activities and practices that are expected or prohibited by societal members even though they are not codified into law (Carroll, 1991, p. 41). Achterberg and Vriens (2009) indicate that there is a difference between adapting to societal or institutional pressures because you have no choice and because it helps to realize organizational goals (they call this isolating corporation ), and the incorporation of societal values because one truly wants to contribute to a society in which citizens can develop themselves (Achterberg and Vriens call this inclusive incorporation ). Organizations accepting full social responsibility choose to go beyond viability and aim to contribute to societal development (Achterberg & Vriens, 2009). In their 2011 article on how to reinvent capitalism, Porter and Kramer (2011) even go one step further and state that: [ ] The solution lies in the principle of shared value, which involves creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges. Businesses must reconnect company success with social progress. Shared value is not social responsibility, philanthropy, or even sustainability, but a new way to achieve economic success (p. 65). The components of the pyramid of Carroll (1991) can be used to divide the potential value created by TM (at the societal level) into economic and non-economic value. The ethical and philanthropic component could be seen as non-economic outcomes that can be achieved through TM. The question is to what extent TM can contribute to the social and moral development and growth of society, creating conditions for its citizens to live, as Achterberg and Vriens (2009) call it, a fulfilled life. It appears that in the existing TM literature, both the economic and non-economic Talent Management in academia 59

61 value of TM at the societal level are a non-issue. Instead, the mainstream TM literature emphasizes the recruitment, development and retention of talents that benefit the organization. Potential positive and negative effects of this type of approach to society are, overall, neglected. Specifically, little attention is paid to the responsibility of organizations for non-talents (i.e., employees not identified as talented) and their opportunities in the external labor market. What can an organization do to contribute to the personal and professional development of non-talents within their workforce, so they can take up a fulfilling position elsewhere in society without risking unemployment or loss of income? Currently, this is not a topic of interest in the TM literature. 3.4 Discussion The aim of the present chapter has been to contribute to the development of a broader, more balanced approach to TM that will help in studying and implementing TM across different contexts. To that end, we have presented a multilevel, multi-value approach to TM, clarifying the potential economic and non-economic (i.e., social and moral) value created by TM at three levels: individual, organizational, and societal. The non-economic value of TM, as well as the value of TM at the societal level, are new areas in the academic field of TM. We argue that in conceptualizations of TM, the preferences and needs of individual employees as well as those of society at large need to be modeled as being equivalent to organizational objectives. Besides the economic value, we recommend scholars to address the potential non-economic (i.e., moral and social) value of TM at the three levels in theory and research (see Table 3.2). This chapter is highly conceptual, and its ideas must be tested and validated in more depth through empirical research. A first suggestion to advance the field of TM is to expand TM research beyond the scope of multinational and private companies and explore the TM challenges and issues faced by public, non-profit and voluntary organizations, as well. A second avenue of research would be to examine the value of TM at the level of the individual. Besides financial rewards and job security, we expect that most employees prefer a challenging job that meets their growth and social needs, and that they desire to be treated in a fair and just manner. The question is whether talented employees have the same needs as employees who are not regarded as talented. The study of Dries and Pepermans (2008) provides some insight into this issue, but more research is needed to expand our current knowledge base. It is also necessary to explore whether TM practices and activities actually contribute to the satisfaction of the needs and goals of the individual employees or not. Special attention can be paid to the impact of an exclusive approach on the realization of individual well-being, both of the people inside and outside of the designated talent pools. In that respect, 60 Chapter 3 - Talent Management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach

62 we recommend studying fairness and justice issues related to TM (see also Gelens et al., 2013). Hence, our suggestion for further research on the value of TM at the individual level is to interview and/or survey employees rather than HR professionals or managers when studying TM the latter group being the most commonly targeted research population in the existing TM research. At the organizational level, the TM literature highlights the economic value of TM. We have introduced legitimacy as a key non-economic, social outcome at the organizational level. Legitimacy is underexplored in the TM literature and research so far. As a third avenue for further research we propose investigating, through empirical research, which legitimacy issues are vital in the field of TM, how organizations respond to those issues, and if (and how) they are capable of balancing the economic and non-economic value of TM at the organizational level. The value of TM at the societal level, both economic and non-economic, has not been studied to date, nor discussed in the field of TM. In future research these societal outcomes might serve as a starting point for further exploration. Our suggestion for a fourth avenue for further research involves the following question: What is the value of TM, both economic and non-economic, at the societal level, and how do organizations take societal well-being into account in their TM policy and practice? Although presented separately in this chapter, the different levels and outcomes of TM are often interrelated. The broader, more balanced and pluralistic approach to TM proposed in this chapter takes into account the economic and non-economic value of TM at the individual, organizational, and societal level simultaneously. Nevertheless, an optimum at all levels is probably impossible, in light of the expected tensions and conflicts between the economic and non-economic value at the three levels (Deephouse, 1999). For example, the need for flexibility on the side of the organization can clash with the individual need for job security. According to Marsden (2004), employers may be able to impose short-term, unstable employment on vulnerable groups on the labor market, but for those with marketable skills and talents, this can only be done at a cost, such as compensatory higher pay (p. 674). The search for balance between the multiple goals at the multiple levels could be the ultimate aim, in line with a more strategic balanced approach as presented by Deephouse (1999). However, empirical research might show if the multiple goals of TM are in fact conflicting, and if and in what way organizations manage to balance them. Finally, the field of TM needs to be grounded in mature theoretical frameworks. Even more, the field is in urgent need of more empirical research to develop and test the existing frameworks currently found in the conceptual literature. Up until now the TM literature has been built on assumptions and hypotheses. Besides the outcomes of TM, research also needs to address the question of how organizations actually define talent, and investigate the typologies that are dominant in organizational reality, as well as the effects of those typologies on, for example, employee well- Talent Management in academia 61

63 being (see also Dries, 2013). We are also in urgent need of more knowledge about the roles and impact of various stakeholders, beyond HR and management, on TM policy and practice. Gaining insight into these issues will not only help advance TM as a field of academic study, but can also arm HR practitioners with more knowledge to handle TM issues faced by their organizations. These abovementioned recommendations for research serve as points of departure for our empirical research on TM in Dutch public universities (chapters 6 through 8). In order to get a clear understanding of the difficulties and challenges Dutch public universities have to face in their war for talent, the next chapter offers an extensive analysis of the developments in the external and internal environment of these science organizations. 62 Chapter 3 - Talent Management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach

64 References Achterberg, J. & Vriens, D. (2009). Organizations: Social Systems Conducting Experiments. Dordrecht: Springer. Astley, W. & Van der Ven, A. (1983). Central Perspectives and Debates in Organization Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), Bakker, A. B., & Bal, P. M. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83(1), Blass, E., & April, K. (2008). Developing talent for tomorrow. DEVELOP, 1, Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. In Losey, M., Meisinger, S. & Ulrich, D. (Eds.) (2005). The future of human resource management (pp ). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley & Sons. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Vive la crise! For heterodoxy in social science. Theory and Society. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boxall, P. (2007). The Goals of HRM, in: Boxall, P., J. Purcell & P. Wright (2007). The Oxford Handbook of HRM (pp ). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boxall, P. & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems: progressing the high-involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(1), Boxall, P. & Purcell, J. (2011). Strategy and Human Resource Management (Third edition). New York: Palgrave Macmilan. Burbach, R., & Royle, T. (2010). Talent on demand? Talent management in the German and Irish subsidiaries of a US multinational corporation. Personnel Review, 39(4), Cappelli, P. (2000). A market-driven approach to retaining talent. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent management for the twenty-first century. Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 74. Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), Christensen, T., Laegrid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rovik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory for the public sector. instrument, culture and myth. New York: Taylor & Francis. Christensen Hughes, J., & Rog, E. (2008). Talent management: A strategy for improving employee recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality organizations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(7), Collings, D. G., Scullion, H., & Vaiman, V. (2011). European perspectives on talent management. European Journal of International Management, 5(5), Talent Management in academia 63

65 Colquitt, J., Coolon, D., Wesson, M., Porter, C. & Yee Ng, K. (2001). Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), Deephouse, D. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic management journal, 20(2), Deephouse, D. L. & Carter, S. M. (2005). An Examination of Differences Between Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), Deloitte (2010). Talent edge 2020: Blueprints for the new normal. Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2008). Real high-potential careers: An empirical study into the perspectives of organizations and high potentials. Personnel Review, 37(1), Dries, N. (2013). The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), 2724) Frank, F. D., & Taylor, C. R. (2004). Talent management: Trends that will shape the future. Human Resource Planning, 27(1), Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & González-Cruz, T. (2013). What is the meaning of talent in the world of work? Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), Garrow, V., & Hirsh, W. (2008). Talent management: Issues of focus and fit. Public Personnel Management, 37(4), Gelens, J., Dries, N., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (2013). The role of perceived organizational justice in shaping the outcomes of talent management: A research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), Greenwood, R. & Hinings, C. (1996). Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing together the Old and the New Institutionalism. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), Greenwood, R. & Miller, D. (2010). Tackling Design Anew: Getting Back to the Heart of Organizational Theory. Academy of Management Perspective, 24(4), Guthridge, M., Komm, A. B., & Lawson, E. (2006). The people problem in talent management. McKinsey Quarterly, , 6-9. Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The job demands-resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work & Stress, 22(3), Höglund, M. (2012). Quid pro quo? Examining talent management through the lens of psychological contracts. Personnel Review, 41(2), Hom, P., Tsui, A.,Wu, J., Lee, T., Zhang, A., Fu, P. & Li, L. (2009). Explaining employment relationships with social exchange and job embeddedness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), Chapter 3 - Talent Management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach

66 Jansen, M., & Van der Pool, H. (2009). Employer branding. Five building blocks to attract, select and retain young talent through the recruitment strategy. In: Van der Sluis, L. & Van de Bunt-Kokhuis, S. (Eds.) (2009). Competing for talent (pp.56-74). Assen: Van Gorcum. Kalleberg, A. (2009). Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in Transition. American Sociological Review, 74(1), Kalleberg, A. & Marsden. P. (2013). Changing work values in the United States, Social Science Research, 42(2), Kostova, T. & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational Legitimacy under Conditions of Complexity: The Case of the Multinational Enterprise. The Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 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), Marsden, D. (2004). The Network economy and models of the employment contract. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42(4), Martin, G., & Groen-in t Woud, S. (2011). Employer branding and corporate reputation management in global companies: A signaling model and case illustration. In Scullion, H. & Collings, D.G. (Eds.) (2011). Global talent management (pp ). London and New York: Routledge. Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1980). A model for diagnosing organizational behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 9(2), Oldham, G. & Hackman, J. (2010), Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Special Issue: Putting Job Design in Context. 31(2-3), Paauwe, J. (2007). HRM and performance: In search of balance. Tilburg university. Paauwe, J. (2009). HRM and performance: Achievements, methodological issues and prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), Paauwe, J. & Boselie, P. (2003) Challenging strategic human resource management and the relevance of the institutional setting, Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), Paauwe, J. & Boselie, P. (2007). HRM and Social Embeddedness. In: Boxall, P., J. Purcell & P. Wright (2007). The Oxford Handbook of HRM (pp ), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pfeffer, J. (2001). Fighting the war for talent is hazardous to your organization s health. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), Pfeffer, J. (2007). Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(4), Porter, M., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), Talent Management in academia 65

67 Powell, J., Durose, J., Duberly, J. Exworthy, M. Fewtrell, C. MacFarlane, F. & Moss, P. (2012). Talent Management in the NHS Managerial Workforce. Final report. NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme. Rubery, J. & Grimshaw, D. (2003). The organization of Employment. An International Perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian. Sonnenberg, M. (2010). Talent - Key ingredients. Accenture in cooperation with Tilburg University. Stahl, G. K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S. S., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P., Trevor, J. & Wright, P. M. (2007). Global talent management: How leading multinationals build and sustain their talent pipeline. Faculty and research working paper, INSEAD. Stahl, G. K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S. S., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P., Trevor, J. &. Wright, P. M. (2012). Six Principles of Effective Global talent management. MIT Sloan Management review, 53(2), Suchman, M. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), Tsui, A., Pearce, J., Porter, L. & Tripoli, A. (1997). Alternative Approaches to the Employee-Organization Relationship: Does Investment in Employees Pay off? The Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), Tsui, A. S. & Wu, J. B. (2005). The new employment relationship versus the mutual investment approach: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 44(2), Ulrich, D., & Ulrich, M. (2010). Marshalling talent. Paper Accepted at the 2010 Academy of Management Annual Meeting. Vaiman, V., Scullion, H. & Collings, D. (2012). Talent management decision making. Management Decision, 50(5), 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), Chapter 3 - Talent Management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach

68 Chapter 4 Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach The first part of this chapter is based on: Thunnissen, M., B. Fruytier & P. Boselie (2013), Managing talent in academia. A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, September 10-13, Istanbul. The second part of this chapter is based on: Thunnissen, M. & Fruytier, B. (2014), Het mobiliseren van Human Capital: een overzicht van 25 jaar HRM-beleid op Nederlandse universiteiten. Tijdschrift voor HRM (online 2 April 2014)

69 4.1 Introduction Several studies show that finding talented people is the single most important managerial preoccupation for this decade (e.g., Stahl et al., 2012). Higher Education (HE) institutes in Europe are also confronted with intensifying competition for academic talent (Enders, De Boer, File, Jongbloed & Westerheijden, 2011). They face an ageing workforce and need to replace the retiring baby boom professors with a new generation of academics. For some academic disciplines this is problematic and they suffer chronic shortages of talented people (e.g., Gilliot, Overlaet & Verdin, 2002; Larsen & Lubbe, 2008). Moreover, HE institutes are ascribed an important role in the strengthening of the European position in the global knowledge economy (Enders et al., 2011). To make the European HE system more competitive, great value is attached to quality and excellence, combined with transparency, accountability and efficiency (Enders et al., 2011). A war for talent is inextricably bound up with this shift towards competition and excellence. For universities the human resources, in particular the academic staff, are the most valuable asset for the success of the organization (Fruytier & Timmerhuis, 1995), because scientific performance depends on the devotion and the specific characteristics of the academic staff (Buchholz, Gülker, Knie & Simon, 2009; Verbree, 2011). So, for excellence in research and education the availability of talented, creative, innovative and enthusiastic academics is crucial (Florida, 1999). To handle the challenges they are confronted with, European universities draw up activities and instruments to attract, develop and retain excellent academics (Van den Brink, Fruytier & Thunnissen, 2013). The talent management (TM) policies of elite, private American universities are copied, especially the tenure track system (Buchholz et al., 2009; Fruytier & Brok, 2007), as well as TM policies of large multinationals like Shell. It is questionable whether these approaches and policies can be copied as best practices by organizations in other contexts, because, as we argued before, the circumstances in the external environment, and the specific characteristics of the internal organization and its employees affect the shaping of the employment relationship and Human Resource Management (HRM) policies and activities (Paauwe, 2004; Boxall, Purcell & Wright, 2007). Those circumstances and characteristics differ between European and American HE institutes, and between public and private sector organizations (Christensen, Laegrid, Roness & Rovik, 2007). This implies that in studying and implementing TM policies in academic organizations, the specific characteristics of these organizations, academic work and academics have to be taken into account (see also Veld (2012) and Van den Broek-Van Dongen (2014)). This chapter aims to provide a detailed contextual analysis. It describes how the academic organization and academic work have developed in interaction with recent reforms in the external environment, and discusses the effects of these developments on the way universities manage and mobilize their academic staff, and, subsequently, 68 Chapter 4 - Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach

70 on TM. Deem (2001) claims that there are many similarities between the reforms and developments in HE in European countries, but the response of the institutes to those global forces can differ because of local dimensions. For an appropriate understanding of the context it is therefore necessary to acknowledge the importance of that local dimension and to address the context of universities in one single country. This chapter therefore focuses on the context of the fourteen publicly funded universities in the Netherlands. Appendix 1 gives a short overview of the most important characteristics of these universities. This contextual analysis is primarily based on an intensive literature research. The next sections give an explanation of the underlying research framework, and a description of the research methods. In the results section the context of the Dutch university is dismantled in three steps. First, the reforms in the external environment are identified. Subsequently we discuss the effects of these changes on the academic organization, academic work and the academic staff. Finally, the chapter concentrates on the question if, and how, academic HRM has evolved during the past decades, and whether these developments are related to the ascribed internal and external reforms. In the final part of the chapter, the discussion, we elaborate on the consequences for TM. 4.2 Underlying research framework: a multiperspective approach There is a large amount of conceptual literature, empirical studies and policy documents on universities in Europe and the Netherlands. However, most publications focus on one dimension of the academic organization or its external environment. They therefore provide a simplified and one-sided view of reality, obscuring other perceptions on reality. The different dimensions have seldom been presented as one integrated entity. In this chapter we expand this unilateral approach by using multiple theoretical lenses together in order to fully understand the nuances and complexity of the academic organization and the challenges regarding talent it has to face (following scholars such as Birnbaum (1988), Bolman and Deal (2008) and Greenwood and Miller (2010)). Table 4.1 shows that we will use three levels of analysis. First, we describe the reforms on the level of the external context; subsequently we focus on the developments at the level of the organization; and, finally, the level of the HRM system is the subject of our analysis. Talent Management in academia 69

71 Table 4.1: Overview of theoretical framework Level of analysis External context Internal context: the academic organization Academic HRM policy and practice Theoretical frame Reflections on: Market mechanisms Institutional mechanisms (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) Description in 4 frames (based on deterministic and voluntaristic approach (see Astley & Van der Ven, 1983)): Structural frame Cultural frame Professional frame Political frame Reflections on: Dominant coalition (decision makers) in academic personnel management Intended and actual HR policies and practices. (Paauwe, 2004) External context In this section we will reflect on outside mechanisms that affect the academic organization and interact with it. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) make a distinction between two general mechanisms: market mechanisms and institutional mechanisms. Market mechanisms refer to competition between organizations operating in the same market in terms of products, technology and people (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). These economically based mechanisms put pressures on organizations, demanding efficiency, effectiveness, flexibility and innovativeness to keep ahead of the competition (Paauwe, 2004). However, as DiMaggio and Powell state: Organizations compete not just for resources and customers, but for political power and institutional legitimacy, for social as well as economic fitness (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; p.150). So, besides the market pressures they refer to institutional mechanisms. Institutional mechanisms represent pressures derived from the broader institutional context and originate in legislation and procedures, norms and values, and social-cultural issues in a country or region (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Even though the institutional forces try to change organizations, they often result in homogeneity: organizational characteristics are modified to make the organization compatible with the environmental characteristics, and, as a result, organizations which face the same set of environmental conditions start to resemble each other. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) call this isomorphism. They identify three institutional mechanisms through which institutional isomorphism occurs. First, coercive isomorphism results from the formal 70 Chapter 4 - Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach

72 and informal pressures exerted on organizations by other organizations upon which they are dependent (e.g., legal requirements by the state), or by cultural expectations in society. Second, they identify mimetic mechanisms. As a response to uncertainty inside or outside the organization the organization models itself on other, successful organizations, or adopts fashionable trends. The copying of policies of American universities or multinationals is an example of mimetic isomorphism. The third group of mechanisms, normative mechanisms, is associated with professionalization and refers to the adaption to the norms of a certain professional group that goes beyond the organization. These normative pressures are probably dominant in a university, since academics traditionally have strong bonds with their academic community Internal context: the academic organization We now go down one level and focus on the impact of the external mechanisms on the internal organization. We use four frames to describe the developments in the internal organization. These four frames are based on two dominant streams in the domain of organization theory and Organizational Behavior (OB) (Astley & Van der Ven, 1983): (1) the deterministic approach, reflected in a system-structural view on organizations, which states that individual behavior is determined by structural properties in the organization and its context; (2) a voluntaristic orientation, reflected in a strategic choice view of organizations. In the latter orientation (also referred to as an action model) it is believed that individuals are autonomous, proactive and self-directing and therefore a source of social change in organizations. In this chapter we will explore the academic organization from both perspectives. The first frame, the structural frame, is related to the deterministic, systemstructural orientation and describes organizational structure, processes, systems, rules and agreements that determine organizational behavior. This frame assumes that the formal organizational structure defines how the primary operational process is carried out, in a design of hierarchical units and positions, tasks, and formal regulations and agreements in, for example, quality systems (Christensen et al., 2007). The second frame, the cultural frame, is also related to the system-structural orientation, although it also unites aspects of the action model approach. Culture, and its unwritten rules, rituals and ceremonies, values and norms, gives direction to the actions of the organization, and the subunits and individuals within the system (Christensen et al., 2007). An institutional culture influences what people see, believe and how they behave (Birnbaum, 1988). In the cultural frame we will discuss changes in academic organizational culture. The third and fourth frame are grounded in the voluntaristic orientation and focus on the stakeholders in the university, with their (possibly) conflicting needs and preferences and their influence on organizational performance (Christensen et Talent Management in academia 71

73 al., 2007). According to Birnbaum (1988) these stakeholders try to get a grip of the scarce resources within the organization for their own benefit. One stakeholder group is of vital importance for the university: the academic staff actively involved in, and asserting influence on, the operational process. In the professional frame we focus on the interests and characteristics of the academic staff. Subsequently, in the political frame we will view the academic organization at the level of interrelated groups within the organization, with equal and also divergent and conflicting needs and interests, bargaining with each other over who gets what? (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Birnbaum, 1988) Academic HRM policy and practice Finally, we discuss the way Dutch universities manage and mobilize their human capital. According to the contextually-based HR theory of Paauwe (2004) both the external context (competitive and institutional mechanisms) and the organizational internal context (or configuration as Paauwe calls it) shape the HR policies and practices of an organization. The external and internal context determines the room to maneuver in HR policy decisions taken by the dominant decision makers within the organization. Important actors in the dominant coalition are, for example, top management, supervisory board, middle and lower management, works council, and the HR manager. Corresponding to the action model, Paauwe and Boselie (2003) state that each of these actors has their own interests, values, norms. These interests may be similar to other actors in the dominant coalition, but, more likely, can be deviating and therefore result in tensions and conflicts regarding the shaping of the HR system. In this section we discuss the reforms in academic HRM policy and practices over the past 25 years, and who is in the lead (i.e., in the dominant coalition) in academic HRM. 4.3 Research methods The information is gathered by a literature review and a small explorative qualitative study. To gain insight into the external context and internal organization we started a search in the search engine Google Scholar, and the Academic Search Premier and Science Direct databases. In addition, reference lists of the assembled publications were used to gather relevant documents that did not appear in the databases and Google Scholar. Policy documents on the Dutch HE system were also collected, as well as empirical studies on the careers and working environment preferences of academics. To describe the developments in the way Dutch universities manage and mobilize their academic staff, we gathered empirical studies on HRM in Dutch universities. 72 Chapter 4 - Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach

74 The literature study made clear that the environmental changes, and the structural and the professional frame are the subject of much scholarly publication and research. The literature provided enough information to fill in these frames. There was also sufficient material to get a clear picture of the themes on the (strategic) HRM-agenda and the reforms in academic HRM within academic institutes. However, there are fewer scholarly publications and less empirical research on aspects of the cultural and political frame. To fill in these blanks in the literature study, an additional interview study was necessary. This interview study was conducted in May and June of Representatives of the most relevant stakeholder groups, both inside and outside Dutch academia, were selected and invited for an interview. In total, fourteen persons were interviewed (see table 4.2). The interviewees were asked (1) what recent developments in the context of HE organizations they regarded as most influential, and (2) in what way these developments affected the academic organization (i.e. structure, culture, stakeholders involved), academic work and the academics selves. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed by isolating the words and sentences connected to the research questions. The number of interviews was too small to generalize the findings to all stakeholder groups. Yet, the interviews affirmed the findings of the literature research, and also contributed to a deepening of our understanding of the specific nuances within a frame or between the frames. In this chapter some quotations are used to illustrate the findings of the literature study. Table 4.2: Overview of interviewees External stakeholders 1 Representative of the Ministry of Education, Cultural Affairs and Science 1 Chairman of the Association of Universities 2 Representatives of the Royal Dutch Academy of Arts and Sciences 1 Representative of a trade union Internal stakeholders 2 Members of the Executive Board of two universities 4 Policy officials (HR-department and Academic Affairs) 3 Full professors 4.4 Findings The history of the Dutch universities goes back to the early and late Middle Ages. In 1575 Willem van Oranje founded the first Dutch university in Leiden, because the Spanish occupation hindered the inhabitants of the Dutch region from studying at the much older University of Leuven. Several other universities were founded (and terminated) in the centuries afterwards. With the rise of the Age of Reason in the late eighteenth century, Talent Management in academia 73

75 the modern research university arose and universities were organized analogous to the Humboldt university in Berlin, emphasizing the importance of freedom, autonomy and creativity in finding new knowledge and deepening the understanding of ourselves and the world around us: the university as intellectual sanctuary (though only accessible for the elite). The university was built on and for the academics: the academic staff was responsible for teaching and research, but also for the governance of the university (e.g., Birnbaum, 1988; Enders, 1999). The collegial governance system was dominant, and when management and administrators made their entrance in the organization they were advised not to interfere or to exert control (Fruytier & Timmerhuis, 1995). Interference was regarded as unacceptable, because it collided with the autonomy, professionalism and expertise of the independent scientist. It was also thought that the creative and unpredictable nature of academic work made it impossible to standardize scientific work processes and to predict the output. The only way to manage and control academics and academic work was through the selection and socialization of new scholars entering the academic organization (Fruytier & Timmerhuis, 1995). Also the outside world was shut out by this self-propelling organization. The public had to have faith in the academics, that they would use their time usefully and would come up with (socially) relevant results Reforms and developments in the external context This ideal of the classic Humboldt University continued to exist for almost two centuries. The enormous increase in students since the 1960 s and the economic stagnation in the 1980 s were starting points of the dismantlement of this classic organizational model for universities in the Netherlands (Zomer & Benneworth, 2011). Many fundamental reforms took place (see also upper half of table 4.3). Firstly, the external environment of universities has expanded beyond the national borders due to increased internationalization, the globalization of economies and Europeanization (Enders et al., 2011, Eurydice, 2000; Deem, 2001). Nowadays, the academic community is a globally oriented community. Especially the Bologna declaration in 1999 and EU s Lisbon strategy in 2000 have had a major impact on the structuring of HE in Europe in general. These European agreements sought to reform the continent s fragmented HE system into a more powerful and integrated, knowledge based economy to stimulate international transfers of students (Enders et al., 2011). Secondly, we see that the role of the Dutch government has changed. There is a shift from government to governance: direct interference and state control have decreased and institutes have obtained greater institutional autonomy to promote efficiency, cost-effectiveness, flexibility and an entrepreneurial spirit (Enders et al., 2011; Eurydice, 2000). Various authors refer to the entrance of New Public Management or the rise of neo-liberalism (e.g., Deem, 2001; Zomer & Benneworth, 2011). 74 Chapter 4 - Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach

76 According to Teelken (2012) the Netherlands can be considered as an early adopter of the quasi market principle. Thirdly, in exchange for institutional autonomy the national government demanded quality, but also accountability (in measurable objectives) in return (Enders et al., 2011; Eurydice, 2000; Teelken, 2012). Increased value is attached to ranking systems to assess the results and prestige of a university and its staff. The position of the Dutch universities on these lists is variable. Since 2012 each HE institute has entered into a performance agreement contract with the Dutch Ministry of Education, Cultural Affairs and Science regarding the quality of their education and research. Fourthly, the involvement and impact of external stakeholders has grown, and has led to a multiplicity of norms and expectations to meet. Through competition and greater institutional (financial) autonomy HE institutions are stimulated to become more sensitive to the varied consumers demands for relevance (Enders et al., 2011; Zomer & Benneworth, 2011). The production of useful knowledge and relevant teaching has been emphasized, necessary to solve societal and economic issues (Enders et al., 2011; Zomer & Benneworth, 2011). In 2011 the Dutch government gave the cooperation between universities and the business community an extra (financial) boost by nominating nine top sectors on which universities, businesses and government have to cooperate. At the same time, the society at large is more demanding, questioning the quality and relevance of research projects and the quality of bachelor and master graduates because of recent fraud affairs. We also need to point to the increasing impact of the Dutch Research Council (NWO). In the past decades the Dutch government has lowered the direct and structural research funding of institutes, and increased the provision of individual research budgets via NWO (Heiligers & Van Steen, 2008; Lepori et al., 2007). In particular, the grants for excellent researchers are of great importance in Dutch academia. The competition to get a grant is fierce. Only academics with the best track record are eligible to get a grant (Van Arensbergen, Hessels & Van der Meulen, 2013). We can conclude that economic pressures in the external environment push universities to become more competitive, efficient and effective. These economically oriented pressures are not exerted by competitors within the Dutch HE system. Conversely, stakeholders in the institutional context in particular the influence of govern ment and funding companies is significant demand excellent performance from competitive HE institutes (recorded in organizational performance agreements), and demonstrated in high positions in university rankings and the production of useful knowledge to solve societal problems. In other words, the external environment seems to be dominated by coercive mechanisms. In the next section we will discuss what the impact of these dominant coercive pressures is. Talent Management in academia 75

77 4.4.2 Framing the academic organization The literature shows that Dutch universities had to take up the call to become more competitive, efficient and flexible. Gradually the liberalization of the academic institutes took place, and the academic organization, academic work and the academic employee altered. In this section we will describe the changes, using the aforementioned frames: the structural, the cultural, the professional, and the political frame. Table 4.3 contains a summary of the most relevant findings. Table 4.3: Overview of influential environmental and internal developments Environmental developments Internal developments Increased internationalization, globalization and Europeanization Withdrawal of direct government control; less structural governmental funding towards external project funding and individual funding Growing importance of accountability and transparency Increased external stakeholder involvement Structural frame Commercialization of knowledge from peripheral to core From loosely coupled to more tightly coupled and interdependent units Introduction of administrative and measurement systems to monitor performance Loosely coupling teaching and research Increasingly flexible workforce Cultural frame The culture of autonomous academic staff, the importance of peers; the academic rituals and meetings is still dominant More and more businesslike elements seep into the academic culture Professional frame The essence of the professional has not changed: the passion for science, an urge to find new knowledge still characterizes a scientist The importance of less traditional competencies grew Political frame A more complex and dynamic system that accommodates multiple internal (and external) stakeholders Structural frame When we view the academic organization from a structural perspective i.e. organizational structure, processes, systems, rules and agreements that determine organizational behavior we see that the external, coercive pressures have had a considerable impact. First, on the mission and tasks of a university. In the old Humboldt university knowledge development (research) and knowledge sharing (teaching) were the two key objectives 76 Chapter 4 - Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach

78 of a university, but in recent decades a third task has made its entrance into academia: commercialization of knowledge. Nowadays the threefold task of Dutch universities is set out in the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act (WHW) and in formal job descriptions. Zomer and Benneworth (2011) indicate that since the 1970 s the third mission activities have evolved from the individual level (a few academics enthusiastic about the idea of applied research) to the collective level, and from an activity on the periphery to the core of the university. The entrepreneurial university arose, engaged with society and increasing its economic contributions (e.g., Zomer & Benneworth, 2011; Meyer, Ramirez, Frank & Schofer, 2005). Many scholars protest against these developments, and detect a tension between long term, open and fundamental research on the one hand, and short term commercialization, applied sciences and research funded by the business community on the other hand (e.g., Deem, 2001; Parker & Jay, 1995). We also notice changes in the organizational design of Dutch universities. The classic organization model for universities consists of loosely coupled units: they are connected and affect each other, but have their own identity and operate relatively independently with little coordination (Birnbaum, 1988). Nowadays, the organizational units are more tightly coupled and interdependent. Most academic departments have allied because of the rise of multidisciplinary or even interfaculty research institutes and schools. Also academic units and supporting units became more tightly coupled. Due to the increasing need to coordinate and control performance the importance of regulations, measurable standards and performance management systems grew, and academics became more dependent on managerial and administrative staff controlling these systems (e.g., De Weert, 2001, Teelken, 2012; De Jong et al., 2011). While organizational units became more interrelated, the core organizational processes, i.e. research and education, became more loosely coupled (De Weert, 2001). In the Humboldt tradition, academic work had a high level of specialization in expertise and a low level of differentiation in work activities: an outstanding academic excelled in both research ànd education in a specific field (Birnbaum, 1988). The loosening of research and education resulted in a differentiation and specialization in work activities and skills (e.g., Musselin, 2007), in which generally research has greater value and status than teaching. At the same time, teaching became more standardized and more efficient than before. Parker and Jay (1995) warn about the McDonaldization of the university. Research activities, on the other hand, showed a shift from fundamental towards applied research (Kogan & Teichler, 2007), and from research as an individual activity towards (international) teamwork (e.g., Enders & Teichler, 1997; Chiong Meza, 2012). Finally, in order to respond to the expansion and marketisation of HE, university management seeks to obtain a flexible workforce composition which makes it possible to react rapidly to external and internal developments (Bennion & Locke, 2010). Since the early 1990 s the group of employees with a permanent contract has declined, Talent Management in academia 77

79 while the group of employees with a fixed-term or part-time contract increased (e.g., Timmerhuis & Vermeulen, 1993; De Weert, 2001; Bryson, 2004; Musselin, 2007). These flexible employment conditions are linked to a new division of labor between those with fixed-term contracts engaged in either research or teaching, and those with tenure engaged in a combination of research, education, and service (Enders, 1999); Enders (1999) calls this the large distinction between the haves and have-nots. Bryson (2004) asserts that the academic underclass with fixed-term and part-time contracts will act as a shield to protect academics with permanent contracts against the effects of massification. Cultural frame The previous paragraph demonstrated that in response to the (coercive) institutional demands universities have altered the structuring of the academic organization and of academic work. Conversely, the research data showed that in the cultural frame the traditional culture of practicing science is still vital (Enders, 2009), which reflects the strength of the normative mechanisms (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). A passion for science, the urge to be the first to find new knowledge, and to be the best in science are key drivers in academic life and culture (Fruytier & Timmerhuis, 1995). There is a strong emphasis on excellence, not driven by external targets but by intrinsic motivation. Scientists have high performance standards for themselves. They are very driven to excel in their work (policy advisor). This drive is an essential feature of academic culture. In one of the interviews a professor remarks: Every academic has the drive to become a professor. ( ) If you do not believe that you re a gifted academic, a talent, you had better quit. You will not survive the competition (full professor). As in the conventional academic culture, autonomy is still highly appreciated. Organizational engagement is generally low and people show an aversion to governance and control by management tools and protocols. However, academics do not dislike regulations and protocols developed by their own professional community, because of the strong bond with the scientific community and the rituals and ceremonies that go together with that community (Fruytier & Timmerhuis, 1995). For new faculty the interaction with senior academics and peers is a way to learn and internalize the professional values and norms; especially graduate education and the first years as an academic are crucial periods for the preparation for an academic career (Austin, 2002). Although the classic image of scientific culture, in which many current academics are socialized and have therefore internalized it, is still dominant, reforms have become visible (e.g., Enders, 1999; Kolsaker, 2008). The shift from an accommodationmodel (a metaphor for the university as a hotel with room service and where academic staff can do as they please) to an association-model is noticeable (Fruytier & Timmerhuis, 1995). In this association-model organizational engagement and actual 78 Chapter 4 - Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach

80 effort to achieve organizational objectives is demanded: In the past bad functioning of employees was seldom addressed. ( )That was not necessary. But today, it is important (representative union). External, economically driven pressures contend with the normative pressures, pushing the university towards an enterprise culture. This is often mentioned in the interviews: More and more university culture is dominated by a management style based on rules and control, and less by the professional responsibility you would expect in these kinds of organizations. (professor). Nevertheless, successful research groups and academics do not submit to this altering culture, but even take advantage of this entrepreneurial mindset to preserve their independence and political leeway (Leyste & Enders, 2011; Teelken, 2008; Verbree, 2011). This raises the question whether the external pressures truly have an impact on the interests and characteristics of the academic staff. We will discuss this in the professional frame. Professional frame Buchholz et al. (2009) state that challenging work, freedom (autonomy) to take on a challenge, and creativity are the most fundamental driving forces for academics. This orientation towards autonomy, or far-reaching independence from short-term utilitarian logic, is necessary to focus on questions of truth with an open and objective mind (Buchholz et al., 2009). However, neither excessive nor too little autonomy is appreciated or effective. Too much coordination and control hinders productivity, but so does the absence of demands as well (Van der Weijden et al., 2009). Several authors claim that the professional values and autonomy have suffered badly since the rise of neo-liberalism in academia (e.g., Bryson, 2009; Parker & Jay, 1995; Kogan & Teichler, 2007). Beside autonomy and creativity, Buchholz et al., 2009 indicate that material conditions are also important for academics. They do not refer to salary and bonuses, but to remuneration and financial means that provide academics conditions to excel in their work. However, Dutch academia face restrictions in funding and therefore the possibilities to create prosperous research conditions are no longer self-evident. The responsibility to get funding, thus to create stimulating working conditions, is nowadays in the hands of individual scholars and group leaders themselves. Furthermore, the ability to acquire funding even became an essential enabler for careeradvancements (e.g., Van Balen & Van Besselaar, 2007). More and more universities offer a position to academics with a grant, for the duration of the grant. Additionally, research shows that academics also want job security (e.a.g., Buchholz et al., 2009; Bryson, 2004; De Weert, 2001; Enders, 1999), because the highly specialized nature of academic production demands a secure and stable employment relationship. But job security is not what Dutch academic staff get, especially not the academic staff in their early career stages with little proof of their qualities. Since, especially in academia, the effectiveness and quality of creative work is rather unpredictable, the organization aims to enter into an employment relationship that is as Talent Management in academia 79

81 flexible as possible (see structural frame). Only academics who have already established their reputation within the profession will be eligible for tenure (Van Balen & Van den Besselaar, 2007; Fruytier & Brok, 2007; Van Balen, 2010). Job insecurity, combined with a lack of career possibilities and obscure promotion criteria, is a major source of dissatisfaction for young academics in the Netherlands (e.g., Van Balen, 2010; Huisman, De Weert & Bartelse, 2002). For many young Dutch academics a career outside academia lies ahead. Research shows that just a small group (less than 30%) of the PhD s and post-doc researchers in the Netherlands will get a job as a lecturer or researcher at a Dutch university (De Goede, Belder & De Jonge, 2013); the rest will (have to) leave academia to get a position elsewhere. Despite the lack of academic career prospects, most young academics pay little attention to the possibility of a career outside academia or the necessity to develop non-scientific skills. They think they belong to the happy few who can make it in science (Freijsen, Van Arensbergen & Van der Weijden, 2011). In addition, in the Netherlands there are enormous differences in career possibilities between the academic disciplines (Larsen & Lubbe, 2008). For example, scholars in Language and Culture face poor career prospects inside ànd outside academia, while scholars in disciplines such as Agriculture, Nature and Technology, and in Economics and Law have many career possibilities within academia, as well as in the business community. To respond to these differences, Larsen and Lubbe (2008) state that the university departments developed different approaches for recruiting and developing academic staff. Now the question arises whether the interests and values of Dutch academics have changed in recent decades? The first surveys investigating this matter were conducted in the 1990 s (e.g., Slootman, 1991; Timmerhuis & Vermeulen, 1993; Hulshof, Verrijt & Kruithof, 1996). The most recent surveys on the needs and preferences of (junior) academics in the Netherlands were published in 2010 (e.g., Van Balen, 2010). These studies showed that, in the past twenty years, the interests of academics did not alter significantly. Most junior academics aspire to have an academic career. An intellectually challenging and meaningful job, the possibility to develop one s ideas, autonomy and independence, and the interaction with other academics are the crucial drivers behind that ambition (e.g., Keijzer & Gordijn, 2000; Hoffius & Surancho, 2006). The aforementioned lack of career possibilities and the lack of guidance and supervision by their managing professor is a recurring point of critique (e.g., Meijer, 2002;Van Balen, 2010). So, when we view the academic organization from a professional perspective, we can conclude that today s academic is in essence still an independent academic with a passion for science, motivated to be the best in science. On the other hand, the essential skills and capabilities ascribed to an academic have evolved. Nowadays, a drive is not enough, and academics have to comply with new requirements. Parker and Jay (1995) refer to the rise of the new academic. Besides the traditional scientific skills, new skills have become important features of excellent 80 Chapter 4 - Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach

82 academics: cooperation, networking skills, leadership, and especially entrepreneurship (Van den Brink, 2009; Verbree, 2011), skills that are necessary to keep up in today s academic working environment: Governmental funding decreases, so you have to find other sources of income. If you are the entrepreneurial kind of guy, you can make use of it. If you bring in enough external funding, your group becomes more independent and you can create more space to maneuver (full professor). Political frame When we regard the academic organization through the lens of the dynamic interaction between multiple, interrelated groups within the organization, we see that today the academic peers and their evaluations still are of great importance. Several studies indicate that full professors are the most powerful actor in the Dutch academic organization (Meijer, 2002). They function as an intermediary between the institute and the individual professionals under their supervision (Fruytier & Timmerhuis, 1995). The full professors and chairpersons are gatekeepers and determine whether or not a prospective academic is admitted to the scientific community, and have a say in further career building (Meijer, 2002, Van Balen, 2010; Van den Brink, 2009). However, gradually the influence of other internal stakeholders, and their divergent views, has increased. According to Enders et al. (2011) authorities and powers have been redistributed across the various policy levels: a multi-level multi-actor governance arose. Multiple internal stakeholders (and external actors, but they are out of the scope of this frame) exert influence on the core strategic issues of a university, in an indirect and direct manner: who shall teach, what shall be thought and who shall study. University management is confronted with the difficult task of deciding to what extent the wishes of each stakeholder will and can be met (Birnbaum, 1988). A significant alteration in the power balance within Dutch academia is the growing impact of support staff and administration, due to the entrance of performance measurement systems (Teelken, 2012). However, the powerbase of the different support staff varies. According to Farndale and Hope-Hailey (2009) the HR-department has little influence on strategic decision making. Academics still consider the management and development of employees as their core responsibility and accept no interference. The interviewees point to the impact of the Academic Affairs Office, which advises the university s Executive Board and the university departments on strategic policies regarding teaching, research and student affairs. Their services are at the heart of the university and have a direct effect on excellence in research and education. And boosting excellence is what they do: We have our own funds or awards to stimulate excellence, or support academics obtaining external funding. ( )The chances of receiving a grant are very limited, therefore we want to support the best scholars in our university in writing a successful grant application (Academic Affairs policy advisor). Talent Management in academia 81

83 To cope with this altering power base within the organization, academics had to change their political approach. Kolsaker (2008) comes to the conclusion that academics are more willing to tolerate managerialist modes of governance than much of the literature suggests. She states that academics accept managerialism as an external technology of control, but also as a facilitator of enhanced performance, professionalism and status. In particular successful scholars and research groups have this tactic. Where most academic staff members pretend to cooperate, maneuver around the managerialist aspects of their work to make life bearable, successful scholars and research groups more often use proactive manipulation: they respond to the changes and even try to control them and take advantage (Leyste & Enders, 2011; Teelken, 2008; Zomer & Benneworth, 2011) Managing and mobilizing human capital: Academic HRM policy and practice We can conclude that the academic organization has changed significantly. The image of an ivory tower no longer holds. The university is continuously in contact with its environment, adjusting and readjusting itself to meet the environmental constraints, but also to create opportunities for itself. Dutch universities are particularly confronted with increased external coercive pressures put on the organization by the government, demanding efficiency, effectiveness and flexibility. These economic and managerial pressures are adopted by internal actors whose power base has grown during the past decades, i.e. (professional) managers and support staff (political frame), and became mostly internalized in the academic strategy, the structuring of the academic organization and of academic work processes (structural frame), and in the required skills and abilities of an academic (professional frame). On the other hand, not all signals from outside the academic organization come through. Normative mechanisms, or peer pressure as we will call it, coexist alongside the managerial (coercive) pressures. Peer pressure evoking autonomy, creativity and security, is still vital in the professional values and orientations of academics (professional frame) and in organizational culture (cultural frame). The normative mechanisms come from peer academics inside but also outside the academic organization, i.e. the national and international academic community. They assert influence on the academic organization and academic working environment as well, and can act as a shield against managerial (coercive) pressures. The above reasoning raises the question if, and how, these managerial and peer pressures have affected the way Dutch universities manage and mobilize their academic staff. In this section we will elaborate on the developments in academic HRM. As table 4.4. illustrates, the developments are arranged in four phases, related to important reforms and developments in the external context: (1) direct governmental control; (2) the first steps towards academic personnel management; (3) the mat- 82 Chapter 4 - Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach

84 uration of academic HRM; (4) polarization towards performance and excellence. In the discussion of the developments we sometimes refer back to the aforementioned reforms in the external and internal context, illustrating the interrelation between the developments at multiple levels. Phase 1: direct governmental control We start our overview in the 1980 s. At that time the Ministry of Education, Cultural Affairs and Science was responsible for the direct governance and control of the Dutch public universities, including personnel management. Because the government was confronted with an increasing number of students entering the university and a decrease in the financial means available, they initiated a set of influential reforms in the structuring and financing of the Dutch HE-system. These operations also had an effect on the employment, development and careers of the academic staff. In particular the introduction of the two-tier structure in education is of significance, making a clear cut distinction between the education in general scientific skills in the first phase (implemented in 1981), and the training in research skills in the second phase (implemented in 1986) (Hazue & Sprangenberg, 1991; Hulshof et al., 1996). The first phase was available for all people, but the second phase was restricted to a select group of excellent students. From that moment doctoral candidates in the second phase were employed as employees with a fixed-term contract the assumption was that the employee status would make it easier to control the recruitment and development of candidates, and, as a result, the PhD-phase was seen by many people as the first step in an academic career (Hulshof et al., 1996). However, the possibilities to pursue an academic career were limited because the majority of the existing academic staff employed in the 1960 s and 1970 s to provide education to the massive baby-boom student population then entering did not show any tendency to leave the academic organization (Hulshof et al., 1996). Consequently, after 1985 academic careers and personnel management in science organizations were put in the HE policy plans of the Ministry of Education (Heiligers & Van der Steen, 1995). As a result, the Ministry started to develop some instruments to facilitate academic personnel management (mostly financial funds), but also acknowledged that personnel management could only be shaped inside the academic organization. Nonetheless, in the universities the traditional collegial model was still dominant, focusing on fulfilling the needs of the academic staff, and a policy or actual practice relating to mobilizing and managing academic staff was practically absent. Phase 2: first steps towards academic personnel management At the beginning of the 1990 s the Ministry of Education still focused primarily on reforming the structuring and funding of the Dutch HE-system. Yet, the first steps towards strategic personnel management were set. By initiating and funding a large research project on Talent Management in academia 83

85 strategic HRM in public funded science organizations, the Ministry of Education tried to give an impulse to the development and implementation of strategic HRM in universities (Fruytier & Timmerhuis, 1995). The government noticed the rapid developments in HRM in R&D-labs of private sector organizations (e.g., Shell and Philips), and was afraid that the public funded science organizations would be lagging behind. The personnel management systems of the (semi) private research institutes in the study were, as the government already expected, indeed more advanced than those of the investigated university departments. The study showed that Dutch science organizations were developing and implementing the rudiments of a personnel management system, but a proactive and structured HRM policy and practice was absent. For example, performance appraisals were implemented, but the actual practice was not satisfying because addressing malfunctioning was not common in academia. Career management was beginning to develop, but besides an appeal to the academics to reflect on their career, a systematic approach was missing. Fruytier and Timmerhuis (1995) concluded that the interest of the academics were no longer central in academic personnel management; in the 1990 s universities attempted to balance the dualities, i.e. the interests of both the academics and the organization, in their personnel management. Phase 3: maturing towards strategic HRM At the end of the 1990 s the Ministry of Education completed some significant reforms regarding the governance of the HE institutes (Heiligers & Van der Steen, 2008). In 1997 the act regarding Modernization of Academic Governance (Wet Modernisering Universiteits Bestuur, MUB) was implemented, which diminished direct interference and state control and gave institutes full autonomy in steering their organization. From that day on, universities were responsible for their own personnel management. Within the university the management responsibilities were further delegated to the university departments and research group, so personnel management became a line management responsibility. Later, in 1999, bargaining on the collective labor agreements was also delegated from the government to the universities, united in an employers organization VSNU (Heiligers & Van der Steen, 2008). From now on the government focused exclusively on the funding of the HE institutes. With the responsibility for personnel management in the hands of the HE institutes, academic personnel management came to bloom. A few years after the study of Fruytier and Timmerhuis (1995) Van Vucht Tijssen (2000) concluded that the personnel policies and practices at universities had shifted from administration, developing and implementing job descriptions and performance appraisals, and carrying out collective agreements, towards a pro-active, and strategic aligned HRM system. In addition to recruitment, development and creating career possibilities for junior academics (which was highlighted in the in the 1980 s and early 1990 s), the institutes also started to show care for the difficulties of vulnerable groups in the organization: 84 Chapter 4 - Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach

86 foreign academics, female scientists and aging senior staff (e.g., Crul, Kraal, Kumcu & Penninx, 2002; Timmers, 2007). Despite the encouraging progress, Van Vucht Tijssen also added a word of caution: she predicted that the universities were not ready and able to respond adequately to the massive outflow of retiring academic staff in the near future, which would harm the international competitive position of the Dutch universities. The study of Brok (2004) refined the findings of Van Vucht Tijsen, and indicated that some differentiations were necessary. Yes, the personnel management policy was more pro-active and strategic, but the HR policy was insufficiently institutionalized: the link to the universities strategy was weak, and there was a gap between policy and practice, in particular between central policy and the actual practice within the university departments. Within the university departments a variety of instruments and practices had been developed and implemented, but without much coherence between the practices. As a result many different approaches to HRM can exist within a single university. Brok (2004) also showed a shift towards a harder, managerial HR-policy. Increasing mobility, flexibility, performance and production were accentuated in the HR policies and practices. In their attempts to control costs the universities strove to fulfill the quantitative and qualitative needs for human capital in the most efficient way. So, gradually the interests of the organization pushed the interests of the academic staff into the background. Phase 4: polarization towards performance and excellence From around 2000 the government, the Ministry of Education ànd the Ministry of Economic Affairs, has underlined the important role of the HE institutes in the development of the Dutch and European knowledge economy (Heiligers & Van der Steen, 2008). Excellence in research and education is the ambition, and for this excellent and talented scientists are essential. To promote that the government mainly applies hard policy instruments (Heiligers & Van der Steen, 2008). The government primarily invested in negotiating performance agreements with the HE institutes and in increasing the research- and career grants provided by the earlier mentioned NWO to support the careers and professional development of talented academics. Since these talent grants are an enabler in academic careers (Van Balen & Van den Besselaar, 2007), the governmental impact on academic personnel management is, indirectly via NWO, still as influential as before. Their policy affects the room to maneuver of the dominant coalition in the organization (executive board, deans, HR staff, Academic Affairs) significantly. As Van Balen and Van den Besselaar (2007) state, the responsibility for academic careers is shifting from a mutual agreement between the academic and his employer, to a matter of research policies on a national level. In line with the governmental attention to excellence, the universities are also refocusing on excellent research groups, and excellent scientists and their careers. Talent Management in academia 85

87 Table 4.4: developments in academic personnel management Governmental policies Organizational policies Employee preferences Phase 1 (1980 s) Ministry of Education was responsible for the direct governance and control of the public universities, including personnel management Government focused on modernizing the structuring and funding of education and research in HE institutes, e.g. the two-tier structure implemented in 1981 (1 st phase) and 1986 (2 nd phase) In 1983 the funding of education and research is separated Due to limited career possibilities personnel management in science organizations entered the HE policy plans of the Ministry of Education No explicit personnel management policies and practices. Traditional, collegial governance model was dominant Emphasis on satisfying needs of academic employees Academics most satisfied with: autonomy, development opportunities, contacts with colleagues Neutral about: supervision and salary Least satisfied with career prospects (Slootman, 1991) Phase 2 (1990 s) Increasing accent on stimulating and financing top scientists and top research groups At the end of the 1990 s the responsibility for managing and mobilizing academic staff was transferred from the Ministry of Education to the academic institutes: 1995 MUB implemented, 1999 collective labor agreement responsibility of HE institutes With a study on academic HRM the Ministry of Education has put HRM high on the strategic agenda Dutch science organizations were developing and implementing the rudiments of a personnel management system, but a proactive and structured HRM policy was practically absent. Balancing dualities, needs of both academics and organization, in personnel management (Fruytier & Timmerhuis, 1995) Academics most satisfied with the possibility to do research, the content of their work, the possibility to pursue own ideas and contacts with colleagues Least satisfied with lack of career possibilities, job security and salary Variance in satisfaction between academics in different positions (Timmerhuis & Vermeulen, 1991; Hulshof et al., 1996; Enders & Teichler, 1997; Timmerhuis & Thunnissen, 1998) 86 Chapter 4 - Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach

88 Phase 3 (turn of the century) Phase 4 (2005 and further) Governmental policies Organizational policies Employee preferences The Ministry of Education focused on structuring the HE sector in accordance with the Bologna declaration (1999), e.g. the Bachelor-Master structure (2002) The use of financial stimuli to support excellent academics and research groups increased Detection that certain vulnerable groups on the labor markets are underrepresented, e.g. women and foreigners A shift from administrative personnel management to pro-active HRM However, a gap between central policy and practice in the university departments A shift towards hard, managerial approach to HRM. Organizational interests are becoming more dominant in academic HRM (Van Vucht Tijssen, 2000; Huisman, 2002; Crul et al., 2002; Brok, 2004) An academic career is the ambition of most of the young academics; however, the perceived opportunities are low Academics most satisfied with: autonomy, challenging work. Contacts with colleagues Least satisfied with: salary, career prospects, temporary position, lack of training and development, and supervision (Keijzer & Gordijn, 2000; De Gier et al., 2001; Meijer, 2002; Broersen, 2003) Increasing excellence and quality in HE is high on the political agenda. Now a joint responsibility of Ministry of Education and of Ministry of Economic affairs Further increase of financial funds to support the development of individual, excellent researchers Introduction of top sectors in which HE institutes, government and private companies have to cooperate in solving societal issues (2011) Implementation of performance agreements for HE institutes (in 2012) The accumulation of postdoc contracts (due to the increase of temporary contracts) is regarded as a problem Popularity of the tenure track increases. Career management and talent management are key-hrm themes Increased emphasis on fulfilling organizations need for a flexible and employable workforce A broad variety HR-practices is developed and implemented, but without internal coherence and link to strategy (Fruytier & Brok, 2007; Timmers, 2007; Van Balen & Van den Besselaar, 2007; Van den Brink (2009; Van Vuren et al., 2013; Freese et al., 2013)) Academics most satisfied with: flexible working hours, autonomy, intellectual freedom, challenging work Least satisfied with career possibilities A lack of demarcation and supervision causes difficulties in the PhD-phase (Berger & De Jonge, 2005; Hoffius & Sarrancho, 2006; Van Balen, 2010) Talent Management in academia 87

89 Career management is one of the key-hrm issues in the 2000 s. Studies on HRM in Dutch academia show that, for junior academics, the number and variety of junior academic positions has increased, while for the senior staff great value was attached to the tenure track system (e.g., Van Balen & Van den Besselaar, 2007; Heiligers & Van der Steen, 2008). In a tenure track an excellent young academic gets the opportunity to develop towards the position of (associate or full) professor, on the condition that pre-agreed performance criteria are met (Fruytier & Brok, 2007). Again, research shows that there are many differences in the policies and practices between the universities, and even within the HE institutes (Fruytier & Brok, 2007; Van Balen & Van den Besselaar, 2007; Van den Brink, 2009; Van Balen, 2010). A few studies refer to the significant impact of actors involved in academic HRM. For example, studies of Brok (2004), Fruytier and Brok (2007) and Freese, Evers, Van den Berg, Arends and Sens ( 2013) show that the lack of commitment and active involvement of universities top and middle management (i.e. members of the executive board, deans, directors of research institutes, etc.) are obstacles in the development and implementation of HRM policies. Van den Brink (2010) and Van Balen (2009) ascribe the gap between policy and practice to the unaffected position of the professor as gatekeeper. The studies conducted since 2000 indicate that academic HR policy has hardened again. According to Fruytier and Brok (2007) the tenure track system resulted in standardized performance criteria and selection procedures to prevent personal interests and preferences of the actors involved in the selection process from interfering. However, the tenure track, including development and career opportunities, is only available for a select group, i.e. the best performers (e.g., van Balen & Van den Besselaar, 2007; Van Arensbergen et al., 2013). The academics who have not given proof of their excellence are offered a temporary position. In this approach the interest of the organization are best served. We notice a far-reaching shift towards the fulfillment of the needs and preferences of the organizations, at the costs of the interests of the academic staff, who still want a challenging job and aspire to an academic career (e.g. Van Balen, 2010). After a period in which talent and TM was a key HRM-topic (e.g., Van Balen, 2010; Van Arensbergen et al., 2013; Van den Brink, Fruytier & Thunnissen, 2013), the recent economic crisis has impelled the universities to shift focus towards the mobility and employability of the existing staff. Financial cutbacks hinder the options to attract (top) talent, so today universities attempt to keep their existing staff as flexible and employable as possible. However, the studies of Van Vuuren, Van der Heijden, De Lange, Peters and Semeijn (2013) and Freese et al. (2013) show the same results as many others before: these mobility and employability policies and practices lack strategic and internal coherence. 88 Chapter 4 - Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach

90 4.5 Discussion We come to the conclusion that, along with the development into a professional and efficient organization, the Dutch universities shifted from a collegial system to manage the recruitment and employment of their academic staff, to a more managerial model, in which practices from private sector organizations are adopted (Deem, 2001; Smeenk, 2007). Also practices of (private) American top-universities, i.e. the Tenure Track system, are copied, or imitated as DiMaggio and Powell (1983) would say (mimetic mechanisms). In the traditional model the academic and his needs and preferences were put central, but there was no structured, systematic approach to develop academic staff (Fruytier & Timmerhuis, 1995). Gradually this model was abandoned, academic personnel management gained strategic importance, because of the strategic value attached to excellence and the universities need to control their workforce. Fulfilling the needs of the organization became dominant, and the HRM policy of the Dutch universities became more focused on increasing flexibility and performance. In doing so, the needs and preferences of the academic staff, which are more or less the same as 25 years ago, are pushed aside. This shift is affected by external pressures and mechanisms, particularly the impact of coercive mechanisms is strong. One of the most remarkable findings of this contextual analysis is that, despite the diminishing of the direct interference by the government, their impact on academic personnel management is still significant. In particular the funding of excellent academics or excellent research groups gives the government control over the careers and development of academics. To fulfill their needs the universities invested in the development and implementation of a broad range of HRM practices, instruments and activities. However, the aforementioned managerial pressures (coercive mechanisms) and peer pressure (normative mechanisms) bring in tensions and conflict in the chain of HRM processes. As many studies have illustrated, a coherent and a strategic approach is still problematic. Perhaps this is the result of the conflicting interests of those actors embodied in the dominant coalition, since both academic staff with a management position and support staff are represented in the dominant coalition. Consequently, there is a gap between intended policy and actual practice. As acknowledged by the HR process chain of Wright and Nishii (2013), policies as intended are implemented and applied differently in practice. In many university departments and research groups, the traditional collegial governance model is still manifest in daily practice, due to the persistent central role of the academic staff (i.e. the professors) in academic personnel management. Both the contextual analysis and the analysis of the developments in academic personnel management demonstrate the point that managerial ànd peer pressures are inextricably bound up with today s academic organization. These managerial and peer pressures create tensions, which can be reduced to a tension between the needs Talent Management in academia 89

91 and goals of the organization and management on the one hand, and of the needs and goals of the academic staff on the other hand. Talent, as in persons, and talent development, as policy, is affected by these tensions. The ability to balance the tensions between managerial and peer pressure is the key TM future challenge for universities. It would be valuable to investigate if and how universities address these tensions in their TM policies. First, empirical research on the operationalization of talent in the context of Dutch universities is needed. It is necessary to investigate (in empirical research) if, and how, the shift towards the economically oriented capabilities ascribed to the new academic (Parker & Jay, 1995) has become manifest in the conceptualization of academic talent and academic TM. In addition, one of the central debates in the field of TM relates to the question whether all employees can be regarded as talent (inclusive approach) or just a specific group of high potential or high performing employees (exclusive approach) (Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries & González-Cruz, 2013). It would be valuable to explore whether universities actually use an inclusive or an exclusive approach to talent, since the number of academics with a fixed-term contract, or the have-nots as Enders (1999) puts it, is increasing. Second, the intended outcomes are also a key-topic in TM literature (see chapter 2). The managerial and peer pressures can have an effect on the intended outcomes of TM policies. In the previous chapters it was concluded that in the current TM literature organizations interests are emphasized; employee well-being is regarded as a means to enhance the achievement of organizational goals. This perspective also becomes manifest in the way Dutch universities manage and mobilize their employees. This raises the question what universities intend to achieve with TM and why. Furthermore, in chapter 3 it was argued that the influence and well-being of multiple stakeholders had to be considered. In the present chapter we showed that the academic staff represents the core of the academic organization, and therefore their interests cannot be neglected in academic TM. Although this contextual analysis illustrated employees interests are pushed aside, whether this is also the case in TM needs to be examined via empirical research. Third, future research also needs to address the question to what extent employer and employee outcomes are mutually satisfying. To be able to answer this question it is necessary to include employees as a research group, and to investigate their experiences with academic TM. Fourth, our knowledge on the chain of TM processes (Wright & Nishii, 2013) in the context of Dutch universities needs to be enhanced. In the structural frame we discussed the increasing impact of performance measurement systems and objective performance criteria in Dutch academia (e.g., Teelken, 2008). This corresponds to a managerial approach to managing and developing talent. On the other hand, the cultural frame showed that the development of talent and excellence 90 Chapter 4 - Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach

92 through peer interaction (Austin, 2002) is so integrated in the core of a university that one cannot rely on managerial instruments only. We even pointed to a discrepancy between central policy and practice in the university departments. So, in the Dutch universities the HRM process is not as straightforward as is suggested in contemporary TM literature. The findings of the contextual analysis therefore raise the question of which approach i.e. the managerial focus on performance versus the peer orientation towards professional development is dominant in academic TM systems, and in what way, and how well the TM system is implemented. Empirical research on the implemented TM system would enhance our knowledge on this issue. Finally, the TM literature approaches the field as a shared responsibility of management and HR (see chapter 2). However, the power base of the universities HR-department is low and instrumental (Farndale & Hope-Hailey, 2009), and as discussed in the political frame, various internal and external stakeholders want to have a say in the academic organization (e.g., Enders et al., 2011). In particular the impact of the scientific community is significant. Within the academic organization the role of both universities and departments top and middle management (e.g., members of the executive board and deans) and line management (i.e. full professors managing a group of scholars) became apparent in the contextual analysis. Regarding the stakeholders outside the academic organization the influence of NWO is noteworthy. Empirical research can help us gain insight into the role of crucial actors involved in academic TM, and their impact on, and perception of, the effectiveness of the TM system. These avenues for future research are addressed in the empirical chapters of the thesis. Chapter 6 discusses the operationalization of talent and the role of multiple stakeholders on this matter. In chapter 7 the objectives and the intended and actual practices are put central, while chapter 8 discusses the academic employees perspective on TM. But first, chapter 5 clarifies the research design and research methods of the empirical study. Talent Management in academia 91

93 References Astley, W. & Van der Ven, A. (1983). Central Perspectives and Debates in Organization Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), Bennion, A., & Locke, W. (2010). The early career paths and employment conditions of the academic profession in seventeen countries. European Review, 18(1), S7-S33. Berger, J., & De Jonge, J. (2005). Rendement verkend. succes- en faalfactoren van promotietrajecten aan Nederlandse universiteiten. Zoetermeer: EIM, Onderzoek voor Bedrijf en Beleid. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work. the cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers. Boxall, P., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. (2007), Human Resource Management: Scope, Analysis, and Significance, in The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, eds. Boxall, P., Purcell, J. & Wright, P. (2007), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp Broersen, S. (2003), Werken in de wetenschap: de loopbaanpositie van postdocs. Leiden: Research voor Beleid. Brok, W. (2004). HRM op Nederlandse universiteiten (master thesis). Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen. Bryson, C. (2004). What about the workers? The expansion of higher education and the transformation of academic work. Industrial Relations Journal, 35(1), Buchholz, K., Gülker, S., Knie, A., & Simon, D. (2009). Attraktivität von arbeitsbedingungen in der wissenschaft im internationalen vergleich. Wie Erfolgreich Sind Die Eingeleiteten Wissenschaftspolitischen Initiativen Und Programme, Studie für die Expertenkommission für Forschung und Innovation (EFI), Berlin: EFI 2008, 192S. Chiong Meza, C. (2012). Universities in the Netherlands. Facts and figures The Hague: Rathenau Institute. Christensen, T., Laegrid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rovik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory for the public sector. Instrument, culture and myth. Florence: Routledge. Crul, M., Kraal, K., Kumcu, A. & Penninx, R. (2002), Kleurrijk talent. Allochtonen werkzaam in het wetenschappelijk onderwijs en onderzoek, Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies of the University of Amsterdam. De Gier, E., Evers, J., Jong, P. & Sterkck, L. (2001). Wetenschap tussen roeping en beroep: verslag van een verkennend onderzoek naar de (on)aantrekkelijkheid van een loopbaan in het wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Amsterdam: SISWO 92 Chapter 4 - Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach

94 De Goede, M., Belder, B. & De Jonge, J. (2013), Feiten en cijfers: Academische carrières en loopbaanbeleid. The Hague: Rathenau institute. De Jong, S. P. L., Van Arensbergen, P., Daemen, F., Van der Meulen, B., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2011). Evaluation of research in context: An approach and two cases. Research Evaluation, 20(2), De Weert, E. (2001). Pressures and prospects facing the academic profession in the Netherlands. Higher Education, 41(1), Deem, R. (2001). Globalisation, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in universities: Is the local dimension still important? Comparative Education, 37(1), DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review. 48(2), Enders, J. (1999). Crisis? What crisis? The academic professions in the knowledge society. Higher Education, 38(1), Enders, J., De Boer, H. F., File, J., Jongbloed, B., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2011). Reform of higher education in Europe. In J. Enders, H. F. De Boer & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reform of higher education in Europe (pp. 1-10). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Enders, J., & Teichler, U. (1997). A victim of their own success? Employment and working conditions of academic staff in comparative perspective. Higher Education, 34(3), Eurydice (2000). Two decades on reform of higher education in Europe: 1980 onwards. Brussels: Eurydice. Farndale, E., & Hope-Hailey, V. (2009). Personnel departmental power: Realities from the UK higher education sector. Management Revue, 20(4), Florida, R. (1999). The role of the university: leveraging talent, not technology. Issues in science and technology, 15, Freese, C., Evers, G., Van den Berg, P., Arends, P., Sens, T. (2013). Strategische personeelsplanning bij de universiteiten. Den Haag: SoFoKles. Freijsen, R., Van Arensbergen P. & Van der Weijden, I. (2011). Wetenschappelijk loopbaanbeleid. Kansen en Knelpunten. Loopbaanvisie, 4, Fruytier, B., & Brok, B. (2007). Tenure track een goed instrument voor talentmanagement? Inventarisatie van de risico s en kansen van tenure track voor de werving, binding en loopbaanbegeleiding van wetenschappelijk talent op Nederlandse universiteiten. The Hague: SofoKLes. Fruytier, B., & Timmerhuis, V. (1995). Mensen in onderzoek. het mobiliseren van human resources in wetenschapsorganisaties. Assen: Van Gorcum. Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & González-Cruz, T. (2013). What is the meaning of talent in the world of work? Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), Talent Management in academia 93

95 Gilliot, D., Overlaet, B., & Verdin, P. (2002). Managing academic personnel flow at universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 8(4), Greenwood, R. & Miller, D. (2010). Tackling Design Anew: Getting Back to the Heart of Organizational Theory. Academy of Management Perspective, 24(4), Hazue, C. & Sprangenberg J. (1991). University research performance: Measurement, Management and Optimization. The Hague: Ministerie van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen Heiligers, D., & Van Steen, J. (2008). Beleidsdoorlichting Versterking van de aantrekkingskracht op en de loopbaanmogelijkheden van jonge en talentvolle onderzoekers. The Hague: Minsterie van OCW. Huisman, J., De Weert, E., & Bartelse, J. (2002). Academic careers from a European perspective: The declining desirability of the faculty position. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), Hoffius, R. en S. Surachno (2006), Tussen wens en werkelijkheid: carrièreperspectieven van jonge onderzoekers. Leiden: Research voor Beleid. Hulshof, M., Verrijt, A. & Kruijthoff, A. (1996). Promoveren En De Arbeidsmarkt: Ervaringen Van De lost Generation. Zoetermeer: Ministerie van OC&W. Keijzer & Gordijn (2000). Resultaten arbeidsmarkt enquête. Amsterdam: UvA. Kogan, M., & Teichler, U. (2007). Key challenges to the academic profession and its interface with management: Some introductory thoughts. In Kogan, M., & Teichler, U. (2007). Key challenges to the academic profession. Jenior. Kolsaker, A. (2008). Academic professionalism in the managerialist era: a study of English universities. Studies in Higher Education, 33(5), Larsen, V., & Lubbe, M. (2008). Quick-scan jong talent. over loopbanen van jonge wetenschappers. The Hague: VSNU. Lepori, B., van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, B., Reale, E., Slipersæter, S., Thèves, J. & Van der Meulen, M. (2007). Comparing the evolution of national research policies: What patterns of change? Science and Public Policy, 34(6), Leyste, L., & Enders, J. (2011). The strategic responses of English and Dutch university life academics to the changes in their institutional environments. In J. Enders, H. F. De Boer & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reforms in higher education in Europe (pp ). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Meijer, M. (2002). Behoud talent! een rapportage over de verschillende aspecten die een rol spelen bij de begeleiding van promovendi. Meyer, J., Ramirez, F., Frank D. & Schofer, E. (2005). Higher Education as an Institution. In: Gumport, P. Sociology of Higher Education, Contributions And Their Contexts. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Musselin (2007), Transformations of Academic Work: Facts and Analysis. Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education. 94 Chapter 4 - Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach

96 Paauwe, J. & Boselie, P. (2003). Challenging strategic HRM and the relevance of the institutional setting. Human Resource Management Journal. 13(3): Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and performance: Achieving long-term viability Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parker, M., & Jay, D. (1995). The McUniversity: Organization, management and academic subjectivity. Organization, 2(2), Slootman, A.W. (1991), Arbeidsbeleving van universitair wetenschappelijk personeel: binding aan de organisatie, satisfactiebeleving, vertrekintentie, arbeidsmarktoriëntatie Utrecht: Lemma. Smeenk, S. (2007), Professionalism versus managerialism? A study on HRM practices, antecedents, organisational commitment, and quality of job performances among university employees in Europe. PhD Dissertation. Radboud University Nijmegen. Stahl, G.K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S.S., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P., Trevor, J., & Wright, P.M. (2012), Six Principles of Effective Global talent management, MIT Sloan Management review, 53, Teelken, C. (2008). The intricate implementation of performance measurement systems: Exploring developments in professional-service organizations in the Dutch non-profit sector. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(4), Teelken, C. (2012). Compliance or pragmatism: How do academics deal with managerialism in higher education? A comparative study in three countries. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), Timmerhuis, V. & Thunnissen, M. (1998). Fluitend naar je werk tot aan je pensioen. Tilburg: IVA. Timmerhuis en Vermeulen (1993), Arbeidsmobiliteit van wetenschappelijk personeel. Tilburg: IVA. Timmers, T.(2007). Op zoek naar best practices. Een onderzoek naar de effectiviteit van emancipatiebeleid in de periode aan 14 Nederlandse universiteiten. The Hague: Sofokles. Van Arensbergen, P., Hessels, L., Van der Meulen, B. (2013), Talent Centraal: ontwikkeling en selectie van wetenschappers in Nederland. The Hague: Rathenau institute Van Balen, B. (2010). Op het juiste moment op de juiste plaats. Waarom wetenschappelijk talent een wetenschappelijke carrière volgt. The Hague: Rathenau institute. Van Balen, B., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2007). Universitaire loopbanen. Een verkenning van problemen en oplossingen. The Hague: Rathenau Instituut. Van den Brink, M. (2009). Behind the scenes of science: gender practices in the recruitment and selection of professors in the Netherlands. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen: Dissertation. Talent Management in academia 95

97 Van den Brink, M., Fruytier, B. & Thunnissen, M. (2013), Talent management in academia: performance systems and HRM policies. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(2), Van den Broek-van Dongen, J. (2014). Taking care of innovation. The HRM innovation process in healthcare organizations. Erasmus University Rotterdam: Dissertation. Van der Weijden, I., Verbree, M., Braam, P., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2009). Management en prestaties van onderzoeksgroepen. The Hague: Rathenau Instituut. Van Vucht Tijssen (2000), Talent voor de toekomst, Toekomst voor Talent. Van Vuuren, T., Van der Heijden, B., De Lange, C., Peters, P. & Semeijn, J. (2013). Een employable personeelsbestand in het Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs. Het vergroten van het loopbaanpotentieel en de arbeidsmarktkansen van medewerkers: Welke maatregelen kunnen daarbij worden benut? The Hague: SoFoKles. Veld, M.F.A.. (2012, February 3). HRM, Strategic Climate and Employee Outcomes in Hospitals: HRM Care for Cure?. Erasmus University Rotterdam: Dissertation. Verbree, M. (2011). Dynamics of academic leadership in research groups. The Hague: Rathenau Institute. VSNU (2013), Facts and figures regarding academic staff, retrieved on May 15th 2014 from: Wright, P. & Nishii, L. (2013), Strategic HRM and Organizational Behaviour: Integrating Multiple Levels of Analysis, in: HRM and Performance. Achievements and Challenges, eds. Paauwe, J., Guest & Wright, P. (2013), Chichester: Wiley, pp Zomer, A., & Benneworth, P. (2011). The rise of the university s third mission. In J. Enders, H. F. De Boer & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reform of higher education in Europe (pp ). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 96 Chapter 4 - Mobilizing human capital in academia: A contextual analysis using a multi-perspective approach

98 Chapter 5 Research design

99 5.1 Introduction The research issues presented at the end of the previous chapter refer to the what, why, how, for whom, and how well questions which form the basis of the analytical approach to Human Resources Management (HRM) (Boxall, Purcell & Wright, 2007; Boxall, 2013). To identify and clarify what happens in practice, this approach emphasizes the importance of rigorous theory building through careful evidence-based research, in which the broader organizational context and the interests of multiple stakeholders are taken into account. In this thesis phases of theory building alternate with phases of data gathering and vice versa, corresponding to the analytical approach. We started with gathering data via a literature review on the dominant themes and perspectives in contemporary talent management (TM) literature. The necessity to contextualize talent and TM was emphasized in chapter 3, and therefore additional theoretical building blocks were added to start the development of a broader, more balanced theoretical framework for TM. Because of the contextual relevance, we also found it necessary to get a detailed understanding of the context of Dutch public universities. In chapter 4 we presented the characteristics of Dutch science organizations, their academic staff and academic HRM and questioned the influence of these characteristics on talent and TM in the context of Dutch universities. These contextual and conceptual chapters together provided valuable information for the further design of the empirical study, and also raised key issues on TM in Dutch universities which need further theoretical and empirical exploration. These key issues are: (1) the operationalization of talent; (2) the TM objectives, from an organizational and the employees perspective; (3) the TM practices; (4) the chain of processes in developing and implementing TM, including the factors that influence that process; and (5) the perceived outcomes. Thus, in the next three empirical chapters we will aim to address the following research questions: 3. How is talent defined by relevant actors in the context of Dutch universities? 4. What are (a) the goals the organization intends to achieve with TM; and what are (b) the needs and preferences of talented academic employees regarding their working environment and employment relationship? 5. What TM practices, activities and instruments have been (a) developed by the organization; and (b) implemented? 6. What are the employees experiences with, and perceptions of, the implemented TM practices and activities? 7. What are the perceptions of the outcomes by (a) the organization, and, (b) the talented employees? 98 Chapter 5 - Research design

100 8. What hindering and enabling factors affect the design, implementation and effectiveness of TM? Table 5.1: Overview of central concepts, research questions and theoretical building blocks Questions analytical HRM What and why? Research question RQ3 RQ4 Central concepts Definition of talent Intended TM objectives How? RQ5a Intended TM practices and activities For Whom and how well? RQ5b, 6, 8 RQ7 Chain of TM processes Perceived outcomes, by organization and employees Indicators Talent as a multidimensional construct Abilities Intrapersonal characteristic Performance Environmental influences Developmental process (Gagné, 2004) Multiple (economic and non-economic) goals at multiple levels: Individual level: Financial rewards, job security Meaningful work, growth and social needs, fair and just treatment (Kalleberg & Marsden, 2013; Oldman & Hackman, 2010) Organizational level: Profitability, flexibility, effectiveness and efficiency, competitive position Legitimacy (Boxall & Purcell, 2011) Societal level: Economic condition and competitive position region Social responsibility (Carroll, 1991; Achterberg & Vriens, 2009) Classification of intended practices: Hard vs. soft HRM (e.g., Truss et al. 1997, Legge, 2005) Implementation of actual TM practices Perceived TM practices (e.g., Paauwe, 2004; Wright & Nishii, 2013) See intended objectives Psychological contract, i.e. employees perceptions and reactions. (e.g., Wright & Nishii, 2013; Guest, 2007; Sonnenberg, 2006) Chapter 6 7 & Talent Management in academia 99

101 Table 5.1 links these research questions to the basic questions of the analytical HRMapproach, and the central concepts for the empirical chapters. It also provides a preliminary overview of the indicators related to the central concepts, which are based on the new theoretical building blocks presented in the next chapters. To answer the research questions, data was gathered in a longitudinal, mixedmethod study on TM policies and practices in five Dutch university departments. This chapter aims to give a detailed outline of the research design of the empirical study, its underlying principles, and how the three empirical chapters relate to the research topics (i.e. questions) and research activities. 5.2 Underlying principles of research design The research design is based on the following basic principles and decisions. Firstly, in the thesis we focus on the TM policies regarding the academic staff. 58 percent of the workforce of Dutch universities consists of academic staff (VSNU, WOPI-data, reference date ). The other 42% is support staff, containing a variety of positions and backgrounds. Many Dutch universities have separate HRM policies for their academic staff and for their support staff, with the HRM policy for the support staff often being under-developed. Regarding the academic staff, we primarily focus on academics, regardless of their age, at the beginning of their academic career: PhDcandidates (who have an employee status in the Netherlands), postdoctoral researchers, assistant and associate professors recently granted tenure or on a tenure track. This group of young academics refers to a large proportion of the academic staff in the Netherlands: in 2012 over 60% of the academic staff had the position of PhD, post doc researcher, or lecturer; one fifth was assistant professor; and one fifth was associate or full professor (VSNU WOPI-data, reference date ). Because we wanted to get an understanding of the way universities define talent and TM in practice, we did not give a clear-cut operationalization of talent and TM at the beginning of the study. We attuned in to the organizations conceptualization of talent, and selected the academics they defined as rising stars. Secondly, even though we focused on organizations in a specific context, we have to acknowledge that in that context additional contextual differences can be found. Academic disciplines differ in the way they interact with their environment, organize work and employees, and in the value they attach to performance: e.g., for medical sciences and law departments it is natural to have close interaction with practice, while in the humanities disciplines practitioners stand at a larger distance. Other additional differences relate to the constitution of the university (general, technical and small universities) and the region in which the universities are located. In the selection of the case studies these detailed contextual circumstances were considered. 100 Chapter 5 - Research design

102 Thirdly, we decided to focus on the talent policies and practices within university departments. Chapter 4 showed that in most Dutch universities mobilizing and managing personnel is not a task and responsibility of the head-office. It is delegated to the university departments, and, consequently, to the dean and the full professors, with some (administrative) support from departments HRM-policy officials. Focusing on the university department enabled us to obtain the most detailed and complete set of information on the design, implementation and outcomes of TM and the actors involved. Besides that, it takes into account the aforementioned differences between the five academic disciplines (see Larsen & Lubbe, 2008). Fourthly, we decided to collect in-depth information through (mainly) qualitative research, i.e. case studies. A qualitative study is more appropriate to gain insight into the important variables and theoretical foundations when an academic field or topic is underexplored or lacks clear models and definitions, as is the case in the field of TM (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). Fifthly, since we were interested in the TM process and the outcomes of TM we conducted a longitudinal study. Within each department two sets of data were collected: in 2009 and In 2009 data was collected on the intended outcomes, the TM practices and activities, and factors of influence. In 2013 the focus was on the (perceived) outcomes and, again, on the factors of influence. Finally, in the previous chapters it was stated that the needs and preferences of multiple stakeholders are important and affect TM policy and practice. In chapter 3 two key stakeholders were identified: the organization on the one hand and the employee on the other hand (and the society at large as potential third stakeholder). Up till now the HRM advisors and management, as representatives of the organization, have been the commonly targeted research population in TM literature and research. To gain insight into the needs and preferences of multiple stakeholders, in this thesis both representatives of the organization ànd talented employees participated in the study. What is more, since the Dutch Research Council (NWO) has an important say in defining and selecting academic talent, the viewpoints of NWO-grant panel members regarding talent are also taken into account in one of the chapters (chapter 6). 5.3 Research design The core of the study consists of five case studies in five university departments. In the chapter on the definition of talent (chapter 6), the data from a study of Van Arensbergen, Hessels and Van der Meulen (2013) on talent selection in grand allocation were also used. In this section we present the methodology of both studies. Talent Management in academia 101

103 5.3.1 Core study: Case studies in five university departments Selection of cases The selection of the five university departments was based on four criteria. First, each selected department had to represent one of the core academic disciplines: humanities, social sciences, law and economics, medical sciences, and science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM). Second, general, technical and smaller universities had to be selected. Third, a regional spread was important. Fourth, the university executive boards and deans had to agree on participation in the study. Table 5.2 gives an overview of the characteristics of the five selected departments. Within each department two sets of data were collected: in 2009 and Data collection 2009 The first set of data, collected in 2009, draws on a study on TM policies and practices in Dutch public universities (Thunnissen, Van den Brink & Fruytier, 2010). This study was commissioned by SoFoKleS, the Social Fund for the Knowledge Sector, and was based on a request of the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) and the Dutch PhD Network (PNN) to evaluate the HRM policies regarding talented young academics of Dutch universities. The research project had a twofold ambition. The primary aim was to evaluate the (intended) policies developed by the universities for selecting, motivating and retaining talented academics (including exit policies), as well as the implementation of these policies. The secondary aim was to assess whether, and if so which, obstacles existed in the implementation of the intended policy and what the results were: did the measures and tools applied meet the needs and preferences of talented young academics and did they increase the attractiveness of the university as an employer, or were there gaps in policy? In the study of 2009 we gathered data at the organizational level, and at the employee level. In the study of 2009 the following four main research activities were conducted (table 5.3 gives an overview of the research topics and research activities): 1. The investigation started with the collection and analysis of relevant policy documents on organizational strategy, TM and HRM, in order to gain insight into the intended TM policies. This data was used to get an understanding of the intended TM practices and activities, as is formulated in research question 5 (see table 5.3). 102 Chapter 5 - Research design

104 Table 5.2: Overview of selected departments (based on information from 2009) Humanities Social Sciences Law STEM Medical Sciences Kind of university General university (a total of 7 university departments) General University (12 university departments) General university (8 university departments) Technical university (6 university departments) Small university (6 university departments) Region West West East North-East South Staff 1473 employees (75% academic staff) Acad. staff: 36% is Phd (28%) or postdoc (8%), 17% is lecturer, 26% is assistant professor, 21% is associate or full professor 305 employees (80% acad. staff) Acad. staff: 42% is PhD (27%) or postdoc (7%) or lecturer (8%), 26% is assistant professor and 43% is associate or full professor Ca. 300 employees (% acad. staff unknown) Acad. staff: 63% of the academic staff is PhD (28%), junior lecturer (28%) or researcher (7%), 6% is assistant professor, 32% is associate or full professor 612 employees (70% acad. staff) Acad. staff: Ca. 77% is PhD (51%) or postdoc (26%), 10% is assistant professor (or lecturer), 15% is associate or full professor Ca employees (65% acad. staff) Acad. staff: 72% of academic staff is PhD (34%) or Postdoc (38%); 16% is assistant professor, 12% is (associate or full) professor Research and education Ca students Offers over 80 bachelor and master programs 4 research institutes and 6 schools for teaching Ca students Offers 20 bachelor and master programs 6 sub departments Ca students Offers 12 bachelor and master programs 3 research institutes Ca students Offers 10 bachelor and master programs 3 multidisciplinary research institutes Ca students Offers over 20 bachelor and research programs 5 research institutes Details Intensive cooperation with law practice Intense corporation with (inter)national industrial partners and research institutes Recently 2 departments merged into 1 department Intensive cooperation with academic hospital Talent Management in academia 103

105 Table 5.3: Detailed overview of research topics and research activities in 5 case studies Dutch universities, data 2009 and 2013 Data 2009 Data 2013 Document analysis Interviews key figures HRM (30 persons) Definition of talent (RQ3) How do you define talent? X X X Intended TM objectives and outcomes (RQ4) Organization What are the TM objectives for the organization? Employees Why did you choose to apply for a job at this university department? / What are satisfying working conditions now you work here? What workings conditions are dissatisfying? / What is a shortcoming of your employer? TM activities and practices: intended and actual (RQ5) What are the intended TM practices and activities? What TM practices and activities are actually implemented and used? X X X X X Focus groups/ interviews talented academics (70 persons) X X X* Teleph. interviews with departed talents (10 persons) Interviews key figures HRM (12 persons) Questionnaire talents 2009 (48 respondents) Linked-In profiles (25 persons) 104 Chapter 5 - Research design

106 TM activities and practices: perceived (RQ6) How do the employees evaluate the implementation of the TM practices? Perceived TM outcomes (RQ7) What outcomes were perceived by representatives of the organization? What outcomes were perceived by the talented employees: (a) are needs and preferences addressed? (b) has the TM system contributed to their personal and professional development? Factors of influence (RQ8) Evaluation of the TM system: Which activities and practices were successful and which not? Why? Did the organizational objectives change between 2009 and 2013? Why? Did the TM system change between 2009 and 2013? Why? What factors influenced the effectiveness of the TM system? Data 2009 Data 2013 Document analysis Interviews key figures HRM (30 persons) X X Focus groups/ interviews talented academics (70 persons) X X X X X Teleph. interviews with departed talents (10 persons) Interviews key figures HRM (12 persons) X X X X Questionnaire talents 2009 (48 respondents) X X Linked-In profiles (25 persons) * In the interviews the talented academics reported which HRM practices and activities they had used to support their development. We must underline that if employees do not make use of an activity, it does not imply that the activity is not offered at all. Talent Management in academia 105

107 2. Next, we conducted semi structured interviews (individual or sometimes in pairs) with key figures around HRM and TM, such as the department s HRM managers, members of the university executive board, deans, research directors, and supervising full professors. In total 30 persons were interviewed in Table 5.4 gives an overview of the respondents by subfield and their positions. In the interviews we gathered information on (1) their definition of talent, (2) the intended TM objectives, (3) the intended and actual TM practices and activities, and (4) the obstacles regarding TM (see appendix 2 for the topic list). Therefore this data helps to answer, from an organizational perspective, research questions 3 to 5, 7 and In each department individual interviews and focus groups were held with academics who were identified by their dean as rising stars (a total of 70 respondents divided over 17 focus groups and 5 individual interviews). These rising stars were, regardless of their age, at the start of their academic career and held positions as PhD, postdoctoral researchers, assistant or associate professors recently granted tenure or on a tenure track. The selection of the interviewees was based on predetermined selection criteria developed by the researchers i.e., position and a spread between male and female -, but also on the availability of respondents in a specific group. The interviewed PhD s were, in most cases, a relative small portion of the total group of PhD s within the university departments. However, in some university departments there were no postdoctoral researchers or assistant professors on a tenure track, so in these cases these interviews were limited or absent (see table 5.4). In the interviews with the talented academics we focused on their needs and preferences regarding their work environment and employment relation. We asked why they had chosen to work at their university department, what they considered attractive and satisfying working conditions, and which working conditions they regarded as dissatisfying. Subsequently, we explored how they evaluated the TM practices of their employer, and asked which practices they appreciated and which they thought were useless because they did not address their needs. We also asked how they would define academic talent (see appendix 3). The interviews with the talented employees therefore address research questions 3, 4, 6 and A total of ten interviews was held with talented scholars who had departed the university department. These interviews were held by telephone, since most of them had moved to other cities than where the university was located. We attempted to interview at least two departed employees in each department, but for some university departments this was difficult because they did not have 106 Chapter 5 - Research design

108 an up-to-date address file of former employees. In the interviews the focus was on the reasons for their departure, and their satisfaction with the exit-process, i.e. research question 6. Table 5.4: Data 2009: Overview of interview respondents per subfield Subfields Humanities Social Sciences Law STEM Medical Sciences Interviews with key figures HRM Board members/ Research directors/ full professors Policy Officials (HR/ Academic Affairs) Total Interviews with employees PhD/ postdocs Recently appointed assistant Prof./ Tenure Trackers 17 Total Total Departed talents All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The interview reports were submitted for approval to the interviewees. Only the approved interview reports were used for the further analysis. After the data collection was finished a case report was written, based on the policy documents and all interviews within the department. This report was submitted to the contact person and the dean of the department, and they were asked to assess whether the facts in the case report were correct (thus, excluding the opinion and experiences of the respondents expressed in the interviews). After approval, the case reports were verified by stakeholders (deans, HRM policy officials and academics) of affiliated faculties within the same academic discipline. Based on this generalization phase, it was possible to conclude that the case studies presented an accurate picture of the TM policies of Dutch universities. Data collection 2013 Four years later, in each of the five university departments a second round of data collection took place on the (perceived) impact and outcomes of the TM practices and activities. Both representatives of the organization and the talented employees were Talent Management in academia 107

109 asked to participate in this second round of data collection, resulting in two research activities: 1. Twelve semi structured interviews were held with key figures around HRM: deans and research directors and policy officials (table 5.5). In all cases the members of the executive board and the supervising professors were excluded as interviewees, because we wanted to focus on the outcomes within the university department and not within the university or a particular research group. Therefore, the number of interviews is lower than in Seven of the twelve interviewees of 2013 were interviewed again in 2009, but due to personnel changes this was not possible for all interviewees; five of the interviewees in 2013 were new occupants of the position of dean or HR policy official. In the interviews we evaluated the TM objectives and policies investigated in 2009, reflected on the outcomes in 2013, and on the factors that influenced the effectiveness of the TM system (i.e. research questions 7 and 8; see table 5.3). Appendix 4 gives an overview of the topic list. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The interview reports were submitted for approval to the interviewees. Only the approved interview reports were used for further analysis. 2. The interviewed talents of 2009 were also invited to participate in a follow up of the case studies in In particular, we explored whether the TM practices and activities did contribute to the personal and professional development of the talents: did they make career advancements? In doing so, research question 7 was addressed. Considering the concrete nature and limited amount of information required, we decided to collect the information via a quantitative questionnaire (see appendix 5). This quantitative approach was more effective and efficient, for both the researcher and the respondents, than inviting all the respondents of 2009 for a new interview round. An with an invitation to fill in a questionnaire (with a link to a web-questionnaire) was sent to all the employees interviewed in 2009; we excluded the 10 interviewees who had already left their university department in A total of 73 persons was invited to participate in the investigation, including three employees who were invited for the interviews in 2009 but did not participate; the names of these three persons were not registered in the anonymous interview reports, so for the questionnaire in 2013 the addresses of all 73 persons were used. A total of 48 questionnaires was returned (response rate 66%, with some differences between the departments and positions; see table 5.5). Information on the career developments of the 25 talented interviewees who did not respond to the questionnaire was retrieved by a search on LinkedIn or personal websites. 108 Chapter 5 - Research design

110 Table 5.5: Data 2013: Overview of respondents per subfield Interviews with key figures HRM Board members/ Research directors Questionnaire employees PhD/ postdocs* Subfields Humanities Social Sciences Law STEM Medical Sciences Policy Officials (HR/ Academic Affairs) Recently appointed assistant Prof./ Tenure Trackers Total Total * The labels of the positions of the employees refer to the position the respondents had in So, 11 of the 13 postdoctoral researchers interviewed in 2009 also filled in the questionnaire. Data analysis After both rounds of data collection, in 2009 and 2013, the analysis phase was started by scanning the transcribed interviews, and isolating the words and phrases connected to our research questions. By giving open codes to different sections in the text, the first descriptive coding revealed the common patterns and themes related to these research questions. We then shifted to a more holistic method of content analysis, interpreting parts or categories of the text in the light of the rest of the text. In this way, we were able to find ambiguities, differences and paradoxes within and among the stories of the interviewees. The quantitative data of the questionnaire in 2013 was analyzed with IBM SPSS statistics software. Since the number of respondents was limited, mostly descriptive statistics were used Study 2: identification of talents by NWO grant panel members As noted in precious chapters, in Dutch academia various stakeholders inside and outside the organization are involved in defining and selecting talent. Especially the role of NWO is extraordinary for the Dutch academic community. Therefore, in chapter 6 on the conceptualization of talent, the data of the core study of the thesis Talent Management in academia 109

111 was combined with a second study, which investigated talent selection in the specific context of grant allocation by NWO (Van Arensbergen et al. 2013). The data in the NWO-study stems from 29 semi-structured interviews with members of grant panels. All the respondents were involved in reviewing and allocating personal career grants for two funding programs within the Dutch Talent Scheme called the Innovational Research Incentives Scheme of NWO: (1) The early career grant scheme (ECG/Veni) for researchers who received a PhD within the previous three years. The grant (max. 250, 000) offers them the opportunity to develop their research ideas; (2) The intermediate career grant scheme (ICG/Vidi) for researchers who completed their doctorates within a maximum of 8 years and who have already spent some years conducting post-doctoral research. The grant (max. 800, 000) allows them to develop their own innovative research line and to appoint one or more researchers to assist them. This grant scheme is not limited to a certain scientific domain, but has eight domain panels and one interdisciplinary panel. The respondents were predominantly associate or full professors and came from various scientific domains, from social sciences to life sciences (see table 5.6 for more details). Most of the respondents have been involved in this type of grant allocation for several years, have experience in internal selection processes at the university, and have been active as (national and international) peer reviewers. Respondents were asked about the identification of talent in their own academic environment, but also about talent selection within the grant allocation panel, e.g. what criteria they use in the different phases of the selection process, how they recognize the top talents, and how the panel reaches the final allocation decisions. All interviews were audiotape recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded (using open codes); in this study the computer program Atlas.ti was used for the coding process. Table 5.6: NWO-study: Overview of the respondents per program and domain (Van Arensbergen et al., 2013) Subfields ECG ICG Total Social sciences & Humanities Natural & Technical sciences Cross disciplinary application 1 1 Total Chapter 5 - Research design

112 5.4 Overview of research activities in empirical chapters In the next three chapters the empirical results are presented to answer the research questions. One chapter focuses on the definition of talent, and two chapters discuss, from two different angles, the intended and perceived outcomes of TM, and the TM process. Table 5.7 shows that in each chapter a specific subset of the data is used, related to the research questions involved (this will also be explained in the methodology sections in the chapters). In chapter 6 the definition of talent in the context of Dutch universities is put central (research question 3, 5, 8). As explained above, in this chapter the data from two complementary studies are used, since both studies investigated the definition of talent as well as the difficulties in defining, selecting and developing talent. In chapter 7 the value of TM from the organizational perspective is highlighted. For this chapter the organizational documents, and the interviews of 2009 and 2013 with the key figures around HRM are used. So, in chapter 7 research questions 4, 5, 7 and 8 are answered from an organizational perspective. In chapter 8 we explore the value of TM from an employee perspective (research questions 4, 6 and 7), and the data from the interviews with talented employees in 2009 and the questionnaire in 2013 were used. Since the TM system the practices, activities and instruments is the key issue of the thesis, this topic occurs in all three chapters. This does not imply that all paragraphs in the three chapters on this subject are identical; depending on the aim of the chapter different aspects are accentuated in the result section and a different set of data is used. In chapter 6 and 7 the focus is on the intended and actual policy and therefore is based on the interviews with key figures in HRM conducted in 2009 (on this specific research topic). In chapter 8 the employees perception of the TM system is highlighted and draws on the interviews with the talented employees. In the three empirical chapters the research questions are addressed from different angels and perspectives. Therefore, in the concluding chapter of this thesis, chapter 9, these multiple angles and perspectives are integrated in order to answer the complete set of research questions, and to reflect on the findings as a whole. Talent Management in academia 111

113 Table 5.7: Detailed overview of research methods empirical chapters Study NWO-grant committees Interviews with NWO-grant committees Chapter 6: A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia Conceptualization talent (RQ3) TM practices and activities: attention in system to important characteristics (RQ5) Difficulties in defining, selecting and developing talent (RQ8) X X X X Chapter 7: The value of TM: An organizational perspective Intended TM outcomes (RQ4a) TM practices and activities: intended and actual (RQ5) Perceived outcomes (RQ7a) Factors of influence (RQ8) X X Chapter 8: The human side of TM? The value of TM from an employee perspective Needs and preferences of talented academics (RQ4b) TM activities and practices: perceived (RQ6) Perceived outcomes (RQ7b) X Case studies in 5 Dutch university departments Data 2009 Data 2013 Doc. analysis Interviews key figures HRM Focus groups/ interviews talented academics Telep. interviews departed talents Interviews key figures HRM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Questionnaire talents Linked-In profiles X X 112 Chapter 5 - Research design

114 References Achterberg, J. & Vriens, D. (2009). Organizations: Social Systems Conducting Experiments. Dordrecht: Springer. Boxall, P. (2013), Building Highly-Performing Work Systems: Analysing HR Systems and Their Contributions to Performance, in HRM and Performance. Achievements and Challenges, eds. Paauwe, J., Guest & Wright, P. (2013), Chichester: Wiley, pp Boxall, P. & Purcell, J. (2011). Strategy and Human Resource Management (Third edition). New York: Palgrave Macmilan. Boxall, P., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. (2007), Human Resource Management: Scope, Analysis, and Significance, in The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, eds. Boxall, P., Purcell, J. & Wright, P. (2007), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks. CA: Stage. Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), Guest, D. (2007), HRM and the Worker: Towards a New Psychological Contract? in: The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, eds. Boxall, P., Purcell, J. & Wright, P. (2007), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp Kalleberg, A. & Marsden. P. (2013). Changing work values in the United States, Social Science Research, 42(2), Larsen, V., & Lubbe, M. (2008). Quick-scan jong talent. over loopbanen van jonge wetenschappers. The Hague: VSNU. Legge, K. (2005). Human resource management: rhetorics and realities. Anniversary Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan Oldham, G. & Hackman, J. (2010), Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Special Issue: Putting Job Design in Context. 31(2-3), Paauwe, J. (2004), HRM and Performance: Achieving Long-Term Viability, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sonnenberg, M. (2006). The signalling effect of HRM on psychological contracts of employees: A multi-level perspective. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam. Thunnissen, M., Fruytier, B. and Van den Brink, M. (2010). Beleid En Beleving. Onderzoek Naar Jongetalentenbeleid Op Nederlandse Universiteiten, Utrecht: Sofokles. Talent Management in academia 113

115 Truss, C., Gratton, L. Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P. & Stiles, P. (1997). Soft and hard models of human resources management: a reappraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 34, pp Van Arensbergen, P., Hessels, L., Van der Meulen, B. (2013), Talent Centraal: ontwikkeling en selectie van wetenschappers in Nederland. The Hague: Rathenau instituut VSNU (2012), WOPI data reference date , retrieved on , vsnu.nl/f_c_personeel_downloads.html Wright, P. & Nishii, L. (2013), Strategic HRM and Organizational Behaviour: Integrating Multiple Levels of Analysis, in HRM and Performance. Achievements and Challenges, eds. Paauwe, J., Guest & Wright, P. (2013), Chichester: Wiley, pp Chapter 5 - Research design

116 Chapter 6 A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia This chapter is based on: Thunnissen, M. & Van Arensbergen, P. (forthcoming). A multidimensional approach to talent: an empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia. Accepted for publication in Personnel Review.

117 6.1 Introduction For a profound understanding of the concept of talent management (TM) a clear definition of talent is of vital importance, since the definition of talent has implications for the TM practices implemented (Dries, 2013; Tansley, 2011; Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, Gonzalez-Cruz, 2013; Meyers & Van Woerkom, 2013). Nevertheless, chapter 2 showed that the majority of scholars in the field of TM take the talent construct for granted and do not formulate an explicit definition of talent (also see Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013). The scholars who do operationalize talent are not unanimous. A wide variety of definitions can be found in the TM literature. Generally, in the debate on operationalizing talent five dimensions (or tensions as Dries (2013) calls them) become manifest. First, definitions can be divided along the subject versus the object dimension. Scholars advocating the subject approach regard talent as a synonym for people, while in the object approach talent refers to characteristics or attributes of people, such as abilities, knowledge or competencies (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013). The distinction between object and subject is difficult to grasp, as people cannot be isolated from their characteristics (Dries, 2013). Second, there is division between the inclusive view of talent (related to all employees) and the exclusive orientation (related to a selective group of employees). The inclusive approach connects to a positive psychological view and argues that each person has a set of strengths (Nijs, Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries & Sels, 2013). The exclusive view relates to the human capital approach and believes that the relative contribution of a certain group talents justifies the disproportional investment of time and money in this select group (Nijs et al., 2013). Third, there is also a lively debate on whether talent is innate and stable or if it can be acquired and developed through training and exercise (e.g., Meyers & Van Woerkom, 2013). Fourth, opinions differ whether the focus should be on abilities and motivation (input) or on excellent performance and success (outcome) (Ross, 2013). Finally, scholars discuss the extent to which talent is conditional on its environment: is talent transferable or context-dependent? (Dries, 2013). In many scholarly papers the debate is often focused on one single dimension, without considering alternative dimensions. This narrow and unilateral approach provides a simplified and fragmented view of reality. In order to deal with the complexity of organizations some scholars combine two dimensions in defining talent, for example the inclusive vs. exclusive approach with the object vs. subject approach (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013) or with the stable-developable dimension (Meyers & Van Woerkom, 2013). Recently, Nijs et al. (2013) have gone one step further and integrated the fragmented insights from the fields of Human Resource Management (HRM), gifted education, positive psychology and vocational psychology into a broader, multidisciplinary approach to define, operationalize and measure talent in the context of organizations. This approach is a valuable contribution to the field of TM; however, their paper is highly conceptual. On the whole, there is little empirical research on 116 Chapter 6 - A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia

118 defining and selecting talent that can support us in disentangling the complexities of operationalizing talent in the context of work and organizations. Therefore, Nijs et al. (2013) call for more empirical research. Furthermore, although the authors developed a universal talent-model, in their discussion they particularly encourage investigations of the impact of the (organizational) context on talent definitions, and the influence of the personal characteristics and preferences of the assessor and assessee on defining and measuring talent (Nijs et al., 2013; Meyers & Van Woerkom, 2013). In this chapter we respond to the call of Nijs et al. (2013). We aim to contribute to the development of a broader, multi-dimensional approach to talent that helps scholars and practitioners fully to understand the nuances and complexity of talent in the organizational context. This broader approach regards talent as a complex of multiple, interrelated components, and takes the impact of the organizational context and of the different actors involved into account. The data from two complementary research projects on TM in Dutch academia were used to investigate the value of our theoretical ideas. Before presenting our methods and findings, we will elaborate on our theoretical framework in the next section. 6.2 A multi-dimensional approach to talent The quest for a proper definition of talent is not exclusive to the fields of TM, HRM and organizational behavior. Talent and giftedness have been an area of research in educational psychology for many decades. The field has been criticized, for example, for being too fragmented, unable to close the gap between theoretical knowledge and the implementation of ideas in practice (Dai, Swanson & Cheng, 2011; Ziegler & Raul, 2000), and being grounded on research on giftedness in children and adolescents instead of adults working in organizations (Dries, 2013). Nonetheless, scholars in this field have managed to overcome the unilateral approach to defining talent. In educational psychology talent generally is approached as a multi-dimensional construct consisting of several interrelated components which change and develop over time. Abilities, non-cognitive personality characteristics (such as motivation), performance and environmental conditions are components in nearly all talent-and giftedness-models (e.g., Gagné, 2004; Heller & Perleth, 2008; Renzulli, 1978), although the labels and interpretations of the role of these components differ. One of the most widely recognized models of talent is the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) by Gagné (2004; 2010). This model gives a clear and straightforward explanation of talent, and the key principles are very useable for analyzing talent in the context of work and organizations. Moreover, in comparison to other models, the DMGT-model is unique in its explicit description of the developmental process and the development program. For the context of organizations this elaboration Talent Management in academia 117

119 is of great value, because it gives input for a TM system. We will use the basic principles of the DMGT-model to develop our theoretical framework on talent. In essence, the DMGT-model is a process model, which incorporates all dimensions mentioned in the introduction: outstanding abilities are regarded as input and developed through a developmental process into output, i.e. excellent performance. The developmental process can be influenced (accelerated and decelerated) by two catalysts: intrapersonal characteristics and environmental influences. Below we will discuss the five key components of this process model Outstanding abilities (input) Gagné distinguishes six ability domains in the mental and physical realm: intellectual, creative, socio-affective, perceptual, muscular and motor control abilities (Gagné, 2010). Gagné uses the terms gift or giftedness to refer to the possession and use of outstanding natural abilities, to a degree that places a person at least among the top 10% of age peers (Gagné, 2011; p. 11). Of course, the specific mixture of crucial abilities is dependent on the performance area, such as sports, music or science. As mentioned in chapter 2, TM scholars also acknowledge that in the context of organizations the precise mix of differentiating abilities or competencies will vary according the organizational environment (e.g., sector and labor market), the type of work, et cetera (e.g., Gallardo-Gallardo et al. 2013; McCauly & Wakefield, 2006; Lewis & Heckman, 2006) Excellent performance (outcome) The DMGT model distinguishes outstanding natural abilities as input on the one hand, and excellent performance as an outcome on the other hand, accentuating the inseparable connection between abilities and performance. A high performance itself is not a talent, nor is being gifted with outstanding abilities. Gagné only speaks of talent when excellent performance is the result of outstanding mastery of the systematic developed abilities. A performance can be marked as excellent when the performance places an individual at least among the top 10% of learning peers (those who have accumulated a similar amount of learning time from current or past training). Consequently, excellent performance, in comparison to their peers, is the starting point for the selection for a talent program or talent pool. So, on the aforementioned inclusive-exclusive dimension Gagné advocates an exclusive approach. The importance of employee performance is widely acknowledged in the TM literature. Many see talents as those employees that rank at the top in terms of capability and performance, and who make a significant difference to the current and future performance of the organization (e.g., Collings & Mellahi, 2009). However, in the context of work and organizations there is no guarantee that past performance 118 Chapter 6 - A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia

120 is an adequate predictor of future performance in other working environments (Groysberg, Nanda & Nohria, 2004). This refers to the influence of contextual factors, as we will discuss below Intrapersonal characteristics (catalyst) Intrapersonal characteristics refer to aspects such as goal motivation and commitment, will power, self-management, and learning and working strategies. Most authors in the field of giftedness underline the importance of intrapersonal characteristics, and in particular motivation, although they differ in the exact role ascribed to them (e.g., Heller & Perleth, 2010; Renzulli, 1978). According to Gagné (1985) they serve as a catalyst which can accelerate or hinder the transition of outstanding abilities into excellent performance. In order to achieve exceptional results a person must be motivated and willing to apply his or her outstanding abilities. Due to the combination of exceptional abilities and intrapersonal characteristics a talent is able to develop and learn faster than others. The importance of commitment and motivation is also highlighted by several TM scholars (e.g., Collings & Mellahi, 2009). As Ulrich and Ulrich (2010) argue, talent = competence x commitment x contribution. The power to accelerate development is not explicitly acknowledged in the TM literature Environmental influences (catalyst) Although talent is personal, it cannot be disconnected from its context. Environmental factors, such as other people or working conditions, act as a second catalyst in the talent developmental process (Gagné, 2004). This implies that the organization, e.g. the direct manager or organizational culture, can influence the development of talent, both negatively and positively. Because of the influence of the organizational context, including the preferences and views of people involved in that context, Nijs et al. (2013) and Meyers and Van Woerkom (2013) argue that the talent identification process is selective and subjective by nature. To prevent biases and to provide equal chances for everyone, Nijs et al. (2013) recommend assessing both performance ànd the abilities and non-cognitive (i.e. motivation and interest) components of talent in the work context. We take the position that, in order to correspond to the complexity of organizations, talent needs to be regarded as a whole set of outstanding abilities, interpersonal characteristics, excellent performance and environmental influences. This raises the question whether organizations indeed perceive talent in this multi-dimensional way. In the empirical study we investigate how organizations conceptualize talent, whether the enumerated characteristics of talent can be classified according to the central components discussed in this section, and what the impact of the environment and its interrelated actors is. Talent Management in academia 119

121 6.2.5 Developmental process (throughput) According to Gagné s DMGT model exceptional abilities do not develop purely by maturation alone; environmental stimulation through a systematic and enriched training and learning program is essential. The developmental process concerns the systematic pursuit by talentees, over a significant period of time, of a structured program of activities aimed at a specific excellence goal (Gagné, 2011, p. 12). The six main constituent elements of this developmental process are: (1) selective access criteria; (2) an enriched, or differentiated training program of which the pace and difficulty level fits the advanced learning skills of talented employees, (3) with the option of a personalized, accelerated pace; (4) systematic and regular practice; (5) setting clear and challenging excellence goals; and (6) regular and objective progress assessments, in which performance is compared to a standard norm, or to the performance of peers. Adopting the remarks on the developmental process to the field of TM would imply that TM at least consists of a structured development program with, on the one hand, soft, developmental HRM practices (Truss, Gratton, Hope-Hailey, McGovern & Stiles, 1997) like training and practice activities on a regular basis, and, on the other hand, hard HRM practices (Truss et al., 1997) focusing on performance criteria, performance agreements to set challenging goals, and performance appraisals. The program offered should fit the talents ability to develop at an accelerated pace, and therefore differs from programs offered to other employees. This study examines empirically whether the TM systems of organizations explicitly address the multiple components of talent, if they do so in a systematic and enriched TM program, and what difficulties they experience in doing this. 6.3 Research methods The above reasoning leads to three research topics for the empirical study: (1) the definition of talent; (2) the TM practices and activities implemented to identify, select and develop talent; (3) the perceived difficulties in identifying, selecting and developing talent. The information on these topics comes from two complementary research projects on TM in Dutch academia. We will first give a short outline of the research context, in order to get an understanding of the specific circumstances Dutch universities have to consider in their battle for talent. After that the data collection and analysis will be presented. 120 Chapter 6 - A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia

122 6.3.1 Mapping the research context Like many other organizations, universities in Europe are confronted with intensifying competition for academic talent (Enders, De Boer, File, Jongbloed & Westerheijden, 2011). They face an ageing workforce and the need to replace retiring senior academic staff with a new generation of academics. Moreover, stakeholders in the institutional context pressure higher education (HE) institutes to increase efficiency, quality and excellence in order to contribute to the strengthening of the European position in the global knowledge economy (Enders et al,. 2011). As a result of this marketization of the university Parker and Jay (1995) notice the rise of a new academic. Besides the traditional scientific skills and attitudes such as autonomy, creativity, a passion for science, new skills have become important: cooperation, networking skills, leadership, and, especially, entrepreneurship (Van den Brink, 2009). Universities in the Netherlands are aware of the importance of talented and excellent academics. Nowadays, the ability to attract and retain top talent is one of the key HRM issues for universities (Van den Brink, Fruytier & Thunnissen, 2013). In the TM literature TM is positioned as a shared responsibility for management and HRM. This does not hold for universities, as the impact of the HR staff is marginal (Farndale & Hope-Hailey, 2009). Managing academics, e.g. full professors, still consider themselves responsible and best equipped for selecting and managing their academic staff, and they accept little or no interference. However, the controlling influence of the academic community is not limited to the academics within their own organization. In particular the influence of one external stakeholder, the Dutch Research Council (in Dutch abbreviated as NWO), is remarkable in the Dutch context. In recent decades the Dutch government has transferred part of the direct and structural research funding of academic institutes to NWO s talent program called de Vernieuwingsimpuls, where individual researchers can apply for personal research grants in competition (Heiligers & Van Steen, 2008). Since 2000 the budget has increased tenfold to 150 million euros per year (in 2012). In the process of grant allocation academic researchers play a major role, both as external experts reviewing a specific grant application, and as panel members responsible for reviewing all applications and making the allocation decisions. Although the personal career grants were initially meant as instruments to support potential top academics to develop their own research line, they seem to have become an important career-enabler for any academic who wants to have a research career (e.g., Van Balen & Van Besselaar, 2007). This has resulted in a huge number of applications, and, consequently, a low allocation rate (about 16 % for early career research grants (NWO, 2011). The importance of these grants for the career opportunities of individual researchers implies that an external organization such as NWO has an important say in defining academic talent. Talent Management in academia 121

123 6.3.2 Data collection The above contextual outline illustrates how various stakeholders from inside and outside the organization are involved in defining, selecting and developing talent in Dutch science organizations. To grasp the current notion of talent within the Dutch academic context as fully as possible, we have used the data from two complementary empirical research projects on the definition and identification of talented academics in the early stages of their careers. The first research project focused on defining and developing talent inside the academic organization, in which the perspectives of management, policy-advisors and talented academics themselves were taken into account (Thunnissen, Fruytier & Van den Brink, 2010). The second study focused on the role of stakeholders outside the university, and investigated talent selection in the specific context of grant allocation by NWO (Van Arensbergen, Hessels & Van der Meulen, 2013). Next, we will describe the methodology of both studies separately. After this the results of both studies will be integrated, only drawing a distinction between them when relevant. Study 1: TM policies and practices within five university departments Five university departments from five different universities participated in this research project. The selection was based on four criteria. First, each selected department had to represent one of the core academic disciplines: humanities, social sciences, law, medical sciences, and science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM). Second, general, technical, and smaller universities had to be included. Third, a regional spread was important. Fourth, the university executive boards and deans had to give permission to participate in the study. Within each department we held semi-structured interviews with key figures around HRM and TM, such as HR-managers, members of the university executive board, deans and research directors (30 respondents in total, see table 6.1). In addition, we organized individual interviews and focus groups with academics who were identified by their dean as rising stars (70 respondents in total). In the interviews we asked how they define academic talent, and the obstacles and opportunities they perceived in talent identification and talent development within their organization. In the interviews with the HR-key figures we also discussed the intended and actual TM practices and activities. Finally, policy documents on organizational strategy, HRM and the TM policy were analyzed to gain an understanding of the intended TM policies. 122 Chapter 6 - A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia

124 Table 6.1: Overview of interview respondents per subfield (study 1) Subfields Board members Policy Officials (HR/ Academic Affairs) Research directors/ supervisors PhD/ postdocs Humanities Social Sciences Law STEM Medical Sciences Total Recently appointed assistant Prof./ Tenure Trackers Study 2: identification of talents by NWO grant panel members The data in the second study stems from 29 semi-structured interviews with members of grant panels. All the respondents were involved in reviewing and allocating personal career grants for two funding programs within the abovementioned talent program ( Vernieuwingsimpuls ) of NWO: (1) The early career grant scheme (ECG/Veni) for researchers who received a PhD within the previous three years (max. 250,000 to develop their research ideas); (2) The intermediate career grant scheme (ICG/Vidi) for researchers who completed their doctorates within a maximum of eight years and who have already spent some years conducting post-doctoral research (max. 800,000 to develop their own innovative research line and to appoint one or more researchers to assist them). This grant scheme is not limited to a certain scientific domain, but has eight domain panels and one interdisciplinary panel. The respondents were academics themselves, predominantly associate or full professor and come from various scientific domains (see table 6.2 for more details). Most of the respondents have been involved in this type of grant allocation for several years, have experience in internal selection processes at the university, and have been active as (national and international) peer reviewers. Respondents were asked about the identification of talent in their own academic environment, but also about talent selection within the grant allocation panel, e.g. what criteria they use in the different phases of the selection process, how they recognize top talents, and how the panel reaches the final allocation decisions. In doing so, we were also able to identify difficulties and dilemmas in identifying and selecting talent. Talent Management in academia 123

125 Table 6.2: Overview of the respondents per program and domain (study 2) Subfields ECG ICG Total Social sciences & Humanities Natural & Technical sciences Cross disciplinary application 1 1 Total Data analysis In neither research projects we gave a description of talent and TM in advance, because we wanted to investigate the operationalizations made by the respondents. All interviews were audiotape recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded (using emerging, open codes); in the second study the computer program Atlas.ti was used for the coding process. With regard to the conceptualization of talent we clustered the coherent codes, resulting in twelve categories of talent characteristics mentioned by the respondents. Table 6.3 gives an overview of the twelve categories (2 nd column) and examples of the initial characteristics mentioned (3 rd column). After that we explored whether these twelve categories could be classified to the five components of the talent model described earlier. This was possible for three of them: abilities, performance and intrapersonal characteristics (1 st column table 6.3). The contextual influence was not mentioned as a characteristic of talent, and therefore not noted in table 6.3, but rather as a factor influencing the operationalization of talent. Also the developmental process was not mentioned as a talent characteristic. 124 Chapter 6 - A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia

126 Table 6.3: Characteristics of academic talent Category Examples Abilities 1. Scientific understanding Critical, reflective, open to feedback, intellectual attitude, analytical, tolerant to criticism, abstract and theoretical oriented. Intrapersonal characteristics 2. Academic expertise Interests in field/subject, top level knowledge and skills, affinity with teaching, excellent research and teaching (and management) skills, ability to write scientific articles. 3. Innovative Creative, innovative, curious, ability to think out of the box, stands out from the rest. 4. Entrepreneurial Ability to acquire funds and financial means, to market own results, to see opportunities, to be proactive. 5. Consciousness of environment Ability to start and maintain internal and external relations, to deal with interests of others, to manoeuver. 6. Communication skills Ability to communicate, to get others enthusiastic, to inspire and motivate others in teaching. 7. Cooperation skills Social skills, social cleverness, fitting in the group, pleasant to work with, wants to pull the cart, loyal. 8. Motivated and driven Driven and motivated, perseverance, readiness to work hard, enthusiastic and passion for science, ambitious. 9. Personal effectiveness Ability to work independently, to organize oneself, multi-tasker 10. Fast development Ability to learn quickly. Performance 11. Experience Additional scientific experience during study (e.g., student assistantship), scientific experience associated with practice, experience abroad. 12. Above average performance Cum laude graduated/ promoted, awards, publications, presentations. Talent Management in academia 125

127 6.4 Findings The definition of talent We asked all respondents managers, policy-officials, talents as well as the external grant panel members to describe academic talent. A broad variety of characteristics and definitions was given (see 3 rd column table 6.3). The study shows that, in the perception of the respondents, talent as a person (subject approach) and talent as a characteristic (object approach) are not easy to disentangle: most see talent as a person who possesses a set of outstanding characteristics. Table 6.4 shows that the majority of the talent characteristics refer to the possession of outstanding abilities. A talented academic particularly stands out because of intellectual abilities, or in the case of scholars, the traditional academic abilities, i.e. scientific understanding and academic expertise. He or she is analytic, has a critical mind, et cetera. But the modern talented academic is able to do more, or as one respondent put it: Actually, the distinguishing features of a talent are often Table 6.4: Perceived components of talent by different stakeholders Characteristics named by: (1) Internal stakeholders (2) External stakeholders (grant panel members) Abilities Intellectual (scientific understanding; academic expertise) Creative (Innovative & entrepreneurial) Social (environmental consciousness, communication and cooperation skills) Intrapersonal characteristics Board members, managers and policyofficials Talented academic employees Characteristics in talent identification: In own academic environment 16% 28% 22% 47% 24% 18% 14% 9% 17% 17% 20% 14% 18% 27% 26% 17% Performance 23% 10% 19% 13% Within grant allocation panel NB: the percentage of the total number of answers within this group of respondents, referring to this characteristic 126 Chapter 6 - A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia

128 the extra, non-scientific skills. We see that nowadays creative and socio-affective abilities are perceived as important talent features. Science is not a nerd in a lab, it s a social thing, you have to collaborate with other labs. (assistant professor). The modern scholar can communicate, enthuse and inspire others, is proactive and able to market his or her ideas and research. All refer to mental abilities; skills in Gagné s physical domain are not mentioned. Besides these mental abilities many respondents state explicitly that talents stand out because of their intrapersonal characteristics: talents are highly motivated and ambitious, have a strong passion for science and are prepared to work very hard. Talent requires some sort of innlichkeit. Some autistic capability of getting lost in the necessities of a research process. This has much to do with discipline and with the acceptance of the old fashioned logics of scientific processes, even when they seem to be very unpleasant (assistant professor). Some say that this drive is a prerequisite if you want to survive the rat-race in contemporary academia. All the same, an academic who is not able to transform his qualities and his passion for science into an outstanding performance will not be recognized as a talent. A talent s track record shows good grades or cum laude promotion, many publications in high-impact journals, prestigious grants and scholarships acquired, and a few years of international scientific work experience: Being labelled as talent starts with performance. How fast can someone get a paper published?; Does he have the power to acquire funds?; Is he promoted cum laude? (full professor). The results show that the definition of talent is not static, but subjective and context dependent. Firstly, there are differences in perceptions between the groups of respondents (see table 6.4 and 6.5). In order to compare these perceptions we made top 5 categories per group, based on the frequency of mentioned characteristics. Table 6.5 indicates that each stakeholder group shows a tendency to approach talent in a narrow way, often highlighting one aspect of talent. Management (deans, research directors, etc.) and policy-officials strongly appreciate performance, combined with the traditional academic skills (e.g., academic expertise) but especially the new academic abilities (e.g., innovativeness and entrepreneurship). In contrast, the talented employees themselves regard the intrapersonal characteristics, such as drive and motivation, as crucial talent features. When spotting talent at the university the grant panel members, who are academics themselves, indicate that the right mixture of abilities, personal characteristics and performance discriminates talents from their peers. Specifically, social skills and strong motivation are emphasized. However, in their role as grant panel members they primarily assess traditional academic abilities in combination with performance: in the first selection round they predominantly look for the best track record, mainly based on a résumé. Academics selected for the second round are invited for an interview, in which intrapersonal characteristics become more important. Some applicants with a good but not excellent Talent Management in academia 127

129 track record and grant proposal move up in the final ranking after showing their strong motivation, enthusiasm and communication skills during the interview. Table 6.5: Characteristics of academic talent by different stakeholders Characteristics named by: (1) Internal stakeholders (2) External stakeholders (grant panel members) Board members, managers and policyofficials 1. Performance (17%) 2. Creative and innovative (16%) 3. Academic expertise (13%) 4. Motivated and driven (12%) 5. Entrepreneurial (9%) Talented academic employees 1. Motivated and driven (18%) 2. Academic expertise (17%) 3. Scientific insight (11%) 4. Creative and innovative (9%) 5. Entrepreneurial (9%) Characteristics in talent identification: In own academic environment 1. Performance (19%) 2. Motivated and driven (19%) 3. Academic expertise (17%) 4. Cooperation skills (14%) 5. Creative and innovative (10%) Within the grant allocation panel 1. Academic expertise (28%) 2. Scientific insight (19%) 3. Motivated and driven (10%) 4. Creative and innovative (9%) 5. Experience (9%) NB: the percentage of the total number of answers, within this group of interviewees, which refers to this characteristic Secondly, there are differences in the conceptualization of talent between the academic disciplines. In the STEM department, a department that acquires a great deal of external research funding, entrepreneurial skills are more often noted as an essential qualification, while respondents in the humanities department emphasize the importance of academic expertise, autonomy and the independence of a scholar. The STEM department has international work experience high on the list of priorities, and the medical sciences and the law department appreciate experience in practice. Thirdly, the results illustrate how the perceived talent features change as careers progress. For academics at the beginning of their academic career, PhDs and postdocs, excelling in the intellectual abilities is considered most important, together with intrapersonal characteristics. Talented employees have to prove themselves to be excellent and ambitious researchers. As the career advances socio-affective and entrepreneurial abilities gain importance, as talents have to develop towards becoming an excellent group leader. A participant in a top talent program states: We are now at a point in our career where strategic management skills need to be developed. I 128 Chapter 6 - A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia

130 need to learn how to manoeuver politically. I see it as a challenge, while a few years ago I found it detestable (associate professor). Summarizing, talent is regarded as a combination of three components in the talent model: abilities, intrapersonal characteristics, and performance. For many respondents these components are inseparably connected, although the various stakeholder groups differ on which components are most important. Each stakeholder group has the tendency to approach talent in a biased, unilateral manner. The weight attached to characteristics also depends on the organizational context and career stage of the talent, illustrating the impact of the fourth concept of the talent model: environmental influence TM practices and activities In this section we discuss whether the TM programs explicitly address the specific characteristics of talent, and whether this is done in a structured and enriched manner as prescribed in the DMGT-model. The results show that academic TM rests on two pillars: (1) stimulating the development of intellectual, academic abilities, in particular for the junior positions; and (2) controlling and measuring performance, especially for the more experienced academics. Developing intrapersonal characteristics is a non-issue in academic TM policy and practice. As far as the abilities are concerned, formal TM-policies emphasize growth towards becoming an excellent scholar through the development of traditional academic skills, particularly for early career employees. For them the talent program consists of systematic and deliberate training and practice through PhD-programs which are available in all departments. These programs consist of a mixture of formal, soft HR-instruments such as training, education, and supervision by their professors, and to a larger extent, of non-formalized training on the job, that is paper presentations at conferences, peer presentations, writing publications and grant proposals, being engaged in research projects or teaching, etc. In order to measure, structure and control the progress of the PhD candidates hard HRM instruments such as performance agreements and appraisals have been introduced in PhD programs, for example, a go-no-go-decision is built in at the end of the first year, based on the first written paper. Although these PhD programs are structured and systematic, they are not enriched training and learning programs in the sense of the DMGT model. They do have systematic and regular practice and clear goals (finishing the PhD project in time), but there are no selective access criteria (all PhD-candidates participate), no enriched program with accelerated pace, and hardly any objective progress assessments. As mentioned in the previous section, for academic staff with a doctorate degree in the medium and senior positions, less traditional academic skills become important Talent Management in academia 129

131 aspects of talent. The development of these creative and socio-affective abilities is hardly part of formal TM programs. Just a few training facilities are offered aimed at creativity, entrepreneurship (medical sciences), grant applications (social sciences) or the general development of the employee through transferable skills (humanities). So, after the PhD period the development of abilities is more ad hoc and informal, with an emphasis on learning on the job. Conversely, in the TM practices and activities for academic staff in the more experienced and senior positions the emphasis is put on controlling and measuring performance and production, a characteristic of the hard approach to HRM. As the career advances, proven performance becomes a crucial criterion in talent identification, recruitment and promotion decisions. The TM policies for assistant professors and beyond become more exclusively oriented: only the academics who have proven their potential by excellent performance are selected for a tenure position, and get the opportunity to participate in a talent program leading towards a position as professor. Two out of five departments STEM and medical sciences had such a top talent program, often called a tenure track system; two others were experimenting with a tenure track system (law and social sciences). In this program an excellently performing young academic is offered a temporary position (approximately for 5-6 years) as assistant professor with the option of tenure as (associate) professor in the future, on condition that the academic is capable of meeting pre-agreed performance criteria, annually assessed. Once on the program, professional development is supported in several ways, e.g. coaching, mentoring or leadership training, but the development program is less structured and binding than the PhD development program and therefore shows little resemblance to the talent developmental program of Gagné. The TM systems of the five university departments show two inadequacies. First, there is a gap in the TM policies regarding academics with a fixed-term position, such as post doc researchers and temporary lecturers. Except for the lecturers in the humanities department they get little or no (formalized) support in their development from their employer. Second, there is less deliberate and structural attention devoted to the (development of) intrapersonal characteristics, such as commitment and self-management; this is not an aspect of the formal TM system. In practice it is the supervising professor s responsibility to motivate and coach talented academics in their personal development. However, our research shows that the guidance and coaching offered by supervising and managing professors is often ad hoc in nature. The findings suggest that a laissez-faire style of supervision is common in Dutch science organizations, based on the assumption of a self-propelling academic. Most (young) academics find this unsatisfactory. To summarize, in talent identification, selection and development the organization focuses on either the intellectual academic abilities (junior academics) or performance (assistant professor upwards). The TM program is hardly systematic and 130 Chapter 6 - A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia

132 enriched, as Gagné recommends. In that case, can these programs be labelled as TM, or is it just ordinary HRM? Presumably the universities experience a number of bottlenecks in defining and developing talent. In the next section we will elaborate on those difficulties Difficulties in defining, selecting and developing talent In the interview with both the stakeholders inside the university and the NWO grant panel members several difficulties in identifying, selecting and developing talent were mentioned. The difficulties were often presented as dilemmas, because they force the organization to make their talent philosophies explicit. We will discuss the most prominent dilemmas below. Dilemma 1: Proven versus potential talent? This dilemma refers to the positioning on a continuum with potential excellence reflected in outstanding abilities on the one hand, and proven excellence in performance on the other hand. The humanities department and the STEM department in our study represent both ends of the continuum. The humanities department is looking for proven excellence: young scholars with a track record that is long enough to assess their qualities and their future functioning. As the dean puts it: Talent needs flying hours, time to come to blossom. (dean). The STEM department defines talent as potential, which has to be developed. Talent is someone who: has the ability to learn what there is to learn from varied (work) experience and has the potential to grow to the top. (STEM TM policy plan). These conceptualizations are related to the organizational context. The humanities department is confronted with a seller s market : a strong internal competition between academics and academic groups because of large numbers of educated professionals with limited career possibilities, plentiful junior staff and a scarcity of top-level positions. Besides that, they have to deal with financial cutbacks, forcing them to downsize their TM investments. Consequently they focus on employees they consider to be minimal risk and maximum guarantee for success. The STEM department, on the other hand, has to deal with shortages in the labor market and difficulties with filling in vacant positions. Focusing on the best performers only would limit their chances considerably, so they choose to select potential talents and develop and mold them towards excellent academics. Even more, they can afford the risk of some disappointments, at least at the junior academic levels, because the department has sufficient financial resources. All the departments position their TM policy somewhere on the line between potential or proven talent. Most of them lean towards proven performance. They want to control workforce flexibility, in qualitative and quantitative terms. As long as the performance of the maturing academic is insecure, the university departments often choose to offer a temporary contract to protect the organization from a loss Talent Management in academia 131

133 of flexibility. However, this approach creates insecurity for the employee, especially for the ones whose excellence is not completely proven yet. They feel the risks of job insecurity, but also confusion because of a lack of clarity with the label of potential talent : You are labeled as talented, but you still have to give prove of your excellence. You are not fully accepted. I wonder when it I do actually have made it. (post doc researcher). Being a young talent, does that imply that you have to be a workaholic? It is a dilemma for me. (lecturer). Dilemma 2: Objectively measurable or based on subjective perceptions? In Dutch science organizations excellence is predominantly measured by its outcome, i.e. performance, and not by its input. The intellectual, academic abilities are relatively easy to transform into objective and measurable performance criteria, such as the quality and quantity of publications, grants obtained, etc. However, the creative and socio-affective abilities and personal aspects such as motivation and drive cannot be as easily captured in measurable criteria. Supervising professors are well able to identify talent (in the broadest sense) around them using their own subjective criteria and experience, but the formal selection and hiring process is mainly based on objective performance measures as it involves competition, comparison and justification. Since the measurable criteria primarily focus on the intellectual academic abilities, the formal selection criteria are based on a narrow view of talent. In the actual selection procedure, however, the parties involved (supervising professors, research directors, deans) create room for the use of both the objective performance criteria and their subjective perceptions. This prevents, however, the adoption of an equitable TM approach. Dilemma 3: Talent, comparable to who? Gagné s model comparison with peers is essential as this gives information on the progress and uniqueness of talent. The question is, however, which employees constitute the peer group. The academic community goes beyond organizational boundaries, so it is often inadequate to compare talent with colleagues in the department only. Factors such as the organization s strategic ambitions, competitive position and labor market situation affect whether the TM system focuses on internal academics versus the internationally most renowned academics in their wider academic field. The medical sciences department therefore argues: We do not want to attract the Johan Cruijffs in our field. When we talk about talents, we are referring to the best within our university and who will be internationally good as well. (HR policy official). On the other hand, the STEM department, especially some top research groups, focuses on the best players in the premier league and only want to attract and retain the international most renowned scientists. 132 Chapter 6 - A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia

134 Dilemma 4: How to differentiate between similar talents? Within the university departments academic managers struggle with the question of how to take care of the talents in the grey area. They can easily identify the top talents and the absolute non-talents, both relatively small groups, but what about the middle group? They might have qualities that do not directly qualify them individually as talent, but which are valuable for a research group. In the medical sciences department a professor remarks: After the PhD-phase it is possible to distinguish three categories of doctoral candidates. There is a group that do not have it, and you want to protect them against the competition in the academic world. A second group consists of people who have it and need further coaching towards a successful academic career. The third category is a kind of grey area. The people in that group may not be extremely gifted, but they stand out because of their enormous drive and willingness to work hard and are therefore able to succeed as a scientist. (director research institute). Is it therefore worth investing in the employees in the grey-area, who may not excel on the traditional criteria? The choice made in this dilemma is related to abovementioned inclusive-exclusive dimension. The grant panel members also struggle with the dilemma of the grey area, comprising the majority of the applicants of about equal quality. These applicants may vary on which dimensions they excel in and to what extent, resulting in minimal differences in their average quality around the cutoff point (the point above which the candidates will be given grants and under which they are rejected). Therefore, the review panels spend most of their time discussing the applicants around the cutoff point. Panel members are very aware of the potential consequences of their decisions, because a rejection can mean the end of the applicant s scientific career. Dilemma 5: Who is in the lead? Both research projects show that TM in academia is most of all the responsibility of the scientific community. Although some professors and research directors stated that HRM-advisors should be more involved in the selection and career interviews because of their focus on non-academic abilities, up till now their impact has been marginal. The managing full professors and the dean take the crucial decisions on labelling and enabling talents. This gives them the opportunity to adjust the talent definition to their department s needs and preferences. However, as we have pointed out before, the external stakeholder NWO has a significant impact as well, since personal research grants are seen as a crucial criterion in selection procedures and performance appraisals. This causes friction between the different definitions of talent, with a narrower definition being used by grant panels than by the stakeholders within the university. What happens to the talented academics who did not succeed in getting a prestigious grant? Are they not talented at all? A grant is an easy to assess criteria, but also excludes a large group of academics. ( ) People who are able to work in a structured and organized manner, or with a broad academic orientation are also valuable for a team, but these qualities are less valued than the hard academic skills. (director research institute) Talent Management in academia 133

135 6.5 Discussion In this chapter we have applied a widely acknowledged talent-model from the field of educational psychology, the DMGT-model of Gagné (2004; 2010), to strengthen the relatively weak and narrow theoretical foundations of TM. This exploration proved to be very useful for developing a broader, multi-dimensional approach to talent and TM. We will first discuss the theoretical contributions concerning the talent construct. First, in contrast to the aforementioned dominant unilateral approaches to talent in the TM literature, this chapter has demonstrated that in the organizational context talent is regarded as a multi-dimensional construct. Talent is a bundle of interrelated components of outstanding abilities, interpersonal characteristics and excellent performance. Yet the findings also showed that the organizational context and the different actors involved in TM significantly affect the conceptualization of talent. We noticed that although talent generally is perceived as a set of multiple components, this general outcome conceals the biased approaches of separate stakeholder groups; each group emphasized a specific subset of characteristics. Consequently, we conclude that the interpretation of talent depends on the position, responsibilities and work experience of the actor involved in TM. To capture talent in all its dimensions, a pluralist, multi-stakeholder approach (Greenwood, 2002) to talent is required. Furthermore, the interpretation of talent also depends on the characteristics of the organization (e.g., availability of financial means), and on circumstances in the external environment (e.g., the labor market). In line with Paauwe (2004) and Boxall, Purcell and Wright (2007), who advocate a contextually based HRM theory, we emphasize the need to contextualize talent. This is an important contribution to the field of TM, in which universal talent-models are dominant. This contextualization of talent implies a multi-level approach to defining and studying talent: both the interrelated components of talent on the individual level, and the impact of factors at the organizational level (or even the broader organizational context in which the identification takes place) need to be considered. The study has also contributed to our understanding of TM and talent development in organizations. In Gagné s model the talent development program is part of the talent developmental processes of talented employees (individual level). However, we state that this program, a synonym for the TM system in the organizational context, is not a characteristic of a talented employee, but rather a characteristic of the organization. We therefore position the TM system at the organizational level. We have argued that the organization has the opportunity to affect the talent development process by providing a systematic and enriched development program. However, the organizations in our sample do not fully exploit this opportunity. In most of the university departments academic talent development has a rather unstructured and ad hoc character; TM practices and activities are based on a narrow and unilateral approach, and therefore do not deliberately address all talent-components. The 134 Chapter 6 - A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia

136 emphasis put on specific talent components and the dilemmas in defining, selecting and developing talent demonstrate that TM is also determined by the organization s environment and its interrelated actors. In particular the impact of supervising and managing professors is noticeable. This shows the relevance of line management enactment in TM (Knies & Leisink, 2014). Therefore we posit that it is not sufficient to focus purely on the TM system; consideration of the interests and talent philosophies of various actors involved in TM is required. The TM actors affect the TM system and vice versa (e.g., Bourdieu, 1988). So, TM can be characterized as the systematic identification, selection and development of talent in a structured and enriched program of activities and instruments, in which multiple actors are involved and assert influence. We note that our study has some limitations. First, we have presented the results of an exploratory study, which contributed to the strengthening of the theoretical foundations of the field of talent and TM. Next, the conceptual ideas in this chapter need to be validated and grounded in new empirical studies. For example, the interaction between the individual level (the talent components, and the weights attached to these components) and the organizational level or even the level of the external environment needs further study. Also the impact of the TM system on talent development processes requires further clarification. Second, the strength of our study, i.e. investigating talent and TM in a specific context, may also be a limitation regarding the generalizability of our findings to organizations in other contexts. Therefore, like many scholars before us, we encourage more empirical research in other contexts to test the multi-dimensional approach ánd the contextual influence again. Third, we have discussed the perception of talent and of the possible relationships between talent components. The actual measurement of talent components and the measurement of a correlation between the components is outside the scope of this study. We do, however, encourage more empirical research on this matter at the individual level (see Nijs et al., 2014), and, again, recommend scholars to include the impact of the context and its interrelated actors. Talent Management in academia 135

137 References Bourdieu, P. (1988). Vive la crise! For heterodoxy in social science. Theory and Society. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boxall, P., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. M. (2007). Human resource management: Scope, analysis, and significance. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell & P. M. Wright (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management (pp. 1-16) Collings, D.G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic Talent Management: A Review and Research Agenda, Human Resource Management Review, 19, Dai, D. Y., Swanson, J. A., & Cheng, H. (2011). State of Research on Giftedness and Gifted Education: A Survey of Empirical Studies Published During (April). Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(2), Dries, N. (2013). The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), 2724) Enders, J., De Boer, H. F., File, J., Jongbloed, B., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2011). Reform of higher education in Europe. In J. Enders, H. F. De Boer & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reform of higher education in Europe (pp. 1-10). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Farndale, E., & Hope-Hailey, V. (2009). Personnel departmental power: Realities from the UK higher education sector. Management Revue, 20(4), Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(3), Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), Gagné, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High ability studies, 21(2), Gagné, F. (2011). Academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted education. Talent Development & Excellence, 3(1), Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & González-Cruz, T. (2013). What is the meaning of talent in the world of work? Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), Greenwood, M.R. (2002), Ethics and HRM: A Review and Conceptual Analysis, Journal of Business Ethics, 36, Groysberg, B., Nanda, A., & Nohria, N. (2004), The Risky Business of Hiring Stars, Harvard Business Review, 82, Heiligers, D., & Van Steen, J. (2008). Beleidsdoorlichting Versterking van de aantrekkingskracht op en de loopbaanmogelijkheden van jonge en talentvolle onderzoekers. The Hague: Ministry of OCW. Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2008). The Munich High Ability Test Battery (MHBT): A multidimensional, multimethod approach. Psychology Science, 50(2), Chapter 6 - A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia

138 Knies, E. & Leisink, P. (2014) Linking people management and extra-role behaviour: results of a longitudinal study. Human Resource Management Journal 24: 1, McCauley, C., & Wakefield, M. (2006), Talent Management in the 21st Century: Help Your Company Find, Develop, and Keep Its Strongest Workers, The Journal for Quality & Participation, 29, 4-7. Meyers, M. C., & van Woerkom, M. (2013). The influence of underlying philosophies on talent management: Theory, implications for practice, and research agenda. Journal of World Business, 49(2), Nijs, S., Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & Sels, L. (2013). A multidisciplinary review into the definition, operationalization, and measurement of talent. Journal of World Business, 49(2), NWO (2011). NWO Annual Report Den Haag: NWO Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and performance: Achieving long term viability. New York: Oxford University Press. Parker, M., & Jay, D. (1995). The McUniversity: Organization, management and academic subjectivity. Organization, 2(2), Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), Ross, S. (2013). How definitions of talent suppress talent management. Industrial and Commercial Training, 45(3), Tansley, C. (2011), What Do We Mean by the Term Talent in Talent Management? Industrial and Commercial Training, 43, Thunnissen, M., Fruytier, B. & Van den Brink, M. (2010). Beleid En Beleving. Onderzoek Naar Jongetalentenbeleid Op Nederlandse Universiteiten, Utrecht: Sofokles. Truss, C., Gratton, L. Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P. & Stiles, P. (1997). Soft and hard models of human resources management: a reappraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 34, p Ulrich, D., & Ulrich, M. (2010), Marshalling Talent, Paper Accepted at the 2010 Academy of Management Annual Meeting. Van Arensbergen, P., Hessels, L., & Van der Meulen, B. (2013), Talent Centraal: ontwikkeling en selectie van wetenschappers in Nederland. The Hague: Rathenau instituut Van Balen, B., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2007). Universitaire loopbanen. Een verkenning van problemen en oplossingen. The Hague: Rathenau Instituut. Van den Brink, M. (2009). Behind the scenes of science: gender practices in the recruitment and selection of professors in the Netherlands. Van den Brink, M., Fruytier, B. & Thunnissen, M. (2013), Talent management in academia: performance systems and HRM policies. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(2), Ziegler, A., & Raul, T. (2000). Myth and reality: A review of empirical studies on giftedness. High ability studies, 11(2), Talent Management in academia 137

139 138 Chapter 6 - A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia

140 Chapter 7 The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective An earlier draft of this chapter was presented at the Dutch HRM Conference 2013: Thunnissen, M. (2013), The Value of Talent Management: An Organizational Perspective. Paper presented at the Dutch HRM Conference, Leuven, November 2013.

141 7.1 Introduction In chapter 2 we concluded that, in spite of the large amount of academic literature on talent management (TM), scholars have not succeeded in developing a unanimous meaning of talent and TM (Collings, Scullion & Vaiman, 2011). In the conceptualization of TM two topics are crucial. First, a clear definition of talent is required, because the interpretation of talent implies different approaches as to what or who has to be managed with TM (Tansley, 2011; Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, Gonzales-Cruz, 2013 & Dries, 2013; Meyers & Van Woerkom, 2013; Dries, 2013a). The conceptualization of talent has been explored in detail in the previous chapter. A second crucial TM topic concerns the operationalization of the intended outcomes of TM: for what purpose does talent need to be managed? In the TM literature the contribution to the achievement of organizational objectives prevails (e.g., Cappelli, 2008; Bethke-Langenegger, Mahler & Staffelbach, 2011; Powell et al., 2012). However, there is little empirical evidence on whether TM is indeed effective and has added value for the organization (Bethke-Langenegger, Mahler & Staffelbach, 2011). Moreover, there is little knowledge in the field of TM on how organizations attempt to achieve the intended TM objectives. Current TM literature provides a rational and instrumental interpretation of the TM process (also see chapter 2): talents are recruited and developed with a broad variety of TM practices and activities to direct their behavior in a direction that fits the organizational needs, and, as a result, the individual is happy and motivated, and individual and organizational performance increases. The general assumption in this approach seems to be that the effectiveness of TM primarily depends on the strategic alignment, which disconnects the TM process from outside influences in the organizational context. In the field of Human Resources Management (HRM), however, it is widely acknowledged that the process through which HR strategy leads to performance is influenced by mediating variables at multiple levels. According to the contextually based HRM theory of Paauwe (2004; 2007) the selection of the HR goals and the related HR practices, altogether the HR strategy, is made by the dominant coalition. The degree of leeway of the dominant coalition is determined by external forces (market and institutional mechanisms), internal circumstances (the configuration), and, the overall strategy of the organization (Paauwe, 2004; Paauwe & Boselie, 2003, Boxall, 2007). The preferences, intentions and beliefs of the actors involved also have an impact on the selection of the intended HRM strategy (Paauwe & Boselie, 2003). Furthermore, the process model of HRM developed by Wright and Nishii (2013) suggest that the process from intended HR strategy to organizational performance is not as simple as the TM literature suggests. The route from HR strategy to organizational performance consists of a set of underlying processes at multiple levels, with important variance occurring at each of those levels. However, these insights for the field of strategic HRM have not yet entered the TM domain. 140 Chapter 7 - The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective

142 The main objective of this chapter is to address the gaps in TM theory and research regarding the (intended and actual) value of TM and the TM process. The aforementioned models of Paauwe (2004; 2007) and Wright and Nishii (2013) are adopted to expand the narrow, managerial orientation towards the expected outcomes of TM and the TM process. Besides stretching the conceptual TM paradigm, we go one step further, and identify through empirical research whether a broader theoretical framework is indeed required to explain what actually happens in practice. The empirical data for this study are collected in a sector of industry that is underrepresented in TM research i.e. public sector organizations -, since the majority of TM publications focuses on multinationals and private sector organizations (Powell et al. 2012; Vaiman & Collings 2013). Just a handful of publications pay attention to TM issues in organizations in other contexts, such as health care institutions (e.g., Groves, 2011; Powell et al,. 2012), educational institutes (e.g., Davies & Davies, 2010; Van den Brink, Fruytier & Thunnissen, 2013) or public sector organizations (e.g., Glenn, 2012; Harrisr & Foster, 2013). As a result, the chapter will also contribute to our understanding of TM in the context of public sector organizations. 7.2 Exploring alternative perspectives on the value of TM In this section we take the HRM process models of Paauwe (2004; 2007) and Wright and Nishii (2013) as a starting point, and elaborate in more detail on the intended TM strategy, i.e. the TM objectives and intended TM practices, and the implementation of the actual TM practices Intended TM objectives In previous chapters we claimed that current TM literature has a biased view of the strategic TM objectives, because it focuses on a selective set of TM goals, accentuating the rational and economic side of work. For example, some authors describe outcomes on the level of the HRM-system: TM is meant to fulfill the quantitative and qualitative needs for human capital and to facilitate narrowing the demand-supply gap the organization is confronted with (e.g., Beechler & Woodward, 2009). Scholars like Capelli (2008) and Collings and Mellahi (2009) think that this is not sufficient and argue that TM is only valuable when it contributes to the overall firm performance in terms of profit, competitive advantage and sustainability. The interests of others who have a stake in or a claim on the organization, such as employees or society (Boselie, 2010; Greenwood, 2002), are largely neglected in the TM literature. In particular the societal well-being is an issue of minor priority in current TM literature. Also the importance of legitimacy a third, non- Talent Management in academia 141

143 economic strategic HR goal at the organizational level, according to Boxall and Purcell (2011) is ignored. To expand the narrow rational and instrumental view of TM objectives, we developed a multi-value multilevel approach to the objectives and outcomes of TM (i.e. economic and non-economic outcomes at the level of the employee, organization and society) in chapter 3. The lack of attention to multiple goals at multiple levels is a gap in our TM knowledge base, in particular for our understanding of TM in public organizations. For public sector organizations legitimacy and societal well-being are of greater importance than efficiency and productivity (Christensen et al., 2007; Steijn, Groeneveld & Van der Parre, 2010). Of course, in line with the principles of New Public Management, obtaining the organization s public objectives at the lowest costs possible is an important issue, but Steijn et al. (2010) claim that for public sector organizations it is of greater importance to show accountability for the way they fulfill their public task. However, for public sector organizations legitimacy is a complex matter. They have to show accountability to multiple stakeholders, which all have their own value system (Bovens, 2004). Therefore, the goals of public sector organizations are often complex and vague, plural, even conflicting, and therefore difficult to measure (Steijn et al., 2010). Moreover, public sector organizations play an important role in societal well-being. Besides performing a public task, public organizations have to be aware that they have to represent the democratic values of their country. In showing their social responsibility public sector organizations can deliberately contribute to the well-being of individuals inside ànd outside the organization (Steijn et al., 2010) Intended TM practices and activities Up until now, the majority of publications on TM have lacked a clear description of relevant practices involved in TM (Dries, 2013). A broad variety of instruments has been presented and prescribed, with no further classification or structuring (see chapter 2). In the field of HRM a common classification is the distinction between hard -production focused HRM and soft -people focused HRM policies and practices (e.g., Truss et al., 1997; Guest, 1999). This classification is based on opposing views of human nature and managing control strategies (Truss et al., 1995). These opposing views could reflect the belief systems of actors involved in TM, and therefore define the configuration of the TM practices. The hard approach is based on McGregor s theory X, and reflects a great distrust in the intentions and abilities of people (Truss et al., 1997; Legge, 2005). Employees are perceived to be lazy and only interested in maximization of their own interests. The hard approach reflects an instrumental and utilitarian perspective on humans: employees are seen as objects (resources) that need to be controlled and managed effectively so that organizational objectives can be met (Guest, 1999; Truss et al., 1997; Greenwood, 2002; Legge, 2005). HR instruments and practices focus on 142 Chapter 7 - The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective

144 measuring, controlling and increasing performance and productivity (Truss et al. 1997). In this the performance and productivity of the individual employee is accentuated, which reflects an individualistic perspective on the employment relationship (Greenwood, 2002). The importance of strategic fit and internal fit is highlighted, with the ultimate aim being improved competitive advantage (Truss et al., 1997). Current TM literature seems to promote the hard production focused approach to TM. Organizational objectives prevail over employee well-being. But the emphasis on the selection and recruitment of so called A-players, high potential or high performers, in other words an exclusive approach to TM (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013) can also be a manifestation of a hard approach, because the organization only selects employees who show the potential to be extremely productive in the future. Conversely, the soft approach to HRM is probably more appropriate to take account of the economic and non-economic interests of multiple stakeholders. The soft approach to HRM is based on McGregor s theory Y, which assumed that employees are humans with their own emotions and needs that direct their behavior (Truss et al., 1997; Legge, 2005). In the soft approach to HRM the interests and rights of the employee are a concern, parallel to the interests of the organization (Guest, 1999 & 2007; Greenwood, 2002). Instead of exerting control by sanctions and pressure, supporters of the soft approach believe that managers need to have confidence in the responsibility of the employees themselves, and support and stimulate employees in their development (Legge, 2005). The instruments and practices in the soft approach focus on enhancing commitment and personal and professional develop ment, for example through high commitment work-systems and communication (Truss et al., 1997). Where the hard -production approach focuses on the individual employee, the soft -people approach also takes the group of employees, the social system, into consideration (Greenwood, 2002). In TM, the soft approach can be connected to the inclusive TM approach that is adopted by some TM scholars. The inclusive approach is founded on the belief that all employees are talents or have talents which can or should be developed (Gallardo- Gallardo et al., 2013) The implementation of TM: the actual practices Wright and Nishii (2013) acknowledge that not all intended HR practices are actually implemented by those involved in the implementation process, and those practices implemented are often applied in ways that differ from the initial intention. According to Wright and Nishii (2013) obstacles at both the organizational and the individual level may interfere with the implementation process. Obstacles on the organizational level refer to, for example, a lack of internal consistency of the HRM practices, and the absence of adequate and consistent processes and infrastructure to support the implementation Talent Management in academia 143

145 (e.g., Paauwe, Boon, Boselie & Den Hartog, 2013; Wright & Nishii, 2013). Obstacles at the individual level are related to the actors involved in the implementation process. In particular the crucial role of line managers in the implementation process is highlighted in the literature (Guest & Bos-Nehles, 2013; Knies & Leisink, 2014; Wright & Nishii, 2013). Line managers poor HR implementation efforts result in unfavorable employee attitudes, such as higher turnover intentions, less job performance, satisfaction and perceived justice (e.g., Sokora & Ferris, 2014). According to Guest and Bos-Nehles (2013) managers might have several reasons to obstruct the implementation of HR practices: they could be unwilling to perform HR responsibilities, or unable due to a lack of time or sufficient HR-related competencies. But also a lack of support and advice from the HR staff on how to perform their HR role, or the absence of clear policies and procedures concerning their HR responsibilities can hinder managers in the implementation process (Guest & Bos- Nehles, 2013). In their conceptual article on line management involvement in HR practice implementation, Sikora and Ferris (2014) add social context factors including organizational culture, climate, politics and social interactions. For example, they hypothesize that an organizational culture supportive of effective HR practices is positively related to higher line management HR implementation levels. There is little conceptual and empirical information in the TM literature on differences between intended and actual TM practice, nor on the factors which caused this variability. The literature focuses on either a conceptualization of (best) practices (e.g., Stahl et al., 2012; Groves, 2011), or, but in a lesser extent, on the employees perception of the implemented practices (e.g., Dries & De Gieter, 2011; Hoglund, 2012). The latter refers to the next phase in the chain of processes in Wright and Nishii s model (2013) TM outcomes After the actual implementation of HR practices within an organizational unit, Wright and Nishii (2013) shift to the individual level and state that the actual HR practices could be perceived and interpreted subjectively (and thus differently) by each employee involved, and therefore lead to different employee reactions. Ultimately, these employees reactions affect organizational performance. Since the present chapter focuses on the value of TM from an organizational perspective, the chain of TM processes at the individual level is not considered in this chapter; it is discussed in chapter 8 in which the employee s perspective is put central. Nevertheless, the organization s perception of the outcomes of their TM policy is included. The above reasoning leads to the following research topics for the empirical study: (1) the intended TM objectives, including an inquiry into the extent to which organizations address multiple goals at multiple levels in their TM policy; (2) the TM practices, in which we will differentiate between the intended TM practices and 144 Chapter 7 - The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective

146 activities and the actual practices; (4) the outcomes of TM; and (4) an analysis of the obstacles and enabling factors that affect the TM process. An overview of the central concepts in this chapter is provided in table 7.1. Table 7.1: overview of central concept in the chapter, dominant approaches in TM literature and alternative perspectives Central concepts Intended TM objectives (intended) TM practices and activities Actual TM practices Factors of influence Dominant approach in TM literature Focus on organizational goals (e.g., demand-supply gap, organizational profit, competitive position) A broad variety of HR-practices and instruments is presented and prescribed TM is a simple, rational/linear transformations process. There is no clear distinction between intended and actual practice TM is disconnected from its organizational context and the actors involved Alternative perspectives Multiple economic and non-economic goals at the individual, organizational and societal level (e.g., Kalleberg & Marsden, 2012; Boxall & Purcell, 2011; Carroll, 2011) Classification into hard (instrumental utilitarian) vs. soft (developmental humanism) approach to HRM (e.g., Truss et al. 1997; Legge, 2005) TM is chain of processes at multiple levels, with multiple actors and multiple outcomes and effects involved. Processes are: intended HR practices/ strategy, actual HR, perceived HR, employee reactions, and performance. (e.g., Wright & Nishii, 2013; Paauwe, 2004) Obstacles on the organizational and individual level interfere with the implementation process and cause variability (e.g., Wright & Nishii, 2013; Guest & Bos-Nehles, 2013) Talent Management in academia 145

147 7.3 Research methods The empirical data was collected in a longitudinal, qualitative study on TM policies and practices regarding the academic staff in five Dutch university departments. We first give a short summary of the key developments in the research context, in order to get an understanding of the specific circumstances Dutch universities have to consider in their battle for talent. After that the case selection, the data collection and the data analyses will be presented Mapping the context: TM in Dutch public universities As was discussed in chapter 4, the Dutch academic organization e.g., its tasks and structure has changed enormously, due to external reforms such as the withdrawal of direct governmental control and funding, and the increasing involvement of external stakeholders (Enders, De Boer, File, Jongbloed & Westerheijden, 2011). The importance of the production of useful knowledge and relevant teaching, necessary to solve societal and economic issues, has grown enormously (Enders et al., 2011; Zomer & Benneworth, 2011). Next to the two traditional academic objectives the development and sharing of knowledge a third task has made its entrance into academia: the commercialization of knowledge (Zomer & Benneworth 2011). Stakeholders in the institutional context have pushed universities to become more efficient, entrepreneurial and competitive. A war for talent is inextricably bound up with this shift towards competition (Enders et al., 2011). The quality of education programs and university research, but also universities reputation, and the knowledge condition in a region, depends on the presence of highly qualified academic staff (Florida, 1999; Enders, et al. 2011). In addition, universities face an ageing workforce and need to replace the retiring baby boom professors with a new generation of top scientists. Preferably, this new generation is able to combine excellent scientific skills with competencies of the new academic such as entrepreneurship, leadership and cooperation (Parker & Jay, 1995). The ability to attract and retain top talent is rapidly becoming a key HRM issue for universities (Van den Brink et al., 2013). However, the competition in the labor market for highly qualified employees is fierce, although there are major differences between the academic disciplines (Larsen & Lubbe, 2008). To respond to all the external and internal reforms and developments, the Dutch universities have shifted from a collegial system to manage the recruitment and employment of personnel, to a more managerial model in which practices from private sector organizations are adopted (Deem, 2001; Smeenk, 2007). Chapter 4 showed that the realization of the organizational goals had become more dominant, often at the cost of the needs and interests of the academics. However, we also concluded that there is a large discrep- 146 Chapter 7 - The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective

148 ancy between the HR strategy developed by the central HR-department and the actual practice within the university departments. Although the impact of support staff and professional managers has increased in recent years, in practice academic personnel management is still the responsibility and task of the academic community Case selection The selection of the five university departments was based on four criteria. First, each selected department had to represent one of the core academic disciplines: humanities, social sciences, law, medical sciences, and science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM). Second, general, technical and smaller universities had to be included. Third, a regional spread was important. Fourth, the university executive board and dean of the selected department had to give permission to participate in the study Data collection and analysis Within each department we collected and analyzed relevant policy documents on organizational strategy, HRM and TM policy to gain an understanding of the intended and formalized TM policies. In this we focused on the policies at the level of the university department. Further, interviews were held with a total of 30 key figures around HRM and TM at different levels in the organization: members of the university executive board and deans (eight persons), research directors and full professors supervising a team of academics (8), and policy advisors from the HRM department or the Academic Affairs Office (14). In the interviews information was gathered on the (intended) objectives of TM, the intended and actual TM practices and activities, and the opportunities and obstacles concerning the identification, development and retention of talent. In 2013 twelve interviews were held with key figures around HRM and TM (five board members and research directors, and seven policy officials). In all the faculties the members of the executive board and the supervising professors were excluded as interviewees, because of the focus on the effects on the university department. Therefore, the number of interviews is lower than in Seven of the twelve interviewees of 2013 were also interviewed in 2009, but due to personnel changes this was not possible for all interviewees; five of the interviewees in 2013 were new occupants of the position of dean or HR policy official. In the interviews we evaluated the TM objectives and policies investigated in 2009, reflected on the effects in 2013, and on the factors that influenced the effectiveness of the TM system. After both rounds of data collection, in 2009 and 2013, the analysis phase was started by scanning the transcribed interviews, and isolating the words and phrases connected to our research questions. By giving open codes to different sections in the text, the first descriptive coding revealed the common patterns and themes related Talent Management in academia 147

149 to these research questions. We then shifted to a more holistic method of content analysis, interpreting parts or categories of the text in the light of the rest of the text. In this way, we were able to find ambiguities, differences and paradoxes within and among the stories of the interviewees. 7.4 Findings Intended TM objectives The results presented in table 7.2 show that TM most of all has economic value for the university departments. Economic organizational goals (e.g., flexibility and efficiency) are highlighted. In particular objectives at the HRM level are relevant: a flexible workforce that meets the quantitative and qualitative needs of the organization is the main TM objective. In 2009, all departments faced an ageing workforce and tried to attract a new Table 7.2: TM Objectives (data 2009) Department Humanities Social Sciences Law STEM Medical Sciences Objectives TM Creating a flexible workforce, in quantity (through the use of fixed-term contracts) and in quality (the need for generalists instead of specialists) in all positions Creating opportunities for professional development for employees with fixed-term contracts University level: Increasing efficiency and success of grant applications Department level: Increasing efficiency and success of PhD graduate school Strengthening the research quality of the faculty Replacing ageing professors Finding, attracting and retaining young academics in order to interest them in an academic career (fierce competition on labor market with law firms) Finding, attracting and retaining international top talents (in fierce competition on labor market with other universities and industry) and giving them the opportunity to realize their full potential Replacing ageing professors Replacing ageing professors Increasing the talent pool to meet the future demand-supply gap for excellent academics Positioning the department as an attractive employer to attract and retain talented academics for open vacancies (mostly replacement of ageing professors), since an academic career is perceived to be less attractive by talented junior academics 148 Chapter 7 - The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective

150 generation of academics for the vacant positions of full professor. For some faculties this was problematic, because they were confronted with a highly competitive, tight labor market (law, STEM, medical sciences) and they experienced difficulties in attracting and retaining talents. The humanities department, on the other hand, had to cope with plentiful junior staff, with limited career possibilities in general, and a scarcity of top-level positions due to low mobility in the upper ranks and a lack of financial resources to create extra positions. Instead of exploiting the over-supply in the humanities labor market, the organization took on the responsibility of improving organizational flexibility together with enhancing the overall employability of its academics to strengthen their labor market position. Therefore, the humanities department is the only department in our study which specifically showed consideration for employee well-being as a formal TM objective. Although the contribution of universities to the solution of societal problems is adopted as a third task of Dutch universities, none of the university departments has formulated TM goals at the societal level TM practices and activities: intended and actual Now the question arises as to what TM practices and activities were developed and implemented by the organization to achieve these goals. The case studies showed that all departments, apart from the law faculty, had a documented and formalized TM policy developed by the department s management (dean s office) in cooperation with the HR-advisor. The management of the law department did not feel the need for a formalized approach, because applying a recruitment and career policy that is not excessively formalized provided them with the room to maneuver in a highly competitive labor market. Existing protocols regarding recruitment, selection and performance appraisals (developed by the central HR department of the university) are used as guidelines, and offer enough room for tailor-made solutions. Table 7.3 gives an overview of the intended instruments and practices at the level of the university department, as documented in the policy documents and discussed in the interviews. The instruments and practices are ordered in three broad categories: (1) selection and recruitment, (2) development, performance and promotion, and (3) exit and turnover. A wide variety of instruments and practices were developed most of them common HR-practices. Below we discuss both the intended practice and the actual practice (not included in table 7.3), to illustrate discrepancies in the implementation process. Selection and recruitment In general, in TM policy the emphasis is on the selection and development of talents. Most departments have explicit protocols regarding the selection and employment of junior Talent Management in academia 149

151 staff, i.e. PhD s (social sciences, humanities and medical sciences). For the recruitment of senior staff recruitment and selection protocols are also generally accepted. Talent reviews and assessments are exceptional, but do occur on an incidental basis for senior positions. Both managers and HR involved in these reviews express their appreciation: Of course, the actual identification of talents is an important aspect of the talent review, but the discussion on who is talented and who is not (yet), is more important. It helps us to construct a shared definition of talent and makes everybody feel responsible for the talent selection. (HR policy official). In practice, the departments in our study particularly focus on making talents : attracting young high potentials and developing them towards the senior position of professor. The research master and the graduate school are important talent pools. In most departments the selection of academics at the beginning of their career is the responsibility of full professors. Regardless of the selection and recruitment protocols, in practice the full professors involved frequently use their own non-formalized selection criteria and procedure, in which they focus on talents in their professional network who have attracted their attention. The selection of junior academics is often based on a mixture of proven performance (reflected in grades, papers, etc.) and, most of all, the professors personal impression of the potential of the young academic. For the medium and senior academic positions the protocols regarding an open selection procedure and a selection committee are also sometimes neglected by academic leaders when a brilliant top talent can be recruited. A dean explains why he needs room to maneuver around the formal protocols: In the battle for talent you sometimes have to take unorthodox measures. You have to respond instantly, and risk your neck (dean). Development, performance and promotion The results show the TM policy regarding development, performance and promotion is fragmented. There is a gap in the formal TM system in the development of employees with a fixed-term contract, such as postdoc researchers. Except for lecturers in the humanities department, this group of temporary employees gets little or no formalized support in their development from their employer, depriving them of possibilities to enhance their employability. In addition, the departments used different approaches for the academics at the beginning of their career and the more experienced academics. In the PhD phase university departments use an inclusive and soft approach to TM. PhD development programs are standard policy (except for the STEM department), and are provided to all PhD s in the department. Generally, the development of scientific skills is emphasized. In most of the investigated departments this program consists of a (mutually agreed) plan regarding education and supervision. To increase the chances of rapid and successful completion of the PhD-study, the social sciences department went one 150 Chapter 7 - The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective

152 step further and developed a policy to structure and control the supervision provided by the professor via performance agreements and appraisals; for example, a go-nogo-decision based on the first paper is built in at the end of the first year. In practice many supervising full professors devote little effort to the formal PhD programs. There seems to be disagreement on whether talent can and should be developed and nurtured. The non-formalized assumption that talented young academics will develop automatically (indicated as self-rising flour in the interviews) is still common, and many professors use a laissez-faire style with little guidance and control. Other professors express a different opinion, and find it important to be actively involved in the development of their staff and to show concern for their well-being: Active human resources management implies that you know the interests of a person, his drives, so you know what is good for that person and you can help him in his career. (full professor). The TM policy for the more senior academic positions can be characterized as exclusive and hard. Proven performance gains importance, and only the best performers are selected for tenure, or can participate in a talent program with the development opportunities included. Therefore, development and performance are linked to each other. Two out of five departments STEM and medical sciences had a top talent program in 2009, often called a tenure track system; two others were experimenting with a tenure track system because of the expected positive effects on the departments reputation (law and social sciences). A dean at another university states: I see full professors offering a Tenure Track position to someone they do not want to lose. The risk of this approach is that all future full professors are from inside, leaving no room to attract talents from outside. (dean). The competition to get on the program is fierce, and the performance demands are high. Once on the program, the professional development is supported in several ways: coaching, mentoring or leadership training. None of the top talent programs is the same, even within a department different forms can exit. Notice that compensation is a non-issue in the formal TM policies; the collective labor agreements leave little leeway to offer employees more salary. Unlike the PhD-programs, the formal top-talent programs for the senior staff are often implemented with great care. Academic managers and HR are aware of the risks when the procedures and protocol are not handle with care: I often talk about the young and promising as opposed to the old and disappointing. You need to make sure that the first group does not turn into the second. Even worse, there are some people who are old and disappointed. If you promise people things that you cannot deliver, it creates frustration. (dean). Since not all talents can participate in the talent programs, some departments have created some alternative, non-formalized positions to help them: The recruitment of post doc researchers is a risky business. From the first day, they know they have to leave again, and are looking for a permanent job elsewhere. Therefore, we prefer to give a young academic the position of junior lecturer for one year. In that year they can Talent Management in academia 151

153 Table 7.3: Intended TM practices and instruments (data 2009) Department Selection and recruitment Development, performance and promotion Exit and turnover Humanities Junior staff: Standardize procedure for selection and employment of PhD-students For senior staff: personnel planning Recruitment of senior staff: Focus on external recruitment of generalist academics, once a year for the entire department, in an open, international selection procedure by a selection committee Standardized supervision program for PhD s Obligatory teaching skills program for new employees HRM (introduction) program for new assistant professors and temporary lecturers (Personalized) HRM-programs for associate and full professors. Additional temporary positions for talented associate professors None Social Sciences Junior staff: Standardize procedure for selection and employment of PhD-students PhD: structured educational and supervision program Senior positions: Structured program for support offered by external grant application Annual performance appraisals Coaching and training Experimenting with Tenure Track Obligatory Academic Leadership training for new (associate) professors None Law Scouting potential PhD students in research master Recruitment protocol for senior positions (including open selection procedure and involvement of selection committee) Educational and supervision program for PhD s Experimenting with Tenure Track (including pre-agreed performance criteria, performance appraisals and career advancements) Annual performance appraisals Some courses and seminars on academic leadership Support offered by external grant application Exit interview by HR 152 Chapter 7 - The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective

154 Department Selection and recruitment Development, performance and promotion Exit and turnover STEM Active scouting and recruitment of external talent, e.g., at international conferences Senior positions: Strategic personnel planning Talent review Tenure Track for senior staff: Selective entrance criteria Section via open procedure and selection committee Clear, pre-agreed performance criteria, and career steps Annual performance appraisals Training program: e.g., obligatory teaching skills program and academic leadership program None Medical Sciences Honors programs for excellent students as talent pool for PhD trajectories For junior positions: grants offered to excellent master or PhD students to finance their temporary position Senior positions: Strategic personnel planning Talent review Structured educational and supervision program for PhD s and scholarships for junior academics. Courses offered by career center Top Talent program for assistant and associate professors: Selective entrance criteria Clear, pre-agreed performance criteria, and career steps Annually performance appraisals Training program Management in Research organizations, incl. talent development assessment Personal budget to spend on training or coaching Additional temporary positions for talented professors Personalized Academic Leadership program for full professors None Talent Management in academia 153

155 increase their overall employability by gaining teaching experience, write publications and develop a professional network. (full professor). Even though these structures help to retain talents, one of the interviewed deans indicated that it also has disadvantages: We had to offer some career possibilities to retain some talented employees, and we had the money to do so. We wanted to show that we attach great value to career development, but unfortunately we could not continue it. It was no structural policy. It was an ad-hoc and incidental action. (dean). Exit and turnover Finally, although there is hardly any structural attention to controlling turnover and supporting exit, some university departments, such as the STEM department, encourage young scholars to leave the department to acquire some international work experience. Differences between departments Although the university departments show a tendency to use similar practices and instruments especially the Tenure Track system is a popular instrument to position oneself as an attractive employer -, differences in the organizational context and the internal and external labor market compel the university departments to place different emphasis in their policy and practice. In their quest for international top talent, the STEM department developed a structured tenure track system, which showed the most elements of a hard approach to TM. The TM system of the humanities departments, taking care of employees overall employability, is related to a soft approach. The informal TM system of the law department with a high custom-made character enables the organization to take care of both the organization s and talented employees interests. The TM systems of the other two faculties, the medical and social sciences department, are less easy to characterize. Both support their talents with scholarships and developmental programs, and therefore show elements of both a hard and soft approach to TM. The question is whether this is a coincidence or if the departments intended to develop a hybrid model Perceptions of TM outcomes Four years after the first round of data collection, the interviewees perceived positive results and progress regarding the TM outcomes. In particular objectives at the HRM level i.e. the replacement of retiring professors were successfully met. The open job positions were filled with new talents, or will be in the near future by a talented academic currently on a tenure track. The departments were also confronted with talents who left the organization for another employer, but this was regarded as part of the game. The flexibility of the workforce improved through the increased usage of fixed-term contracts, or, in the case of the humanities department, the recruitment of generalists employable in related academic subfields. It is, however, remarkable that none of the departments was 154 Chapter 7 - The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective

156 able to illustrate their observations on the effects with quantified data. You just know that the talent program is successful because you are familiar with the ins and outs of the talents involved, but we do not objectively measure the outcomes of the TM program. (dean). This quotation reflects the reactions of all departments: it is not a habit to evaluate and to measure the outcomes of policy intentions Factors of influence The results suggest that, for the university departments in the study, TM is indeed valuable because their need for a flexible workforce has been successfully addressed. We would be jumping to conclusions if we stated that this success could be claimed by the TM strategy. After all, the law department did not have a formal and structured TM system at all, and the interviewees in this faculty also perceive positive effects. Furthermore, all departments reported that minor or major adjustments in their TM objectives or practices were necessary. The table also points out that that the TM practices and activities are more likely to be adjusted than the TM objectives. As we expected, implementing a TM system as it is intended is not as easy as it seems. Several factors caused these corrections. First, the interviewees indicate that changing circumstances in the external environment have led to (modest) modifications of the TM objectives, and subsequently the intended TM practices. Most prominent is the effect of the financial crisis. We do not have many senior positions available, and we do not have the money to create new positions. ( ) The financial means are becoming more scarce, so the decision about who gets what has become more important. (HR policy official). The faculties are confronted with cutbacks in government funding and therefore have to find other external financial means (national and international grants). Because all universities have to do this the competition for this funding is fierce, and some departments have faced a weakened financial position, forcing the dean to take economy measures. An Academic Affairs policy advisor of the social sciences department argues: The former dean arranged temporary funding to increase the quality of the research activities, but when he left that money was spent. The new dean was confronted with a bad financial position, so we had to terminate the activities of the graduate school (Academic Affairs policy- official). Others have made the acquisition of external funding part of the performance criteria and performance agreements of talents (medical sciences), or invested in coaching programs for academics in writing a grant proposal (social sciences). As the quotation from the social sciences department already illustrates, the dean, as the department s top manager, has a crucial impact on the TM goals and policy. But in many universities the position of dean circulates. After a period of two or four years another full professor within the faculty is elected as department chair. In the social sciences and in the medical sciences department the new dean Talent Management in academia 155

157 was the initiator of major shifts in the TM objectives and intended practices. In the law and humanities department the new dean did not bring a wind of change. This dean, and the ones before him, attaches great value to HRM and the professional development of our academic staff. Our current HR policy is the continuation of former policy. (HR policy official). The HR policy advisor of another department argues: Whether the talent development process turns out well depends on the actions of the dean and vicedean. They have to carry the load. The problem is, however, that our managers come from the academic community to which they will return again after their period of governance as a dean is terminated. For some this impedes them from carrying out unpopular reforms. (HR policy official). The implementation process is more subject to change than the intended TM strategy. The case studies reveal factors of influence at the organizational and the individual level. In particular, the factors at the organizational level indicate that successful TM is a matter of fit between the TM strategy and the organization. The case of the STEM department showed that an alignment with the strategy of the department, a coherent TM system, as well as a match with organizational culture resulted in few discrepancies between the TM system as intended and the actual policy. Other departments experienced more difficulties regarding the fit of the TM system, and thought adjustments were necessary. For example, the lack of internal consistency in the TM system of the humanities department was the reason for minor adjustments in the implementation process. Finally, factors at the individual level become manifest in the impact and role of several internal stakeholders. The influence of the scientific community is crucial, and can be a major factor hindering or enabling a successful implementation. The vital importance of the support and involvement of the dean, as the managing director of the department, has already been mentioned. For the implementation of TM practices, the line manager (i.e. the full professor) is an important critical success variable. Irrespective of the quality of supervision provided, the findings indicate that professors often differ in the way they carry out the department s TM policy. They often feel the need for a customized approach: they want autonomy and room to pull in or retain the exceptional talent the team needs, in the meanwhile ignoring formal procedures. The HRM-department, on the other hand, has little involvement in the actual selection and development of talented academics. In many cases, HR s role is limited to administration, something which many academic staff are actually quite happy to accept. The impact of the Academic Affairs Office seems to be bigger. Some academic managers argued that HRM-advisors should be more involved in the selection and career interviews, because of their focus on other qualities than science-related skills. The role and impact of the talented employees themselves on talent development is rarely mentioned in the interviews. 156 Chapter 7 - The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective

158 Table 7.4: Overview of changes in TM objectives, practices and factors of influence Department Changes in: TM objectives (data 2013) TM practices (data 2013) Humanities No significant change Minor changes: improved horizontal integration of activities, more focus on goals, talent definition clarified, increased emphasis on shared responsibility towards TM Social Sciences No major changes, although successful grant application became more important Significant changes: New coaching program for grant applicants Increase in number and type of PhD-positions Tenure-track program terminated Start of TM program for senior positions (focus on development without pre-determined career steps) Law No significant change Minor changes: intensified supervision of young talents to improve promotion-success, termination of tenure-track experiment. STEM N o significant change Minor changes, due to lessons learned in case participant in top talent program is not able to meet the performance criteria Medical Sciences No major changes, but increased emphasis on teaching and on illness prevention through collaboration with regional health care institutes Significant changes: Increased diversity in TM instruments, career-paths towards position of full professor, and in types of full professor positions Increased focus on development of internal talent Factors of influence (data 2009 & 2013) Financial cutbacks (2009 & 2013) New dean shows commitment to TM, like predecessor Change of HR officer Need for extra external funding due to financial cutbacks (2013) Low mobility in upper ranks New dean has other viewpoints on personnel, structuring work and organization Changes in labor market (less tension) New dean continues strategy of predecessor Wide autonomy of professors regarding recruitment and development of employees Comfortable financial position (2009) Coherent TM system TM supports organizational strategy Dean s continued commitment to TM Shared support for TM in department (professors) Financial cutbacks (2013) New dean has other viewpoints on structuring work and cooperation with external stakeholders Increased autonomy of professors regarding recruitment and development of employees Talent Management in academia 157

159 7.5 Discussion The aim of this chapter has been to increase our understanding of the value of TM for the organization. Our findings are interesting in various respects. The first conclusion of our study is that for the public sector organizations in our study TM mainly has economic value: flexibility and efficiency in managing the workforce is the dominant objective. In this one-sided, managerial approach they do not differ from their private sector counterparts. Therefore, they show accountability towards their external stakeholders, particularly to the demands of government and funding organizations to become more competitive, effective and efficient (Enders et al., 2011). Can this be regarded as legitimacy, the noneconomic organizational TM objective? As Bovens (2004) and Steijn et al. (2011) already stated, this is not an easy question to answer because of the multiple stakeholders with their divergent interests. For another stakeholder group, society at large, there is less attention. The public university departments do not express their social responsibility in TM. This does not imply that the public universities do not care about their public task at all; it just did not penetrate the TM system. Maybe other organizational processes and systems are regarded as more suitable for doing so. Responsiveness to employee wellbeing is more likely to occur, although employee well-being is not a well pronounced goal in the formal TM policies. Second, we would argue that the study gives evidence that the impact of the New Public Management principles becomes manifest in the academic TM system (e.g., Deem, 2001; Smeenk, 2007; Zomer & Benneworth, 2011). Corresponding to the instrumental and economic objectives, the organizations mainly apply a hard and exclusive approach to TM, in which the well-being of the organization is well protected. The hard approach is favorable for the senior positions, but the results show that the hard approach even becomes common for the junior positions; increasingly, academics have to show proof of their excellence at an earlier stage of their career, leaving less room to learn and experiment. The question is whether the employees think their interests are served best. The top talent programs address the growth needs of the employees, but only for the employees who are accepted for the program. This implies that the non-talents and the academics in temporary positions run the risk of being deprived of career and development opportunities and, eventually, they drop out. None of the university departments had an explicit policy to support a transition to other work environments, even though it is well known that a large group (approx. 70%) of the PhD s and postdocs in the Netherlands cannot pursue an academic career at a Dutch university (De Goede, Belder & De Jonge 2013). So, this hard, exclusive approach to TM fits the one-sided, economic objectives of the university departments, but it probably does not harmonize with the social corporate responsibilities and tasks of the Dutch public university. Since we only investigated the value of TM from the perspective of the organization in this chapter, a comparison 158 Chapter 7 - The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective

160 with evaluations and perceptions of employees would give an enriched and complete picture of the potential value of TM for other stakeholders. Third, the results show that there is indeed a large discrepancy between intended and actual TM practice. Altering circumstances in the internal and external context force the organization to adjust their TM goals, but in particular their TM practices. So environmental, strategic, organizational and internal fit (Paauwe et al., 2013; Wright & Nishii, 2013) are important for the successful implementation of the TM strategy (i.e. that is with few discrepancies between intended and actual TM practice). But most of all the cases showed the ability to adapt to altering circumstances and to maneuver around obstacles they were confronted with. This flexibility is perceptible at the implementation level of TM, and can be ascribed to the autonomous performance of managing professors. At this level the strategic intentions of TM seem to be of minor importance, because managing professors are searching for an acceptable and adequate way to handle the difficulties and challenges they are confronted with in managing their research group and the talents included. In this they take the liberty to deviate from the formal regulations and agreements to achieve the outcomes they find essential. This illustrates the importance of line management enactment in HRM (Knies & Leisink, 2014). To conclude, the study reveals that TM is not a stand-alone tool as depicted in the TM literature; the interdependence between the TM strategy, the organizational context and various stakeholders involved needs to be considered in future empirical investigations on the effectiveness of TM practices and activities. In this chapter the value of TM from an organizational perspective has been discussed. In the next chapter we present the employees perception of the intended and actual TM practices. Talent Management in academia 159

161 Reference list Beechler, S., & Woodward, I. C. (2009). The global war for talent, Journal of International Management, 15(3), Bethke-Langenegger, P., Mahler, P., & Staffelbach, B. (2011). Effectiveness of talent management strategies, European Journal of International Management, 5(5), Boselie, P. (2010). Strategic human resource management. A balanced approach. Birkshire: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Bovens, M.A.P. (2004) Public Accountability. In: E. Ferlie, L. Lynne & C. Pollitt (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Boxall, P. F. (2013). Building highly-performing work systems: analysing HR systems and their contribution to performance. In J. Paauwe, D. Guest, P. Wright (Eds.) HRM and Performance: Achievements and Challenges (pp ). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Boxall, P., Purcell, J. & Wright, P. (2007). Human Resource Management: Scope, Analysis, and Significance. In: Boxall, P., Purcell, J. & Wright, Patrick (2007), Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management. New York: Oxford University Press: Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent management for the twenty-first century, Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 74. Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), Cheese, P., Farley, C., & Gibbons, A. (2009). The new talent equation. Outlook. the Journal of High-Performance Business, June Christensen, T., Laegrid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rovik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory for the public sector. instrument, culture and myth. Florence: Routledge. Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and research agenda, Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), Collings, D. G., Scullion, H., & Vaiman, V. (2011). European perspectives on talent management. European Journal of International Management, 5(5), Davies, B. & Davies, B. (2010). Talent management in academies, International Journal of Educational Management, 24(5), Deem, R. (2001). Globalization, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in universities: Is the local dimension still important? Comparative Education, 37(1), De Goede, M., Belder, B. & De Jonge, J. (2013), Feiten en cijfers: Academische carrières en loopbaanbeleid. The Hague: Rathenau institute. Dries, N. (2013). The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), Chapter 7 - The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective

162 Dries, N. & De Gieter, S. (2014). Information Asymmetry in High Potential Programs a Potential Risk for Psychological Contract Breach, Personnel Review, 43(1), Enders, J., De Boer, H. F., File, J., Jongbloed, B., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2011). Reform of higher education in Europe. In J. Enders, H. F. De Boer & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reform of higher education in Europe (pp. 1-10). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Florida, R. (1999). The role of the university: leveraging talent, not technology. Issues in science and technology, 15, Freijsen, R., Van Arensbergen P. & Van der Weijden, I. (2011). Wetenschappelijk loopbaanbeleid. Kansen en Knelpunten. Loopbaanvisie, 4, Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & González-Cruz, T. (2013). What is the meaning of talent in the world of work? Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), Garrow, V., & Hirsh, W. (2008). Talent management: Issues of focus and fit. Public Personnel Management, 37(4), Gelens, J., Dries, N., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (2013). The role of perceived organizational justice in shaping the outcomes of talent management: A research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), Glenn, T. (2012). The state of talent management in Canada s public sector, Canadian Public Administration, 55(1), Greenwood, M. R. (2002), Ethics and HRM: A review and conceptual analysis, Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3) Groves, K. S. (2011). Talent management best practices: How exemplary health care organizations create value in a down economy, Health Care Management Review, 36(3), Guest, D. E. (1999). Human resource management -the workers verdict. Human Resource Management Journal, 9(3), Guest, D. E. (2007). HRM and the worker: towards a new psychological contract?. Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, The, 128. Guest, D.E. and Bos-Nehles, A.C. (2013) HRM and Performance: the role of effective implementation. In: Guest, D. E., Paauwe, J., & Wright, P. (Eds.). (2012). HRM and Performance: Achievements and Challenges. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp Harrisr, L. & Foster, C. (2013). Aligning talent management with approaches to equality and diversity: Challenges for UK public sector managers, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29(5), Höglund, M. (2012), Quid Pro Quo? Examining Talent Management Through the Lens of Psychological Contracts, Personnel Review, 41, Knies, E. & Leisink, P. (2014) Linking people management and extra-role behaviour: results of a longitudinal study. Human Resource Management Journal 24: 1, Talent Management in academia 161

163 Larsen, V., & Lubbe, M. (2008). Quick-scan jong talent. over loopbanen van jonge wetenschappers. The Hague: VSNU. Legge, K. (2005). Human resource management: rhetorics and realities. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative research: reading, analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks/London: Sage. 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), Meyers, M. C., & van Woerkom, M. (2013). The influence of underlying philosophies on talent management: Theory, implications for practice, and research agenda. Journal of World Business, 49(2), Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and performance: Achieving long-term viability. Oxford University Press. Paauwe, J. (2007), HRM and Performance: In Search of Balance, Netherlands: Tilburg University. Paauwe, J. & Boselie, J.P.E.F. (2003). Challenging strategic human resource management and the relevance of the institutional setting, Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), Paauwe, P., Boon, C., Boselie, P, Den Hartog, D. (2013) Reconceptualizing fit in Strategic Human Resources Management. In: HRM and Performance. Achievements and Challenges, eds. Paauwe, J., Guest & Wright, P. (2013), Chichester: Wiley, pp Parker, M., & Jay, D. (1995). The McUniversity: Organization, management and academic subjectivity. Organization, 2(2), Powell, J., Durose, J., Duberly, J. Exworthy, M. Fewtrell, C. MacFarlane, F. & Moss, P. (2012) Talent Management in the NHS Managerial Workforce. Final report. NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme. Sikora, D. M., & Ferris, G. R. (2014). Strategic human resource practice implementation: The critical role of line management. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), Smeenk, S. (2007), Professionalism versus managerialism? A study on HRM practices, antecedents, organisational commitment, and quality of job performances among university employees in Europe. PhD Dissertation. Radboud University Nijmegen. Stahl, G. K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S. S., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P., Trevor, J. &. Wright, P. M. (2012). Six Principles of Effective Global talent management. MIT Sloan Management review, 53(2), Steijn, B., Groeneveld, S., & Van der Parre, P. (2010). Een vak apart? dilemma s en uitdagingen voor strategisch HRM in de publieke sector. Tijdschrift Voor HRM, 2010(2), Chapter 7 - The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective

164 Tansley, C. (2011), What Do We Mean by the Term Talent in Talent Management? Industrial and Commercial Training, 43, Truss, C., Gratton, L. Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P. & Stiles, P. (1997). Soft and hard models of human resources management: a reappraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 34, p Vaiman, V. & Collings, D. (2013): Talent management: advancing the Field, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(9), Van den Brink, M., Fruytier, B. & Thunnissen, M. (2013), Talent management in academia: performance systems and HRM policies. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(2), Wright, P. & Nishii, L. (2013), Strategic HRM and Organizational Behaviour: Integrating Multiple Levels of Analysis, in: HRM and Performance. Achievements and Challenges, eds. Paauwe, J., Guest & Wright, P. (2013), Chichester: Wiley, pp Zomer, A., & Benneworth, P. (2011). The rise of the university s third mission. In J. Enders, H. F. De Boer & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reform of higher education in Europe (pp ). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Talent Management in academia 163

165 164 Chapter 7 - The value of Talent Management: An organizational perspective

166 Chapter 8 The human side of Talent Management? The value of Talent Management from an employee perspective An earlier draft of this chapter was presented at the 2 nd EIASM workshop on Talent Management: Thunnissen, M. (2013), The value of talent management: an employee perspective. Paper presented at the 2 nd workshop on Talent Management, EIASM, Brussels, October 2013.

167 8.1 Introduction For many organizations attracting and retaining talented people is the single most important managerial preoccupation for this decade (e.g., Paauwe 2007; Guthridge, Komm and Lawson 2008; Deloitte 2010). A long-term cooperation between the organization and the talented employee can only be built if the needs and preferences of both parties are fulfilled. Chapter 7 clarified the organization s interests. Now the question arises as to what talented employees themselves expect from their bond with the organization. Up till now the employees interests in talent management (TM) have been underexplored (see chapter 2 and 3). If the well-being of the talent is considered, it concerns aspects of the employee s attitudes and behaviors that are beneficial for organizational performance, such as employee motivation, commitment and engagement (e.g., Cheese, Farley & Gibbons, 2009; Christensen Hughes & Rog, 2008; Collings & Mellahi, 2009). The employee is viewed as an object, or a commodity as Guest puts it (1999), which can be managed with TM in order to control and improve organizational performance. Just a few empirical studies have examined TM issues using the perspectives and experiences of talented employees themselves as a starting point. Rare examples are the studies of Björkman and Dries and colleagues (e.g., Björkman et al., 2013; Dries & Pepermans, 2008; Dries, Van Acker, Verbruggen, 2012) on the effects of being labeled as high potential on their performance, career success and commitment, and a study of Tansley and Tietze (2013) on the experiences of talents as they progress through different levels of a TM program. These studies mainly focused on the effects of TM on the employees behavior and attitude. They showed that when talented employees experienced talent inducements by the organization or were labeled as high potential, they were more committed to their career and to the organization, and more willing to meet performance demands, to develop valuable competencies and to support the organizations strategic priorities (Höglund, 2012; Dries & Pepermans, 2008; Dries & De Gieter, 2014; Dries, Van Acker, Verbruggen, 2012; Bjorkman et al., 2013). In part, these studies explore the value of TM on behalf of the employee, but since they focus on the employees attitudinal and behavioral reactions that are beneficial for the organization they show the tendency to discuss employees well-being from an organizational perspective (Guest, 2007). Instead of focusing on the value of TM for the organization, this chapter aims to clarify the possible value of TM for the talented employee. As in previous chapters, we start with developing a conceptual model by adopting theories and models from related academic fields, i.e. Human Resources Management (HRM) and Organizational Behavior (OB). The relationship between the employee and the employer, the employment relationship, and the employees perception of this relationship are used as a starting point for this exploration. After that, the employee s perspective in TM is examined in an empirical study. In the results section we present the needs and preferences of talented employees regarding their work and employment relationship, 166 Chapter 8 - The human side of Talent Management? The value of Talent Management from an employee perspective

168 the employees evaluations of the TM practices implemented by their employer, and, finally, the talented employees perceptions of the outcomes and effects of TM. The chapter ends with a discussion of the results and some recommendations for future research. 8.2 An exploration of the talents perspective on the value of TM Needs and preferences of talents in the employment relationship In this chapter the bond between the employee and the organization is used as a starting point to explore the value of TM for the employee. After all, the employment relationship is basically an exchange relationship between the organization in its role as an employer and the employee on the supply of labor services (Marsden, 2004). Both actors in the relationship have needs they want to see fulfilled in return for their contributions (Tsui & Wang, 2002). Tsui and colleagues make a distinction between two different kinds of relationship: an economic and a social exchange relationship (Tsui, Pearce, Porter & Tripoli, 1997; Tsui & Wang, 2002). In an economic exchange relationship (a job-focused approach) the employer wants productive employees who contribute to the production of goods and services, against a minimum of costs and risks for the organization (Tsui et al., 1997; Tsui & Wang, 2002). The employee, on the other hand, offers his or her time and capabilities to the organization, expecting economic and monetary rewards in return (Rubery & Grimshaw, 2003; Tsui et al., 1997). Both actors are short-term focused and only prepared to make limited investments in the relationship. However, a longitudinal study on work values and job preference orientations by Kalleberg & Marsden (2013) found that, although the importance of economic job orientations (such as income and job security) has increased over the years, employees attach more value to non-economic aspects of their work. They want meaningful and challenging work, opportunities for personal accomplishment and career development, the possibility to maintain significant relationships and interactions with others at work, and fair and just treatment (Oldman & Hackman, 2010; Kalleberg & Marsden, 2013; Paauwe, 2009). These non-economic job preferences are put central in the social exchange relationship, which goes beyond the short term economic and monetary rewards. This relationship is based on the principles of mutual investments or reciprocity, and implies open-ended, long-term and mutual investments in each other. The organization considers the overall well-being of the employee and is prepared to invest in the career within the firm, while the employee, in his turn, is willing to do job assignments that fall outside the job description, to consider the organization s interest, to learn firm-specific skills, et cetera (Tsui et al., 1997; 2005). Talent Management in academia 167

169 The employment relationship is often studied and discussed from the perspective of the employer, while the employee s point of view on the bond between the organization and the employee is primarily explored in the psychological contract (Tsui & Wang, 2002). The psychological contract reflects the subjective individual beliefs and perceptions on the reciprocal (formal and unwritten) rules and obligations in the exchange relationship between employees and employer (e.g., Guest 2007; Conway & Coyle-Shapiro, 2012; Festing & Shäfer, 2013). Corresponding to the employment relationship, there is a distinction between a focus on short-term, economic exchange (i.e. the transactional psychological contract), and the long-term, social exchange relationship (the relational contract) (e.g., Shore & Tetrick, 1994; Coyle- Shapiro & Parzefall, 2008). Since in the social exchange relationship the aforementioned non-economic needs of the talents are served best, we expect them to strive for this kind of employee-organization relationship. Tsui and Wu (2005) notice a shift from the long-term employee-organization relationship involving loyalty and commitment, to a short-term contract-like economic exchange. In their opinion organizations strive to maximize flexibility and productivity in the employment relationship, and instead of long term loyalty in terms of job- and career security, the organization offers a challenging work environment and development opportunities to enhance the employability of the employee but only on a temporary basis. In this new deal the employee is prepared to contribute, but without making a strong commitment to the organization (Tsui & Wu, 2005; Guest, 2007). The authors question whether the new employment relationship has more economic value for the organization, since research indicates that the traditional mutual loyalty approach creates the most productive, loyal and committed employees (Tsui & Wu, 2005; Tsui et al., 1997). When employees experience long-term investments from their employers they reciprocate with loyalty to the organization and contribute much more than simple job performance (Tsui & Wu, 2005; p. 118). Whether the new deal is also less beneficial for the talented employee is not clarified. In particular the aforementioned non-economic job preferences of the talented employee are still put central in the new deal, although the employee is confronted with insecurity concerning the period in which this challenging working environment is guaranteed. The latter could be a disadvantage for the academics in our study, since the highly specialized nature of academic production requires a secure and stable employment relationship (e.g. Buchholz, Gülker, Knie & Simon, 2009) Perception of TM practices and activities The question arises as to what kind of investments or inducements the organization offers to their employees in exchange for their contributions. In a mutual investment relationship (based on social exchange), the organization offers a broad set of inducements, 168 Chapter 8 - The human side of Talent Management? The value of Talent Management from an employee perspective

170 with an emphasis on social and career investments, such as training and development, job rotation and participation, and promotion (Tsui & Wu, 2005). This mutual investment relationship shows great resemblance to the soft, developmental and commitment oriented approach to HRM discussed in chapter 7 (Truss et al., 1997; Guest, 1999; 2007). However, current TM literature appears to promote the hard production focused approach to HRM. This hard approach to HRM is based on the same economic, managerial and utilitarian perception of employees as the contract-like economic exchange relationship. Besides a balanced relationship between the employee and the organization, either based on economic or social exchange, unbalanced relationships also occur in organizations. The underinvestment relationship is unbalanced in favor of the organization, which expects broad contributions from the employee but is only willing to offer narrow inducements (Tsui & Wang, 2002). On the other hand, the overinvestment relationship is unbalanced in favor of the employee, with the employer expecting few contributions but offering extensive inducement. According to Tsui and Wang (2002) this approach may be useful to retain employees in scare jobs or with rare and valuable skills, in other words: talents. In the academic discussion on the influence of HRM on the employee s attitude and behavior, it is emphasized that the effect of the actual practices does not exist in the practices themselves, but rather in the perceptions employees have of those practices (Wright & Nishii, 2013). HRM practices, intentionally and unintentionally, send signals that employees interpret and make sense of, in order to form an understanding of the desired behaviors and related rewards (Höglund, 2012; Sonnenberg, 2010; Guest, 1999). The employees perceptions, for example, on the balance and mutuality in the relationship, subsequently affect their behavioral and attitudinal reactions (Wright & Nishii, 2013) (Perceived) outcomes Referring to employees perceptions, we enter the research area of psychological contracts. In the more recent TM literature the concept of the psychological contract and its relation to employees behavioral and attitudinal reaction is a rising research topic, and in particular the presumed consequences of contract breach (see for example Dries et al. 2012; Höglund, 2012; Festing & Schäfer, 2014). As in other studies on the psychological contract, they show that non-fulfillment or breach of the psychological contract leads to reduced organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, lower job satisfaction and an increased turnover intention. Obviously, contract fulfillment results in the opposite, positive reactions. Guest (2007) argues that even though these outcomes are of interest from a worker s perspective, they are likely to be of more concern to the organization. Therefore, true sympathy for the employee s viewpoints on the outcomes Talent Management in academia 169

171 of TM is absent. Only one study by Dries et al. (2012) showed that a TM policy has genuine positive consequences for talents, because the high potentials in their study reported more job security, salary increases and were more often promoted. We conclude that a clarification of whether TM practices (and if so, to what extent) truly address the talented employees interests is required. Table 8.1: overview of central concept in the chapter, dominant approaches in TM literature and alternative perspectives Central concepts Employment relationship (ER) Employees interests in employment relationship Perceived TM practices (Perceived) effects and employee reactions Dominant approach in TM literature In TM focus is either on employment practices, on economic aspects of employment relationship and on the effects of contract breach Because of focus on organizations interests, needs and preferences employees are not further clarified. Studies on psychological contract and TM focus on the link between TM, contract breach and employees reactions Alternative perspectives Employment relationship: the formal and informal, the economic, social, and psychological connection between an employee and his or her employer. (e.g., Tsui & Wang, 2002; Tsui & Wu, 2005) Psychological contract: Individual beliefs regarding the reciprocal obligations between the employee and the employer (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro& Parzefall, 2008; Guest, 2007) Economic needs: Financial rewards, job security Non-economic needs: Meaningful and challenging work, growth and social needs, fair and just treatment (Oldman & Hackman, 2010; Kalleberg & Marsden, 2012; Paauwe, 2009) TM inducements: Balanced and unbalanced relationships (e.g., Tsui & Wang, 2002; Guest, 2007) The effect of the actual practices does not exist in the practices themselves, but rather in the perceptions employees have of those practices (Wright & Nishii, 2013) The behavioral and attitudinal reaction to contract breach and violation (e.g., reduced organizational commitment, lower job satisfaction and an increased turnover intention. (Dries et al. 2012; Höglund, 2012; Guest, 2007) 170 Chapter 8 - The human side of Talent Management? The value of Talent Management from an employee perspective

172 Table 8.1. gives an overview of the central concepts discussed in this section. The above reasoning leads to three research subjects for the empirical study: (1) the needs and preferences of the talented employees regarding their employment relationship and their work; (2) their experiences with, and perceptions of, the TM practices actually implemented; and (3) the effects perceived by the employees: to what extent has TM contributed to their personal and professional development? 8.3 Research Methods The information on the three research subjects is gathered in a longitudinal study on TM policies and practices in Dutch public universities. Chapter 4 argued that in recent decades the external and internal environments of Dutch public universities have changed enormously. Actors in the external environment pushed universities to become more competitive, entrepreneurial, efficient and effective. As a result the structuring of academic work the academic work environment has changed significantly, and the collegial governance model has been replaced by a managerial model based on coordinating and controlling performance. Performance management systems, regulations and measurable standards were introduced (e.g., Teelken, 2008). The earliest studies on the Dutch academic system showed that from the 1960 s on it was difficult to pursue an academic career (Hulshof, Verrijt & Kruijthoff, 1996). Recent investigations suggest that this is still the case, in particular in specific academic disciplines. In particular scholars in language and culture disciplines face poor career prospects inside ànd outside academia. Conversely, other academic disciplines suffer chronic shortages of talented people, such as the nature and technology disciplines and law and economics (e.g., Gilliot, Overlaet & Verdin, 2002; Larsen & Lubbe, 2008). Academics in these disciplines have many career possibilities within academia, as well as in the business community. Despite the fact that just a small group of the PhD s and post-doc researchers in the Netherlands will get a job at a Dutch university (De Goede, Belder & De Jonge, 2013), most young academics still think they belong to the happy few who can make a career in science (Freijsen, Van Arensbergen & Van der Weijden, 2011). The standard upward career trajectory in Dutch academia depends on the individual merits of an academic but, most of all, on the positions available. In recent decades the availability of permanent positions has decreased, while the use of fixed term contracts has been intensified (Van Balen & Van den Besselaar, 2007). In general, the lack of career possibilities is a major source of dissatisfaction for young academics in the Netherlands (Huisman, De Weert & Bartelse, 2002). Talent Management in academia 171

173 8.3.1 Case selection Five university departments from five different universities were selected to participate in the study. The selection was based on four criteria. First, each case had to represent one of the core academic disciplines: humanities, social sciences, law, medical sciences, and science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM). Second, general, technical and smaller universities had to be selected. Third, a regional spread was important. Finally, the university executive boards and deans had to agree to participate in the study Data collection and analysis Within each case 2 sets of data were collected: in 2009 and 2013 (see table 8.2). Data 2009 The study in 2009 is based on two research activities. First, in each department focus groups (and some individual interviews) were held with academics who were identified by their dean as rising stars (70 respondents in total). These rising stars were, regardless of their age, at the start of their academic career and held positions as PhD (who have an employee status in the Netherlands), postdoctoral researchers, assistant professors recently granted tenure or on a tenure track. Table 8.3 gives an overview of the interviewees per subfield and position. In the interviews with the talented academics we focused on their needs and preferences regarding their work environment and employment relation. We asked why they had chosen to work at their university department, what they considered attractive working conditions, and which working conditions they Table 8.2: Overview data collection Needs & preferences of employees Perception of TM activities and practices Perceived effects and outcomes Data 2009 Data 2013 Interviews talented academics (70 persons) X X Interviews departed talents (10 persons) X X Questionnaire interviewed talents 2009 (48 persons) X X X Linked-In profiles (25 persons) 172 Chapter 8 - The human side of Talent Management? The value of Talent Management from an employee perspective

174 regarded as unsatisfactory. We also asked how they evaluated the TM practices of their employer in order to gain insight into whether the TM system addressed their needs. Second, a small number of interviews was held with talented scholars who had left the university departments (see table 8.3). These interviews were held by telephone, since most of them had moved to other cities than the university s residence. We attempted to interview at least two departed employees in each department, but for some university departments this was difficult because they did not have an up-to-date address file of former employees. In the interviews the focus was on the reasons for their departure, and their satisfaction with the exit-process. Table 8.3: Overview of interview respondents per subfield (data 2009) Subfields PhD/postdocs Recently appointed assistant Prof./ Tenure Trackers Total Humanities Social Sciences Law STEM Medical Sciences Total Departed talents We started the analysis of all interviews by scanning the text and isolated the words and phrases connected to our research questions. By giving open codes to different sections in the text, the first descriptive coding revealed the common patterns and themes related to these research questions. We then shifted to a more holistic method of content analysis, interpreting parts or categories of the text in the light of the rest of the text. In this way, we were able to find ambiguities, differences and paradoxes within and among the stories of the interviewees. Data 2013 Four years later a second study was conducted, in which the (perceived) impact and effects of the TM practices and activities was put central. In particular, we wanted to know whether the TM practices and activities had contributed to the personal and professional development of the talents: did they make career advancements? To collect this information a quantitative questionnaire was developed, which was sent to the interviewees of 2009 (excluded were the ten interviewed academics who had already left their university department in 2009). We asked them to fill in their current employment Talent Management in academia 173

175 position, to evaluate the TM objectives of their employer, and to appraise the contribution of the TM system to their career development. The questionnaire was sent to 73 persons, including three employees who were invited for the interviews in 2009 but did not participate; the names of these three persons were not registered in the anonymous interview reports, so for the questionnaire in 2013 the addresses of all 73 persons were used. 48 questionnaires were returned (response rate 66%, with some differences between the departments and positions; see table 8.4). Information on the career developments of the 25 talented interviewees who did not respond was retrieved by a search on LinkedIn or personal websites. IBM SPSS statistics software was used to analyze the quantitative data. Table 8.4: Overview of respondents employee questionnaire (data 2013) Subfields PhD/postdocs* Recently appointed assistant Total Prof./ Tenure Trackers Humanities Social Sciences Law STEM Medical Sciences Total * The labels refer to the positions the respondents of the questionnaire had in Findings Needs and preferences of talented academic employees Table 8.5 shows that the talents in our study are primarily attracted by non-economic job aspects. They want challenging and meaningful work, freedom (autonomy) to take on that challenge, and a work environment that is conducive to creativity. It is the best job ever. The subject matter is fascinating, I have considerable autonomy in how to do my research, and we have flexible working hours (assistant professor). Some interviewees even remark that the decision to work as an academic although some even say that it is not a choice but state that it is a mission (assistant professor) is more important than the choice of a specific university department. It is their passion for science which drives the academics. Therefore, all other job preferences are related to the challenging, creative and accomplishing work that talents want to do. Accordingly, the international reputation of their research group and the presence of excellent scholars in their field of expertise was a 174 Chapter 8 - The human side of Talent Management? The value of Talent Management from an employee perspective

176 reason to apply for the job. Salary is not alluring, but the university that offers outstanding research facilities and financial means to provide those facilities is an attractive employer. Once the talents work at a university department, the interaction and cooperation with their colleagues in the department and university is highly appreciated, because these contacts can be intellectually stimulating (e.g., learn from each other, solve problems together). We are a community of learners. Within this department it is OK to be headstrong and to be independent. (PhD). Some senior scholars stayed because of their loyalty to the group they have built during the years: We have built this group together. We support each other. I do not want to abandon my research group. They are dependent on me and will get into difficulties if I left. (associate professor in top-talent program). Especially for academics at the beginning of their career, the pleasant interaction with their supervising professor was a reason to start a PhD or post-doctoral research project. I came to this university department because of my incredible supervisor: he gives me freedom to do want I think is best, he tries to reserve time for me, and we have good and stimulating conversations. (PhD). For others the supervision, or just the lack of it, was unsatisfactory, but, as we will illustrate in the next section, not necessarily a reason to leave the university department. As young academics gain experience and progress in their professional development, possibilities to make career advancements become more important. They have an increasing need to develop their own line of research and wish to conduct this research with a research group of their own; eventually, all talents want to see their efforts rewarded with tenure as full professor, and the status and increased (strategic) autonomy involved. For many interviewees the lack of career possibilities, and the continuing insecurity regarding their position due to a successive series of fixed-term contracts is a major point of dissatisfaction, and, as we will demonstrate later on, a crucial reason to leave the organization. This is not because the talents fear a loss of job and income every time a contract ends, but because it hinders their professional development as an academic. So, in the talents opinion job security is more related to employability, i.e. the chances of an academic career, than to employment. To conclude, the results confirm that a TM system is valuable for talents when it addresses their preference for a meaningful and challenging working environment, including good research facilities and opportunities to cooperate with inspiring colleagues. However, in their opinion a TM system can only be satisfying if the organization shows appreciation for their professional achievements by offering opportunities for job promotion. Yet, there are some differences between the university departments, which leads us to concluded that the employees perspective is partially context dependent (see table 8.5). Academics in the field of humanities show a strong aversion to the commercialization of science and emphasize the importance of autonomy, while for the academics in fields with a closer link to practice law, Talent Management in academia 175

177 medical sciences and STEM departments the interaction with practice gives more meaning to their work; they dislike it when science develops towards an ivory tower. The latter group of talents also shows greater appreciation of material means, such as research facilities (STEM and medical sciences) and salary (law). Academics in the social sciences department and in the law department more often refer to cooperation with colleagues and the collegial ambiance in the research group. Table 8.5: Overview of needs and preferences of interviewees (data 2009) Meaningful and challenging work (e.g., challenge, autonomy, develop own research line, combination of research and teaching) Reputation and expertise of research group (e.g., good reputation, presence of international top scientists) Cooperation, interaction and collegiality in research group (e.g., community of learners, loyalty to the group, multidisciplinary cooperation) Cooperation, interaction and collegiality in university & reputation of university (e.g. absence of bureaucracy, trust, good communication) Guidance by supervisor (e.g., commitment, gives room for autonomy, takes time to talk) Humanities Social Sciences Law STEM Medical Sciences X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Excellent research facilities X X Excellent opportunities for development and career advancement & (lack of) transparency in career possibilities, performance promotion criteria, and selection procedures (incl. limited HRsupport for fixed-term employees) X X X X X X X Perception of TM activities and practices In chapter 7 the intended and actual TM practices and activities were discussed. In this chapter the employees perception of the implemented practices is presented. All in all, 176 Chapter 8 - The human side of Talent Management? The value of Talent Management from an employee perspective

178 the talented employees are not really pleased with the TM policies and practices of their employer: This organization flourishes because of its human resources, but, in my opinion, there is no human resources policy at all. (assistant professor). Most departments do not make a resolute effort to boost the intrinsic motivation of the talented academic, which is geared by a meaningful and interesting job. The assumption is that the work is challenging and fulfilling by its very nature and that this is an integral component of academic work. Also the interaction and cooperation with colleague academics inside and outside the organization is part of the academic profession, and is hardly formalized in TM activities. Activities such as attending conference meetings, doing research presentations for their own research group, writing papers and articles and working with a team of academics on a research project are integrated in the daily work routines of academics. Some interviewees indicate that they attach more value to these informal work practices than to the training and courses organized by the HRM department. I even try to avoid these activities. They cost time and energy I would rather spend on my research. (assistant professor). These inducements, or merely the lack of them, do not seem to bother the talents. There are, however, other areas of serious discontent. The talents are not so much dissatisfied with the intended TM policies, but rather with the implementation of the TM practices. There is one exception. The talents at the beginning of their academic career severely criticize the lack of career possibilities. For example, the PhD-candidates of the humanities department cannot understand why new PhD s are recruited if there are hardly any open positions at the medium and senior level. Regarding the implementation of the TM practices the talents express their discontent with the guidance provided by their supervising professor. In particular the academics in the junior positions criticize the laissez-faire style, which is so common in most university departments: Some full professors work with a planning, but most colleagues see it as an expression of distrust if your supervisor asks you to hand in a paper every month. As long as your teaching is OK, and you get an article published once in a while, the professors think you are fine and are going to make it. (PhD). Although the academics appreciate the freedom and autonomy in their work, even finding it an attractive aspect of their academic work, for starting academics too much freedom due to a lack of guidelines, expressed expectations, regular supervision and feedback, creates insecurity: The most catastrophic aspect of doing a PhD-project at this department is the lack of guidance. For many years you have the feeling that you are swimming in an enormous ocean, without a clear sight of the shore nor the knowledge if you are ever going to make it. It takes too long to see light at the end of the tunnel. As a matter of fact, supervised swimming lessons would be a much better approach. (PhD). Moreover, the supervising professor is also the talents gate to an academic career, so the talented academic is not only dependent on the supervision professor in the current job, but also for progress in their academic career. Talent Management in academia 177

179 This brings us to the second point of the criticism of the talents: the implementation of the career policies. Although a fair and just treatment was not mentioned as a separate job preference, the interviews do indicate that talents find it extremely important. If the organization is not able to create promotion opportunities, the talents at least want clarity on the selection procedure and promotion criteria. The junior academics express their discontent with the unstructured and not transparent selection process employed by the full professors involved. They describe it as a lottery of positions : I would like some more transparency. It is a kind of mystery if positions are vacant or not. ( ) The assignment of positions is arbitrary and that creates confusion. (PhD). The wish for a fair TM was also expressed by the talented academics in medium positions. The talents with fixed-term contracts state that the promotion criteria are not clear or not clearly communicated, and that they feel hindered in their professional development. The interviewees feel that their efforts and hard work are not valued and appreciated: The university does not take temporary lecturers seriously. You put a lot of effort into the things they tell you to do, but management does not show their appreciation. (temporary lecturer). In their perception the older senior staff who do have tenure obstruct the career system, or at least their personal ambitions: I get the same salary as colleagues with tenure but who are doing 50% of their job. (assistant professor). There is considerable frustration because a position only becomes vacant when the old people die (assistant professor). Those who participate in a top talent program or were able to get tenure and the associated development opportunities, are satisfied, because they get the security that they can continue to do what they like best: practicing science. Being on a Tenure Track offers me the possibility to promote myself, to become visible. (associate professor). Yet, the participants of the top talent program of the medical sciences department address the need for a fair and just treatment. These top talents find it dissatisfying that the department leaves no room for individual needs and talents. The talents rather receive a tailor-made development program, but the department prefers to stick to the general rules to give everybody a fair chance. This creates tensions: The university department gives you the impression that you should be grateful for your participation in the top talent program. In my opinion the department should also be grateful to you. Most of the participants get job offers from other universities. Commitment and loyalty must come from both parties. (associate professor). 178 Chapter 8 - The human side of Talent Management? The value of Talent Management from an employee perspective

180 8.4.3 Perceived outcomes and effects What are the effects of these unsatisfactory working conditions and TM policies and practices? The interviews with ten talents who had left showed that talents are more committed to their academic career than to the organization. The possibility to get a permanent contract, or rather a promotion to a higher academic position, is one of the most important reasons to search for and accept a position at another university: This new position as assistant professor is interesting for two reasons. First, I have more research time than in my previous position as a lecturer. Second, my new employer offered me long-term career prospects. Now, I have time and peace to focus on the development of my own long-term research project. (departed lecturer). The ones who have changed their academic position for a job outside Dutch academia indicate that a job in practice was more alluring, for example the possibility to work in practice, the financial rewards, or a more dynamic working environment. However, the talents in our study are not easily discouraged when times are rough. The data suggests that even though the university departments do not meet the talents expectations and needs, their passion for science keeps them going, and is, as the data in table 8.6 shows, in part rewarding. Job security has been offered: half of the employees with a fixed-term contract in 2009 had tenure in For many this permanent employment is combined with job promotion. Two thirds of the investigated academics have made upward progression, mostly one (25%) or two (27%) steps on the academic hierarchical ladder. A progression of three or more steps did also occur (10%). The latter is exceptional because on average scholars in the Netherlands need up to five or six years to progress to the next career level (De Goede et al., 2013). Two thirds of the respondents still work for their employer of A quarter has accepted a job at another university in the Netherlands or abroad. Only 10% has left Dutch academia (primarily PhD s). The academics in the medical sciences and the STEM department are least home-loving: over 40% have left their former employer for a job at another university, against 25% of respondents employed at the other university departments. Yet, do the employees believe that these career advancements are the result of the TM activities of their employer? Table 8.7 shows that the talents are skeptical. According to the talents, their development cannot be attributed to the departments TM practices, but rather to their own efforts and the support of their supervising professor. Only half of the respondents think the organizations contribution to their career and professional development was satisfactory. In the talents opinion the professional development of the employee is the key objective in academic TM, but in practice they experience an emphasis on organizational goals. Talent Management in academia 179

181 Table 8.6: Results questionnaire employees (data 2013) changes in employment condition Employment position 2009 Employment position 2013 Employer Medical sciences Law STEM Social sciences Humanities Position PhD Post doc researcher Lecturer Assistant professor Associate professor Full professor Tenure Fixed term Fixed term, with option for permanent contract Permanent contract 21% 10% 16% 8% 45% (n=73) 31% 21% 1% 34% 11% 1% (n=73) 60% 11% 29% (n=62) Employer Medical sciences Law STEM Social sciences Humanities Other national university Other international university Other employer Unemployment Position PhD Post doc researcher Lecturer Assistant professor Associate professor Full professor Other position Tenure Fixed term Fixed term, with option for permanent contract Permanent contract Other Part time function next to current job Worked in other country Received grant or scholarship 11% 7% 10% 7% 32% 14% 8% 8% 2% (n=72) 3% 7% 6% 41% 9% 22% 12% (n=68) 24% 7% 70% (n=46) 24% 30% 33% (% yes; n = 48) 180 Chapter 8 - The human side of Talent Management? The value of Talent Management from an employee perspective

182 Table 8.7: Results questionnaire employees (data 2013) effects TM What should be the most important objective of TM at a university? To contribute to: development of the organization professional development as an academic personal development of an employee fulfillment of the societal task of a university What objective of TM was given priority by your employer in 2009? To contribute to: development of the organization professional development as an academic personal development of an employee fulfillment of the societal task of a university I don t know Contribution of TM to professional development and career? None Limited Reasonable Large What or who has delivered a great contribution to your professional development and career? Supervision by professor Good research facilities Development and career possibilities within the university department Open and transparent selection procedures Possibility of a tenure track Possibility to work abroad Expertise in my research group Good contacts with academics in my field Training facilities Scholarships and grants Development is the result of my own efforts Other Who is responsible for talent development in science organizations? Supervising professor Dean of the department HRM department Department of academic affairs Employee him/herself Colleague academics NWO 50% 71% 28% 21% (% yes; n=48) 43% 21% 4% 6% 25% (n=47) 33% 21% 35% 11% (n=48) 54% 10% 21% 2% 10% 10% 8% 33% 6% 21% 60% 12% (% yes; n=48) 79% 44% 23% 35% 69% 19% 19% (% yes; n=48) Talent Management in academia 181

183 The data shows some remarkable differences between the five cases. The talents of the law and the social sciences department both with no or minimal formalized career policy for the senior positions (see chapter 7) did make the greatest career advances of all, and are more pleased with the contribution of the department to their professional development. They indicate that their professional development is the result of the efforts of their professor and the career opportunities created. On the other hand, the employees of the STEM department a department with a harder approach to TM made the least progression in their career; many of the talents with no change in position are employed in the STEM department. They are probably assistant professors on a tenure track, busy building a CV and meeting performance criteria. They are also more skeptical about the contribution of the departments TM system, and ascribe their advances to their own efforts and actions. The employees of the humanities department a department with a softer and more inclusive approach to TM investing in the employability of all employees, temporary or not (see chapter 7) do not appreciate the TM efforts of their employer: almost two thirds of these respondents think the organizations contribution to their professional development and career was insufficient. Only 5% of the talents of the humanities department claim that professional development was emphasized. Perhaps the duality in TM goals leads to vague objectives, because over 40% of the academics in humanities had no clue of the intended TM objectives (approximately 20% of the other respondents share this opinion). We need to underline that the number of respondents is too limited to assess statistically significant differences. 8.5 Discussion In this chapter the value of TM for the talented employee has been explored. The talents most of all have non-economic goals they want to see fulfilled in their employment relationship and work: a meaningful and challenging work environment, and opportunities for actual upward career advancement. Earlier studies on job satisfaction in the Dutch academic setting indicate that this need has been rather consistent for the past 25 years (e.g., Timmerhuis & Vermeulen, 1993; Meijer, 2002; Buchholz et al.2009). The talents also mentioned the lack of job security as a hindering factor identified as the economic value of TM at the individual level in chapter 3 but the employees are not looking for pure job security in terms of full employment. They want job security in terms of employability (Forrier & Sels, 2003): rather than employment, they want the certainty that they can continue to develop as an academic and pursue an academic career in which the abovementioned non-economic job orientations (meaningful, challenging work, autonomy, etc.) are key aspects (also see Buchholz et al., 2009). So, we can conclude that the talents in this study aim for Tsui and Wu s (2005) old deal : a long term relationship with loyalty 182 Chapter 8 - The human side of Talent Management? The value of Talent Management from an employee perspective

184 in terms of career security, in which they offer their knowledge and high performance in return. As far as the talented academics are concerned, organizational commitment is not necessarily part of the deal; they most of all feel committed to their academic job and their academic community. The study showed that, from the talented employees perspective, the employee-organization relationship is out of balance. According to the talents, the organizations does not put enough effort into the employment relationship. They are not satisfied with the opportunities offered, which points to an underinvestmentapproach (Tsui & Wang, 2002). This is in contrast to the overinvestment-approach, which Tsui and Wang (2002) recommend in the case of scarce skills and positions. The mutual investment approach is applied to the top talents who have already given proof of their excellence, i.e. the ones on a top talent program or selected for tenure. The underinvestment approach creates productive academics, but neglects the essence of being an academic. Buchholz et al. (2009) even claim that academic excellence depends on the intrinsic motivation and orientation of academics. So, the hard, underinvestment approach in which the intrinsic orientation is neglected, endangers employee well-being, but can also be threatening for the organization in the long term. Despite the discontent regarding the perceived imbalance in the employeeorganization relationship the talents do not show a great tendency to leave the organization. They have to work hard, but in the end, (most) talents do get what they aspire to. The career of the talents in our study, comparable to the high-potentials in the study of Dries and Pepermans (2008), can be characterized as an organizationaltraditional career with high upward mobility and low inter-organizational mobility. Perhaps their dissatisfaction is related to the restricted pace of the career (in their perception), which does not fit their ability to develop faster than others (see chapter 6). The findings are interesting for the field of TM in several ways. First, we come to the conclusion that employees, analogues to the (representatives of) organizations usually investigated in TM research, have a one-dimensional perspective on TM as well. Their dominant opinion is that TM should contribute to employees professional development; organizational goals are of minor priority. From an employee s point of view TM corresponds to Human Resource Development (HRD) approaches and can be described as: the activities and processes that enhance the development of the self as a person and the development of competencies and capabilities that have value in the labor market (Garavan, McGuire & O Donnell, 2004). Second, the study also showed that TM is not a rational and linear process, as is depicted in the dominant TM literature, but consists of a chain of multiple processes as ascribed in the HRM process model of Wright and Nishii (2007). Our study has showed that there is a large discrepancy between the intended TM policies and the perceived effects. The hard approach of the STEM department did not result in a Talent Management in academia 183

185 rapid career track. Moreover, the employees of the departments without a formalized TM policy for the senior academic positions have shown more career progress and satisfaction with the support given by their employer. Apparently, the absence of formal TM policies offers room for a more balanced employee-organization relationship. The line manager, i.e. the supervising professor, is the link pin between the TM strategy and the employee s perceptions and reactions (Knies & Leisink, 2014). This implies that in studying the effects of TM a multi-level approach, as recommended by Wright and Nishii (2007), is required to gain insight into the effectiveness of TM and the hindering and enabling factors. Third, the literature on psychological contracts indicates that contract breach or violation will lead to lower job satisfaction, commitment, turnover, etc. (see for example Höglund, 2012). This does not seem to be the case with the talented academics in our study. Despite their discontent with the TM policy and practice, most of the talents did not leave their organization and even made career progression. Perhaps the talents are socialized in a way that they already expect not to get what they want. After all, since the late 1980 s academics were raised with the idea that an academic career is problematic for most of them (see Hulshof et al., 1996). Another explanation could be the moderating effect of the social support offered by colleagues. Many scholars showed their appreciation for the stimulating contacts with their colleague academics inside the department, the university or even the broader academic community. A study by Conway and Coyle-Shapiro (2012) revealed that in a supportive relationship shortfalls in delivery do not automatically result in contract breach, in particular in newly established relationships. It would be valuable to explore the subject of psychological contract for talents in further detail, in particular the effects for the talented employee, and the factors that explain whether or not contract breach occurs. Fourth, the talents attach great value to cooperating with top scholars in their field of expertise and the interaction with colleagues, which points to a strong orientation towards the team or community of academics. This is in sharp contrast to the individualistic approach that is characteristic of the hard and exclusive approach to HRM (e.g., Legge, 2005), which is also dominant in the TM literature and in the organizations investigated (see chapter 7). Pfeffer (2001) criticized the exclusive TM approach and the overemphasis on individual performance, because it would diminish teamwork and create a destructive internal competition that hinders learning and the spread of best practice across the organization. Given the individual focus in the TM literature, it would be interesting to expand our scope and to investigate the possibilities (and difficulties) and value of a team-based TM approach. Finally, the study showed that perceived justice was important, not only for the have-not s but also for the have s, i.e. the talents in a top talent program. For the employees who are labeled as talented but who were not yet promoted or selected 184 Chapter 8 - The human side of Talent Management? The value of Talent Management from an employee perspective

186 for a TM program, distributive justice (i.e. fairness of outcome distributions and allocations) and procedural justice (i.e. fairness of the procedures used to determine the outcomes and distributions) seem to be important (Colquitt et al., 2001). The talents in the top talent program of the medical sciences department illustrate how, for talents, interactional justice is also important (i.e. the quality of the interpersonal treatment people receive whilst procedures are implemented) (Colquit et al., 2001). Most of the TM literature focuses on fairness and justice issues regarding the non-talents (Gelens et al., 2013). This study showed that fairness and justice issues are important for the talent as well. Therefore this issue, and the impact of perceived justice on their behavior, needs further exploration. Talent Management in academia 185

187 References Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Höglund, M., Mäkelä, K., Smale, A., & Sumelius, J. (2013). Talent or not? Employee reactions to talent identification. Human Resource Management, 52(2), Buchholz, K, S.Gülker, A.Knie, D.Simon, (2009). Attraktivität von Arbeitsbedingungen in der Wissenschaft im internationalen Vergleich: Wie erfolgreich sind die eingeleiteten wissenschaftspolitischen Initiativen und Programme?, Studie für die Expertenkommission für Forschung und Innovation (EFI), Berlin: EFI 2008, 192S. Cheese, P., Farley, C., and Gibbons, A. (2009). The new talent equation, Outlook. The Journal of High-Performance Business, Christensen Hughes, J., and Rog, E. (2008). Talent management: A strategy for improving employee recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality organizations, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(7), Collings, D. G., and Mellahi, K. (2009), Strategic talent management: A review and research agenda, Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), Colquitt, J., Coolon, D., Wesson, M., Porter, C. & Yee Ng, K. (2001). Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), Conway, N., & Coyle Shapiro, J. A. M. (2012). The reciprocal relationship between psychological contract fulfilment and employee performance and the moderating role of perceived organizational support and tenure. Journal of occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(2), Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., & Parzefall, M. R. (2008). Psychological contracts. The SAGE handbook of organizational behavior, 1, De Goede, M., Belder, B. & De Jonge, J. (2013), Feiten en cijfers: Academische carrières en loopbaanbeleid. The Hague: Rathenau institute. Dries, N. & De Gieter, S. (2014). Information Asymmetry in High Potential Programs a Potential Risk for Psychological Contract Breach, Personnel Review, 43(1), 7-7. Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2008). Real high-potential careers: An empirical study into the perspectives of organizations and high potentials, Personnel Review, 37(1), Dries, N., Van Acker, F., & Verbruggen, M. (2012). How boundaryless are the careers of high potentials, key experts and average performers?. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(2), Forrier, A., & Sels, L. (2003). The concept employability: a complex mosaic. International journal of human resources development and management, 3(2), Freijsen, R., Van Arensbergen P. & Van der Weijden, I. (2011). Wetenschappelijk loopbaanbeleid. Kansen en Knelpunten. Loopbaanvisie, 4, Chapter 8 - The human side of Talent Management? The value of Talent Management from an employee perspective

188 Garavan, T. N., McGuire, D., & O Donnell, D. (2004). Exploring human resource development: A levels of analysis approach. Human Resource Development Review, 3(4), Gelens, J., Dries, N., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (2013). The role of perceived organizational justice in shaping the outcomes of talent management: A research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), Gilliot, D., Overlaet, B., & Verdin, P. (2002). Managing academic personnel flow at universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 8(4), Guest, D. E. (1999). Human resource management the workers verdict. Human Resource Management Journal, 9(3), Guest, D. E. (2007). HRM and the worker: towards a new psychological contract?. Boxall, P., Purcell, J., Wright, P. (eds.) (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, Oxford/ New York: Oxford University Press, Huisman, J., De Weert, E., & Bartelse, J. (2002). Academic careers from a European perspective: The declining desirability of the faculty position. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), Hulshof, M., Verrijt, A. & Kruijthoff, A. (1996). Promoveren En De Arbeidsmarkt: Ervaringen Van De lost Generation. Zoetermeer: Ministerie van OC&W. Kalleberg, A. & Marsden. P. (2013). Changing work values in the United States, Social Science Research, 42(2), Knies, E. & Leisink, P. (2014) Linking people management and extra-role behaviour: results of a longitudinal study. Human Resource Management Journal 24: 1, Larsen, V., & Lubbe, M. (2008). Quick-scan jong talent. over loopbanen van jonge wetenschappers. The Hague: VSNU. Legge, K. (2005). Human resource management: rhetorics and realities. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Marsden, D. (2004). The Network economy and models of the employment contract. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42(4), Meijer, M. (2002). Behoud talent! een rapportage over de verschillende aspecten die een rol spelen bij de begeleiding van promovendi. Utrecht: Promovendi Netwerk Nederland Oldham, G. & Hackman, J. (2010), Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Special Issue: Putting Job Design in Context. 31(2-3), Paauwe, J. (2009). HRM and performance: Achievements, methodological issues and prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), Pfeffer, J. (2001), Fighting the War for Talent is Hazardous to Your Organization s Health, Organizational Dynamics, 29, Rubery, J. & Grimshaw, D. (2003). The organization of Employment. An International Perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian. Talent Management in academia 187

189 Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. Trends in organizational behavior, 1(91), Sikora, D.M., & Ferris, G.R. (2014). Strategic human resource practice implementation: The critical role of line management, Human Resource Management Review, Sonnenberg, M. (2006). The Signalling Effect of HRM on Psychological Contracts of Employees A multi-level perspective. Rotterdam: ERIM, Erasmus University Rotterdam Sonnenberg, M. (2011). Talent-Key ingredients. Accenture Talent & Organization Performance. Tansley, C. & Tietze, S. (2013). Rites of passage through talent management progression stages: an identity work perspective, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(9), Teelken, C. (2008). The intricate implementation of performance measurement systems: Exploring developments in professional-service organizations in the Dutch non-profit sector. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(4), Timmerhuis, V. & Vermeulen, H. (1993). Arbeidsmobiliteit van wetenschappelijk personeel. Tilburg: IVA Truss, C., Gratton, L. Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P. & Stiles, P. (1997). Soft and hard models of human resources management: a reappraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 34, p Tsui, A., Pearce, J., Porter, L. & Tripoli, A. (1997). Alternative Approaches to the Employee-Organization Relationship: Does Investment in Employees Pay off? The Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), Tsui, A., & Wang, D. (2002). Employment relationships from the employer s perspective: Current research and future directions. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 17, Tsui, A. S. & Wu, J. B. (2005). The new employment relationship versus the mutual investment approach: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 44(2), Wright, P. M., & Nishii, L. H. (2007). Strategic HRM and organizational behavior: Integrating multiple levels of analysis. CAHRS Working Paper Series, paper, 468, Chapter 8 - The human side of Talent Management? The value of Talent Management from an employee perspective

190 Chapter 9 Conclusions and discussion

191 9.1 Introduction In the introductory chapter we argued that although practitioners and many scholars attach great value to talent management (TM), there is little known about how and how well TM really works in practice. Moreover, current viewpoints and actions appear to be based on a narrow and biased TM paradigm, in which the organizational perspective (in particular of organizations in the private sector, multinationals and organizations in the US-context) is underlined. In this thesis we therefore aimed to identify, and explain through empirical research, what actually happens in practice, and we intended to contribute to the building of a broader and more balanced theoretical framework for TM. To achieve these goals we started an ongoing process of theory building and data gathering, based on the principles of the analytical Human Resources Management (HRM) of Boxall, Purcel and Wright (2007). This approach involved the use of theoretical approaches from related academic fields, such as HRM, Organizational Behavior (OB), organization theory and educational psychology, to identify and clarify what actually happens in practice. We contextualized talent and TM and took the impact of the organizational context and the interrelated actors into account. Hence, the interests and perceptions of both the organization and talented employees were investigated. In accordance with the analytical HRM approach, we have also applied a contextually based research design and focused on TM in a specific context, i.e. publicly funded Dutch universities. The empirical data were collected in an explorative, longitudinal study on TM policies and practices in five Dutch university departments. The central topics in the study were: the operationalization of talent, TM objectives, TM practices, the chain of processes in developing and implementing TM (including the factors that influence that process), and the perceived outcomes and effects, from both an organizational and the employees perspective. The central research question of the thesis therefore is: What is the potential and actual value of TM for the organization and the talented employees, and what factors affect the design, implementation and effectiveness of TM in Dutch universities? This central research question is worked out in the following eight sub questions: 1. What are the dominant themes and the leading assumptions in the current TM literature, and what are possible omissions? 2. What are the most relevant developments in the external context of Dutch universities, how have they affected the academic organization, academic work and academic staff, and in what way do Dutch universities manage and mobilize their people? 3. How is talent defined by relevant actors in the context of Dutch universities? 190 Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

192 4. What are (a) the goals the organization intends to achieve with TM; and what are (b) the needs and preferences of talented academic employees regarding their working environment and employment relationship? 5. What TM practices, activities and instruments have been(a) developed by the organization; and (b) implemented? 6. What are the employees experiences with, and perceptions of, the implemented TM practices and activities? 7. What are the perceptions of the outcomes by (a) the organization, and, (b) the talented employees? 8. What hindering and enabling factors affect the design, implementation and effectiveness of TM? This final chapter starts by answering these research questions. The findings in the conceptual and contextual chapters, chapters 2 to 4, are used to respond to the first two research questions. The rest of the research questions were addressed in the three empirical chapters (chapters 6 to 8), in which we approached them from different angles and perspectives. In this final chapter we will combine the data from multiple chapters to give a complete overview of the main results. Next, the theoretical contributions and the limitations of the study are presented, including directions for future research. We end by discussing implications for practice. 9.2 Main research findings A conceptual exploration of the meaning of TM The thesis started with a literature review of 62 academic publications on talent and TM in chapter 2. In this chapter we aimed to get an understanding of the dominant themes and possible omissions in the TM literature, as phrased in the first research question. We identified three central topics i.e. the conceptualization of talent, the intended outcomes and effects of TM, and TM practices and activities and discussed the leading viewpoints regarding these topics. We also pointed to three omissions. First, since most academic publications on TM are conceptual, the field suffers from little empirical evidence on TM in practice. Second, the field of TM lacks a stable theoretical foundation. Many academic publications approach TM from a single perspective, and the academic traditions are rarely integrated into a broader perspective. Consequently, there is a lack Talent Management in academia 191

193 of consensus on the concepts of talent and TM. Third, we criticized current academic TM literature for having a managerialist and unitarist approach. The TM literature reflects a belief in systems, instruments and tools that can help the organization in solving the TM challenges the organization is confronted with. Underlying this instrumental and rational point of view, we identified an economic orientation towards the intended effects of TM. The main objective is organizational performance, for example in terms of productivity, quality and profitability, which can be increased by improving the performance of talented employees. The TM literature does not acknowledge that the actors involved in TM can have interests and objectives that deviate from the organizational objectives. Finally, TM is narrowed down to (the impact of) employment practices to attract, develop and retain talents, overlooking work practices and exit management. All in all, TM is positioned as a system, dispatched from influences in the internal and external organizational context. We therefore argued in chapter 3 that it is necessary to integrate multiple theoretical lenses to fully understand the nuances and complexity of the TM issues organizations have to face (analogous to Greenwood & Miller, 2010), and to consider the impact of the broader institutional and organizational context, including the actors involved in TM. A multi-level multi-value approach to TM was developed in chapter Contextually based research: mapping the research context Boxall, Purcell and Wright (2007) argue that the impact of the organizational context goes beyond the incorporation of the contextual influences in theoretical frameworks, and underline the importance of contextually based research. Therefore, chapter 4 provided a contextual analysis to get a profound understanding of the research context (2 nd research question). The data was gathered through a literature study and a small set of interviews with fourteen representatives of relevant stakeholder groups in Dutch academia. The contextual analysis showed that even though the Dutch government has withdrawn itself from direct control and management, its actions still have a major impact on the way universities manage and mobilize their academic staff. The government s agreements with the Higher Education (HE) institutes to increase quality in teaching and research, combined with improved efficiency and flexibility, affect the academic organization and academic work. Moreover, their financial incentives to support excellent scholars and research groups are an important career enabler for scholars. These managerial pressures from the institutional context are adopted by internal actors involved in academic management (e.g., executive boards, deans and support staff), and have become particularly internalized in the academic strategy, the structuring of the academic organization and of academic work processes. On the other hand, not all signals from outside the academic organization come through. Even though businesslike elements are seeping into the academic culture, in essence the classic academic norms and values such as autonomy, independence and creativ- 192 Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

194 ity are still vital in the organizational culture and the professional values and orientations of academics. The professional norms and values, in the form of peer pressure, have an impact on the academic organization and academic working environment as well. Managerial and peer pressure co-exist in today s academic organization. They do, however, create tensions which affect HRM policy and practice. The study showed that the Dutch universities have shifted from a non-structured and collegial approach to recruiting and developing academic staff, to a more hard and managerial approach in which fulfilling the economic organizational needs (i.e. increased flexibility and performance) is put forward. In recent decades the academic HRM policy has become more pro-active, though several studies indicate that the HR policy is still insufficiently institutionalized. These studies show that academic HRM suffers from a lack of internal consistency and weak strategic alignment, and detect discrepancies between the central policy and the actual practice within the university departments. The academic line manager, i.e. research directors and full professors supervising a team of academics, has been identified as a crucial actor in the implementation of the HR practices TM in the context of Dutch universities Both the conceptual and the contextual chapters provided important input for the further design of the empirical study on TM (see chapter 5). Three key issues emerged and were used to explore TM from both an organizational and the employees perspective: the conceptualization of talent, the intended and perceived outcomes of TM, and the TM practices and the TM process. These topics are related to the what, why, how, how well and for whom -questions that underpin the aforementioned analytical HRM-approach (Boxall, Purcell & Wright, 2007) we adopted to explore and explain TM in practice. The results of the empirical study are presented below. Table 9.1 and 9.2 give a quick overview of the most important results. Table 9.1 presents the organization s and employees perceptions of the conceptualization of talent, and of the complete chain of TM processes (research questions 3 to 7). Table 9.2 shows the factors of influence on the design, implementation and effectiveness of TM, ordered in multiple levels (8 th research question). The conceptualization of talent The conceptualization of talent in Dutch academia was the central theme in chapter 6 (3 rd research question). The data was collected in two complementary research projects on the definition and identification of talented academics in the early stages of their careers. The first study focused on defining and developing talent within university departments, and the perspectives of management, policy-advisors and talented employees them- Talent Management in academia 193

195 selves were taken into account (the core study of the thesis). The second study investigated talent selection in the specific context of grant allocation by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) (Van Arensbergen, Hessels & Vermeulen, 2013). Chapter 6 showed that the various stakeholders in the academic context regard talent as a multidimensional construct: talent is regarded as a bundle of interrelated components of outstanding abilities, interpersonal characteristics and excellent performance. More importantly, the findings suggest that the organizational context and the characteristics of the actors involved significantly affect the conceptualization of talent. Although talent is perceived as a set of multiple components, this general outcome conceals the biased approaches of separate stakeholder groups, because each group prioritized a specific subset of characteristics. We concluded that the interpretation of talent depends on the career stage the talent is in, the specific circumstances in the organization and its external context, and on the position, responsibilities and work experience of the actor involved in TM. Intended TM objectives In chapters 7 and 8 the intended TM objectives on behalf of the organization and the talented employees were examined (4 th research question). The study identified a large discrepancy between the perspectives of these two actors. For the organization TM has mainly economic value: increased flexibility and efficiency in managing the workforce is the dominant objective. We assumed that public sector organizations would also look after legitimacy (non-economic value at the organizational level), employee well-being and societal well-being, but the results showed that these TM objectives are of minor importance for the university departments in the study. The talented employees, on the other hand, mostly have non-economic goals they want to see fulfilled: a meaningful and challenging work environment, and opportunities for professional growth, becoming manifest in actual upward career advancement (see also table 9.1). TM practices developed and implemented Next, we gathered data on the TM practices developed and implemented by the organization, in order to answer the 5 th research question. The study showed that the TM approach of the university departments is one-dimensional and fragmented. First, corresponding to the economic oriented TM objectives of the organization, the university departments generally apply a hard and exclusive approach to TM, in which the wellbeing of the organization is well protected. Second, different approaches are employed for different categories of academic staff. For the junior positions (PhD-candidates) an inclusive and developmental approach is prevalent, in order to support them in their development as an academic. However, even for this group the TM approach is hardening, since performance agreements and appraisals are gaining importance in the supervision and development of PhD s. The TM policies for the more senior academic positions can be characterized 194 Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

196 as exclusive and hard : only the best performers can get tenure and the opportunities to develop towards the position of full professor. The others face an insecure future, either in a temporary academic position or as a professional outside Dutch academia. There is no TM policy for employees in a medium position with a temporary contract (post docs, lecturers). Third, in their TM approach the university departments address a limited set of talent components. Although talent is regarded as a multidimensional construct, in the TM policy the accent is put on either developing the classic academic, intellectual abilities (i.e. scientific understanding and academic expertise) for the junior positions, or on performance for the senior positions. The development of the new academic abilities (such as creativity and entrepreneurship), the talent s ability to learn and develop faster than their peers, and the intrapersonal characteristics (such as motivation and drive), which are all also mentioned as important talent features, get no special attention in formal TM policy. Fourth, chapter 7 pointed to a discrepancy between the intended and actual TM practices. Managing professors take the liberty to deviate from the formal regulations and agreements to achieve the outcomes they find essential. Moreover, although in the intended TM policy the accent is put on employment practices (mainly on selection and recruitment, and on development, performance and promotion), in practice there is a strong emphasis on the non-structured and non-formalized work practices which enable academics to learn on the job. Employees perceptions of TM activities and practices In chapter 8 the employees experiences with and perceptions of the implemented TM practices was addressed (6 th research question). The employees are, generally speaking, not satisfied with the inducements made by the organization. The university departments formal TM policy does not explicitly invest in work aspects which motivate talents, such as challenging work, contacts with colleagues, and research facilities. In practice these aspects are integrated in the daily work routines of academics, and are more appreciated by the talents than are the formal TM practices. The inducements by the organization regarding job security and career advancements are also unsatisfactory in the perception of the employees. Only a few talents the best performers get what everybody wants due to limited scarce resources, i.e. financial means and academic positions. However, the talents most of all criticize the actual implementation of the TM practices. They detect a great deal of variation in the implementation by the supervising professors, and this causes talents (at all levels) to question whether the treatment has been just and fair. Perceived outcomes In chapter 7 and 8 we addressed research question 7, and discussed what outcomes were perceived by the representatives of the organization and by the talents. Although the uni- Talent Management in academia 195

197 Table 9.1: Overview of findings regarding talent and the chain of TM processes (intended, actual, perceived practices, and perceived outcomes), from an organizational and employees perspective. Questions analytical HRM Organizational perspective Employee perspective What and why? Definition of talent* A bundle of academic abilities, motivation/drive and performance, emphasizing performance and new academic skills (Ch.6) A bundle of academic abilities, motivation/drive and performance, with an emphasizing motivation/ drive and classic and new academic skills (Ch.6) Intended TM objectives Primarily economic TM objectives: To create a flexible workforce To find, attract and retain talents Replacement of retired full professors Increased efficiency of grant applications or PhD program (Ch.7) Mainly non-economic TM objectives: Meaningful and challenging work Cooperation with other academics in the university department Reputation of research group Good guidance and supervision by full professor Availability development and career possibilities (Ch. 8) How? (Intended) TM practices and activities Fragmented TM policy: Soft, developmental approach for junior positions; hard, exclusive approach for senior positions. Gap regarding temporary researchers and lecturers Focus on either development classic academic skills (junior positions) or on performance (senior positions). Only the best performers get tenure, including development opportunities. Focus on people practices: particularly on selection and recruitment, and on development, performance and promotion. (Ch. 7) 196 Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

198 Questions analytical HRM Organizational perspective Employee perspective How? (continued) Implementation of actual TM practices Gap between intended and implemented TM practices In practice more attention on informal learning and work practices The full professor managing a group of academics plays crucial role in implementation (Ch. 7) Perceived TM practices Discontent with lack of career policies and actual possibilities Discontent with implementation of TM practices by their supervisor This creates a feeling of not being appreciated and of a not receiving fair and just treatment. Most satisfied with the unstructured informal learning activities (Ch. 8) For whom and how well? Perceived TM outcomes Goals are successfully met, in particular replacement of retiring professors and increased flexibility in work force Policy evaluation is uncommon (Ch. 7) Although career advancements have been made and job security has been offered, these advancements are more related to their own efforts and of their supervisor (Ch. 8) * In chapter 6 the interpretation of talent by the NWO-grant panel member is also discussed. Since the table is ordered by organizational and employees perspective, their interpretation is not summarized in the table. In their own academic environment the grant panel members have a broad interpretation of talent (the bundle of classic academic abilities, motivation/ drive and performance), but in the grant panel selection they narrow it down to the academic abilities demonstrated in excellent performance. Talent Management in academia 197

199 versities TM system was fragmented and inconsistent, from an organizational perspective the TM system was regarded as effective and valuable. However, the study showed that these observations were based on perceptions and not on objective facts, because policy evaluation is not common in Dutch universities. Chapter 7 showed that the hard approach to HRM is not more successful than the soft approach or the mixed approaches; the representatives of all departments were equally satisfied. On the other hand, the talented employees perception on the actual outcomes of TM stands in sharp contrast to the organization s observations. Although the majority of the employees interviewed in 2009 have made career progression (they were promoted to a higher position and/or received a permanent contract), in the talents view their success is related to their own efforts and not to the inducements of the organization. The talents from the departments with a rather non-formalized TM approach seem to be more satisfied than the others. Regardless of the dissatisfaction of the talented employees with their employers TM approach, most of them (two thirds) did not leave the organization to accept a job elsewhere. Factors of influence The research confirmed that several factors in the external context at the organizational and the individual level have an impact on the design and development, implementation and effectiveness of TM. Table 9.2 gives an overview of all the factors discussed in chapter 4, and chapters 6 to 8. The development of the intended TM strategy is mainly influenced by factors at the environmental and organizational level. At the institutional level the aforementioned managerial and peer pressures, as discussed in chapter 4, assert influence. In addition, chapter 7 indicates that differences between the academic disciplines divergent difficulties on the external and internal labor market, but also difficulties in obtaining the scarce financial resources compel the university departments to differentiate in their TM strategy. These external and internal circumstances determine the room to maneuver by the dominant TM decision makers within the organization, which are, in the case of the Dutch universities, mainly situated at the level of the university department. However, this study also showed that the beliefs and philosophies regarding talent and managing and developing talent held by the members of the dominant coalition (e.g., the dean and managing full professors) have an crucial impact on the shaping of the TM policy (chapter 6). The implementation of the TM is mostly influenced by factors at the organizational and, particularly, at the individual level. A fit with the organization s strategy, structure, culture and leadership style and an internal fit of the TM practices increases the chance of being implemented as intended. Also being able to adjust to changing environmental and internal circumstances increased the chances for the organization to achieve the outcomes it aspires to. However, a successful implementation is 198 Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

200 Table 9.2: Overview of factors that affect the design and development, implementation and effectiveness of TM Design and development of intended practices Implementation of actual TM practices Perceived outcomes Environmental level Coercive pressures from government (Chapter 4) Mimetic mechanisms (copying US-practices) (Ch. 4) Normative mechanisms (peer pressures) (Ch. 4) Norms for grants NWO (Ch. 6) Labor market: differences between academic disciplines (Ch.7) Financial crisis: difficulties obtaining funding (Ch. 7) Norms for grants NWO (Ch. 6) Although the labor market became less tight in 2013, some academic disciplines still experienced difficulties (Ch. 7) Organizational level Peer pressure vs. managerial pressure (Ch. 4) Differences between academic disciplines in culture, way of organizing and working, etc. (Ch 6, 7) Availability of scarce resources (money and positions) (Ch. 6, 7) Dominant coalition university department: Dean, policy advisors Academic Affairs and HRM (Ch. 7) Organizational, strategic and internal fit increases success of TM system (Ch. 7) Being able to adjust to changing environmental and internal circumstances (Ch. 7) A shared definition of talent between managing professors (Ch. 6) Dominant actors: supervising and managing full professor (Ch. 6, 7, 8) Mismatch between TM policy at central and department level (Ch. 4) Formal, hard approach is not more effective than informal approach or soft approach. (Ch. 7) A less formalized TM approach makes it easier to match organizational and individual expectations (social sciences, law). In these situations employees are more satisfied (Ch. 8) Stimulating contacts with colleague academics diminished negative consequences of perceived imbalance in employment relationship (Ch. 8) Individual level Talent philosophies of actors involved (Ch. 6) Interests and actions of supervising and managing full professors (Ch. 6, 7, 8) Role of supportive dean (Ch. 7) Internal drive and motivation of talents keeps them going regardless of difficulties (Ch. 8) Talent Management in academia 199

201 most of all influenced by the intentions, perceptions and actions of the full professors involved in the day-to-day management of a team of academics. They are searching for an acceptable and adequate way to handle the difficulties and challenges they are confronted with in managing their research group and the talents included. What factors influence employee behavior and organizational performance, at the outcome level, is difficult to address. The organization does not measure policy outcomes, and the talents are home-loving despite their discontent with the TM practices. The latter can be clarified by their drive and passion for science and their strong desire to pursue an academic career. Also the contacts with other academics keep them retained. Whether factors can be characterized as hindering or enabling depends on whose interests and perceptions are taken as the starting point. For example, from a governmental point of view the managerial pressures are a positive inducement to improve the efficiency, flexibility and quality of the universities. However, from an academic employee s point of view these pressures or rather the effects of these pressures on the academic TM system can hinder them in achieving their personal TM objectives. Their determination to pursue an academic career keeps them going (enabling factor from an individual stance) but can make it difficult for the organization to simply manage their workforce (and from the organizational perspective this is a hindering factor) Back to the central research question The central research question addressed the value of TM for the organization and the talented employee. The study showed that these two crucial actors in TM have a different perception of the intended and actual value of TM. For the organization TM has particularly economic value, while the talents accentuate the non-economic value of TM. The organization is capable of shaping and implementing a TM system that meets its needs, so from an organizational perspective TM is effective and valuable. Since the needs of the talented employees are insufficiently addressed in the intended TM objectives and practices, and often also in the implementation of TM, TM has less value for the talents. Various factors at the institutional, organizational and individual level affect the shaping of TM, in which the influence of the actors involved in TM is significant. At the institutional level the role of the government as an external stakeholder in the shaping of the TM policy is remarkable, as is the vital role of academic line management in the implementation. The autonomous reaction of the talented employees to the TM practices of their employers is also worth noting. 200 Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

202 9.3 Theoretical contributions Throughout the thesis theoretical approaches from related academic fields have been added as theoretical building blocks to build a broader and more balanced TM approach, and applied in empirical research. The empirical findings were discussed in the previous section. In this section we will comment in more detail on the theoretical contributions of the thesis and add recommendations for future research. First, Vaiman, Scullion and Collings (2012) address the need to develop more comprehensive frameworks to reflect the complex set of environmental factors that affect TM. The contextual analysis based on the notions of New Institutionalism (e.g., DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Christensen, Laegrid, Roness & Rovik, 2007) and the contextually based HR approach (Paauwe, 2004) proved to be very useful in expanding the dominant rational and managerialist approach in TM. It provided us with a profound understanding of what actually happens in practice and why (the what and why questions in the analytical HRM approach of Boxall, Purcel and Wright (2007)). We reasoned that organizations are embedded in a broader institutional context, and both economically oriented values ànd moral and social institutional values affect the organization and its TM policy and practice; these external market and institutional pressures urge organizations to take both the economic and non-economic value of TM into consideration (e.g., Suchman, 1995; Greenwood & Hinings, 1996; Paauwe & Boselie, 2003). The study showed that institutional mechanisms do indeed have an influence on the academic organization and its TM policy, in particular the coercive mechanisms and normative mechanisms (i.e. the aforementioned managerial and peer pressures) (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Paauwe, 2004). Nevertheless, this does not imply that non-economic aspects are integrated in the TM system of the university departments. Legitimacy, a non-economic goal at the organizational level, and societal well-being are non-issues in the TM policies of the public universities. Moreover, the coercive pressures exerted by the government are mainly grounded in rational and economic reasons, and, as a result the university departments accentuate economic TM objectives as well. In their search for the optimal way to address the talent issues they are confronted with, universities check what successful companies and universities do, and tend to copy the more managerial and instrumental policies of multinationals (e.g., Shell) and private top-universities from America (e.g., Harvard) to handle the insecurities. DiMaggio and Powel (1983) call this a mimetic mechanism. So, in a way the universities react to the institutional pressures in an identical way, since their TM policies show many similarities (e.g., the TM objectives and the accent on the hard and exclusive approach in TM policy). This provides evidence for the institutional isomorphism of DiMaggio and Powell (1983). If there are any differences in the TM approach, they are related to market pressures (e.g., Paauwe, 2004) the academic disciplines are confronted with. In general, TM seems to be an instrument to handle Talent Management in academia 201

203 scarce resources: people, positions and financial resources. The academic disciplines differ in the way they have access to these scarce resources: in some disciplines there are plenty of positions or enough external funding to create new positions but hardly any people to fulfill the positions (e.g., STEM), while others are confronted with a surplus of excellent academics willing to fill the scarce positions and no money to create new positions (humanities) (also see Larsen & Lubbe, 2008). Because of these differences, university departments are urged to take different measures. These differences become apparent in selection for certain TM practices and instruments (e.g., the support to grant panel applicants). A first suggestion for future research is to contextualize TM and to take the broader organizational context into consideration. For example, although we focused on one specific context, i.e. Dutch public universities, we have found that within that context the academic discipline are confronted with different external and internal circumstances which cause variance in the TM policy and practice. It would be interesting to investigate these differences into more detail to increase our understanding of the impact of the contextual factors. In addition, it is also valuable to expand our knowledge on the impact of external factors on TM in other public sector organizations, either in the Dutch context or in other countries, but in-depth case studies on the impact of environmental factors in other sectors of industry, such as multi-nationals or SME s, on the TM system are also valuable. In addition, although the organizations in our study did not integrate their corporate social responsibility in their TM system, it would be interesting to examine the link between corporate social responsibility and TM (in TM objectives at the societal level) in more detail, in both conceptual and empirical research (also see Vaiman, Scullion and Colling, 2012), for example, by investigating if there are organizations that deliberately address the societal value of TM, why they do so, and in what way. Although the institutional mechanisms of DiMaggio and Powell (1983) helped to identify what external pressures affect TM, how they do that is not completely clear. For this the relatively new stream of research within organization theory on institutional logics is probably more appropriate, because the institutional logics perspective connects the institutional forces to organizational practices and structures (Greenwood, Raynard, Kodeih, Micelotta & Lounsbury, 2011). Institutional logics are overarching sets of principles that prescribe how to interpret organizational reality, what constitutes appropriate behavior, and how to succeed (Greenwood et al., 2011; p. 318). Organizations comply with these logics in order to gain social legitimacy and acceptance by relevant stakeholders in the institutional context (Greenwood, Díaz, Li, & Lorente, 2010). However, organizations are confronted with multiple logics, which are often contradictory (e.g., Greenwood et al., 2010; Thornton & Ocasio, 1999) In the literature a broad variety of logics has been identified: market logics, bureaucratic logics, family logics, religion logics, professional logics, et cetera (e.g., Townley, 1997; 202 Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

204 Greenwood et al., 2010). Within the context of the Dutch universities the businesslike, managerialist logics and the professional logics seem to be dominantly present (see also Greenwood et al., 2011) and affecting the TM system and the perceptions and behavior of the actors involved. This brings us to the second theoretical building block that we have added. To give counterbalance to the unitarist perspective the notions of action theory were added (e.g., Astly & Van der Ven, 1983). We argued that multiple stakeholders are involved in TM and their divergent interests and actions affect the TM system and its outcomes and vice versa, and therefore both the system and the actors involved need to be considered in studying and implementing TM (e.g., Greenwood, 2002; Paauwe & Boselie, 2003). The study pointed out that TM is indeed more than an isolated system and the interests and talent philosophies of multiple actors have a significant impact on TM. Regarding the stakeholder involvement two conclusions are relevant. First, the study showed that (1) actors at multiple organizational levels are involved, and (2) their impact on TM policy and practices is divergent. In the stakeholder involvement we can make a distinction between actors who have an indirect influence on the TM policy and practice, and actors involved in TM decision making and in implementing TM practices. The policies, norms and values, and actions of external stakeholders and internal stakeholders at the university level, determine the room to maneuver in the HR policy decisions taken by the dominant decision makers within the organization (Paauwe & Boselie, 2003). The dominant coalition, however, is situated at the departmental level, and consists mainly of academic managers. The impact of the HRM staff is limited in Dutch academia (also see Farndale & Hope-Hailey (2009)). Despite the formal TM policy, the actors involved in the implementation process, i.e. the managing professors and the talented employees, can act in a different, unforeseen way. The study therefore illustrated the false illusion of the possibility of completely controlling the management of talent. We would suggest that in future research it is important to take the impact of stakeholder involvement into consideration. In particular a multi-level approach can be helpful in identifying the relevant stakeholders in the organizations. Second, the action theory perspective, in combination with the institutional logics perspective, also leads us to conclude that the behavior and perceptions of the various actors involved are dominated by different logics. The perceptions and actions of universities top management (both at the university and the departmental level) and policy makers seem to be based on business-like, managerialist logics, which are, because of their involvement in TM decision making, incorporated in the formal TM policy. On the other hand, the professional logics are apparent in the perceptions and actions of the talented academics in the study. The potential conflict between the business-like, managerialist logics and the professional logics becomes visible in the implementation of the TM practices in which the academic line managers, the full Talent Management in academia 203

205 professors leading a group of academics, play a crucial role. They are confronted with the contradictions in the dominant logics, and have to find a way to deal with them. The discrepancy between the intended and actual TM practices could indicate that they favor the professional logics because of their need for autonomy and their close bond with the academic community. Moreover, other studies indicate that academics also deliberately combine business-like logics and professional logics to enhance their professional autonomy (e.g., Teelken, 2008; Leyste & Enders, 2011; Verbree, Van der Weijden & Van den Besselaar, 2011). The impact of institutional logics on HRM practices is rather new in the field of HRM, in contrast to the field of Public Management in which several publications have paid attention to this matter (e.g., Townley, 1997; Noordegraaf, 2011; Van den Broek, Boselie & Paauwe, 2014). Therefore, these preliminary ideas on the impact of institutional logics on TM, and the impact via the perceptions and actions of various actors at multiple levels, need to be explored in more detail in future research, for example in in-depth longitudinal case studies based on interviews with multiple stakeholders, document analysis and observations. The employment relationship is the third theoretical building block we added in the thesis. Instead of concentrating on a narrow set of people (or employment) practices, we expanded our focus towards the employment relationship between the two most crucial stakeholders in TM: the talented employee and the organization (e.g., Marsden, 2004; Tsui, Pearce, Porter & Tripoli, 1997). This theoretical approach supported our assumption that these stakeholders have divergent and conflicting needs, as was stated by Marsden (2004). The economically oriented needs of the organization collide with the non-economic interests of the talents. The mutual gains assumption (Susskind & Movius, 2009) which is prevalent in TM literature is therefore not justified. What is more, both stakeholders have a biased, one-dimensional approach to TM, which is reflected in their definition of talent and TM (Nijs, Gallardo- Gallardo, Dries & Sels, 2013; Meyers & Van Woerkom, 2013). For example, from an organizational perspective TM could be defined as: the attraction, identification, development, engagement/retention and deployment of those individuals with high potential or high performance who are of particular value to an organization (Davies & Davies, 2010, pp. 419). On the other hand, from an employee s perspective, TM can be defined as: the activities and processes that enhance the personal and professional development, the development of competencies and capabilities that have value in the labor market (Garavan, McGuire & O Donnell, 2004). The findings confirm that the dominant focus in TM research on the organizational perspective provides a one-sided approach to TM. We suggest that future research needs to include multiple actors in the examination to give room to the divergent interests, or be more explicit on the research group being studied and the TM assumptions and perspectives held by these respondents. 204 Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

206 Also interesting are the findings showing an imbalance in the employment relationship. According to Tsui and Wang (2002) an overinvestment relationship, or at least a mutual investment relationship, would be useful to retain talents. However, within the university departments in this study an underinvestment relationship which is unbalanced in favor of the organization (Tsui & Wang, 2002) seems to be dominant employment relationship for many academics; the hard and exclusive TM policy and practices are mostly aimed at satisfying organizational needs. Although the studies of Höglund (2012), Björkman et al. (2013), Tansley and Tietze (2013), and of Dries and colleagues (Dries & Pepermans, 2008; Dries & De Gieter, 2014; Dries, Van Acker, Verbruggen, 2012) focus on psychological contracts, the consequences of an unbalanced employment relationship for both the organization and the talented employee has not yet been discussed in the TM literature. It would be valuable to explore this in more detail in both conceptual and empirical research, including the ethical pitfalls. For example, by comparing the perceptions and experiences of managers and talented employees regarding their employment relationship in organizations with an underinvestment, overinvestment or a mutual investment TM approach. Fourth, to get an understanding of what instruments and practices organizations employ in TM, we used the classification making a distinction between hard - production focused HRM and soft -people focused HRM (Truss et al., 1997; Legge, 2005), and the distinction between employment practices and work practices (Boxall & Macky, 2009). The study showed that in both the literature and practice the emphasis is put on the hard TM approach and on employment practices; the value of a soft, developmental approach and of work practices is neglected. We learned that the soft, developmental TM approach and the work practices are more appreciated by the talented employees, but we do not know yet whether they are indeed more effective and valuable. This needs to be explored in more detail in empirical research, for example by comparing the outcomes at the individual level in terms of satisfaction, commitment, career growth, turnover, etc. in organizations with a hard, performance oriented TM approach versus organizations with a soft, developmental TM approach. Fifth, in chapter 7 the process model of HRM developed by Wright and Nishii (2013) was introduced. This model showed that implementing TM is not as easy as the TM literature predicts, and that there is a discrepancy between intended, actual and perceived practices, and the employees reactions. In part the gap between intended and actual TM policy is caused by the lack of evidence-based acting on behalf of the organization. Not only does the TM literature suffer from a lack of empirical evidence, in practice, at least in Dutch academia, the TM system is also grounded in gut-feeling, since measuring progress and evaluating policies is not a habit. This leads us to conclude that both scholars and practitioners in the field have failed to learn from lessons in the past. This is a missed opportunity. Since the amount of empirical TM Talent Management in academia 205

207 research has increased in recent years, we therefore recommend making an inventory of the lessons learned so far in these empirical studies: what issues have been addressed in empirical research, what theoretical frameworks have been used, and what are the relevant findings? We identified factors at the institutional, organizational and individual level which affect the chain of TM processes, and therefore the effectiveness of TM. The thesis study was a first step in opening the black box in TM, but many questions on the TM process still remain unanswered. We therefore encourage more research on the multiple levels in the TM process, and the factors that cause variability. The study also illustrates the importance of line management enactment in the TM process (Knies & Leisink, 2014; Guest & Bos-Nehles, 2013). In current TM literature the different roles of the line-manager and the difficulties he or she encounters in implementing TM is under-explored and therefore needs further empirical investigation. It would also be interesting to develop some conceptual ideas on how line managers can balance the dualities in TM, and what roles are required for that. Finally, instead of the one-dimensional approach to talent, which is so common in conceptual TM literature, we aimed to contribute to the development of a broader, multi-dimensional approach to talent. In chapter 6 the basic principles of the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) of Gagné (2004; 2010) were used to explore the possibilities of a multi-dimensional theoretical framework for talent. As we presented in the discussion of the main results, the study showed that in practice talent is indeed perceived as a multidimensional concept. So, the model helped in understanding the nuances and complexity of talent in the organizational context. Furthermore, the basic assumptions regarding talent and the systematic and enriched development program in the DMGT-model can help the field of TM to conceptualize TM, and differentiate itself from, for example, common HRM, Human Resource Development, Management Development or competency management. Gagné s model emphasizes an exclusive approach, and his developmental program is more adapted to the specific characteristics of talent. It aims to accelerate the development of talents through a combination of hard (e.g., clear and challenging goals, and regular and objective progress assessments) and soft (an enriched training program) practices and instruments. The DMGT-model proved that the talent programs in our study have more characteristics of common HRM than of TM in Gagné s range of ideas. However, further research on this model is required. Moreover, chapter 6 revealed the value of an exploration of talent concepts and TM in another field of performance, i.e. educational psychology. Also in sports and music there is a lot of experience with recruiting and developing talent, and organizations can also learn from the experiences in these performance areas. We therefore suggest expanding the exploration of the successes and pitfalls of TM in other performance areas in future research, and translating the findings to the area of work and organizations. 206 Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

208 In sum, the ongoing process of theory building and empirical research, analogous to the analytical approach to HRM (Boxall, Purcell & Wright, 2007), has provided a more enriched and complete view of the talent challenges organizations have to face, how they deal with these issues in practice, and how well they do this, than the onedimensional and limited TM approach that is dominant in the current TM literature. The thesis illustrated the value of blending different theoretical perspectives to get an in-depth understanding of the complex reality, and to identify and clarify what happens in practice. On the other hand, the study also showed that TM in practice is as one-dimensional and biased as the dominant viewpoints in current TM literature. Although there are differences in the TM approaches of the university departments, the general tendency is to accentuate the economic value of TM on behalf of the organization, to underline the exclusive, hard approach in the intended TM practices, and to focus on managing the employment relationship with a narrow set of people practices. Employee and societal well-being, the advantages of a developmental approach, and the value of work practices are neglected, at least in formal TM policy. Although the representatives of the organization think their TM approach policy is effective, the question still remains whether the hard, managerialist approach to TM with an emphasis on individual performance is effective (e.g., Marsden, 2004), but most of all, desirable and ethical. According to the stakeholder theory managers have duties, not just to the owners and shareholders, but towards all parties that have interests in the organization (e.g., Swailes, 2013; Greenwood, 2002). Employees are a crucial stakeholder in the organization, and the study showed that the wellbeing of the employees, talented and non-talented, is best served with a balanced approach to TM, instead of the unilateral, hard and performance oriented approach emphasized in current TM literature. We are aware that this argument shows the tendency to support a TM approach that focuses on all employees (inclusive approach), while the literature shows that in practice the exclusive approach to TM is the most preferred approach (Sparrow, Hird & Balain, 2011; Stahl et al., 2012). It is, however, not our intention to promote the inclusive approach. Based on the DMGT-model of Gagné (2004) we argue that TM needs to focus exclusively on the management and development of talents, i.e. employees who in comparison to relevant peers stand out in abilities, intra-personal characteristics (e.g., motivation, self-management and accelerated learning skills) and performance. TM concerns the activities and processes aimed at selecting, preparing and facilitating these talents to fulfil critical organizational roles and positions, and to ensure their continued commitment and motivation to do so (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Collings, 2014). However, in line with Collings and Mellahi (2009) and Stahl et al. (2012) we argue that it is important to develop a differentiated HR policy. The challenge would be to design and implement a TM system that has the characteristics of an exclusive approach for the talents, but also respects and takes care of the needs and preferences of non-talents. Talent Management in academia 207

209 Based on the theoretical building blocks used in the thesis, a balanced TM can be grounded in the following fundamental principles. A balanced TM system: 1. acknowledges the impact of the broader institutional context and urges a contextual approach to TM; 2. aims at achieving organizational, individual and societal goals; 3. takes the involvement of multiple stakeholders into consideration, and acknowledges the potential conflicts of interests, needs and preferences; 4. acknowledges the differential contributions of specific groups of employees, reflected in a differentiated HR architecture in which the needs and the preferences of the talents and the non-talents are addressed; 5. is adjusted to the ability of accelerated development of talented employees; 6. focuses on the importance of understanding the multiple, interrelated practices in which both soft, developmental and hard, performance oriented practices are combined; 7. is about managing people, work and the organization of work within the organization. 9.4 Limitations The study is not without limitations. First, through the analytical approach we have obtained a detailed understanding of the TM issues in the context of Dutch public universities, and even of the specific issues related to the different academic disciplines. We are, however, aware that the results in this study are strongly related to this specific context. The findings raise the question whether they can be generalized to organizations in other industrial sectors or to other professional organizations, or are typical of the academic setting. We therefore encourage more in-depth empirical research on TM in organizations in other contexts, in different sectors of industry and/or in other countries. Second, the interests, experiences and perceptions of employees need further empirical investigation. In this study we focused on the talents, but the perceptions of the non-talents were not included in the study. We therefore do not know whether the results are typical of academics and professional workers talents and non-talents -, or are illustrative for talented employees (in all industries and profes- 208 Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

210 sions). Since only a few TM studies address the differences in perception between the employees labeled as talent or non-talent (e.g., Sonnenberg, 2006; 2011; Björkman et al., 2013), this stream of research needs to be expanded in more detail in future empirical research. Moreover, although the employee perceptions were analyzed in the study, the employees reactions and behavior based on those perceptions are less explicitly explored in the present study. This is also the case in other TM studies. In future research the relationship between employees perception and employees reactions and behavior needs more attention. Additionally, the field of TM needs more information on the experiences and reactions of employees who were once labeled as talent, but lost their status as talented along the way. A third limitation is that the present study initially focused on TM from an HRM perspective. During the gathering of the data we noticed that it was not only the HR department that was involved in academic TM, but the Academic Affairs office as well and probably more than the HR department. In future research on TM we therefore recommend a two-stage research design: start with an exploration of the actors involved in TM within that specific context, and subsequently include relevant stakeholder groups in the study. Moreover, in the present study the experiences and perceptions of policy officials (HRM and Academic Affairs), top management, and line management are integrated into an overall organizational perspective. Even within this group of representatives of the organization divergent opinions can and do exist, and therefore it would be valuable to investigate TM from a more multi-actor perspective and to separate and compare the intensions and perceptions of actors involved in future research. Finally, this paper aimed to address the value of TM from an organizational and employee perspective. It was difficult to assess the effectiveness of the TM system, for both actors. To help the field of TM to establish itself as a mature academic field, it is necessary to increase the amount of empirical research on the effectiveness of TM, preferably through longitudinal research or intervention studies, in which the perceptions of both key actors are involved. 9.5 Implications for practice In the introduction section we positioned the university as an outstanding example of a talent organization, full of talented and committed scholars. At the end of the thesis we can conclude that the traditional image of a scientist with a passion for science and the urge to find new knowledge that helps to understand the world around us is still alive. As Merton (1957) already stated in the late 1950 s, the highest priority of scientists is to be the first to present new knowledge and to get rewarded for that by the scientific community, preferably with a prestigious academic prize, such as a Spinoza grant or a Nobel prize. Talent Management in academia 209

211 However, as a study by Jones and Weinberg (2011) on the characteristics of Nobel prize laureates in physics shows, the conditions for receiving such a prestigious prize are changing, reflecting the reforms in academia. The iconic image of the young, great mind making critical breakthroughs is vanishing. Since the 1900 s the average age of the Nobel Laureates has risen from 37 to 48 years, and according to the authors this increase can be reduced to fundamental shifts in the life cycle of research productivity (Jones & Weinberg, 2011). From conceptual and pioneering contributions the focus has shifted to empirical contributions that actually give proof of a breakthrough in the field. To achieve this creativity, experimenting and exploring new paths is essential, but since in many universities the room to do this is diminished because of the emphasis on short term performance and production ( publish or perish ) it takes more time to achieve major discoveries. Of course, being the new Einstein, the next-generation-leonardo Da Vinci or the Spinoza laureate of the near future is only granted for a few scholars. Nobody can and will deny that only a few are gifted with that exceptional talent. Nonetheless, as the present study illustrates, all academics are committed to science, their job and the academic community, and are motivated to share their knowledge with students, their peers in the academic community and with the society around them. Even more, it is their intrinsic motivation that keeps them going, despite the high demands put on the academic staff. As one interviewee claimed, without the drive you will not survive in academia, so perhaps this intrinsic motivation is one of the prominent aspects that distinguishes the talented academics from the non-talents. So, again, the university is a breeding ground for talent. And even though quality and excellence are high on the strategic agenda of Dutch HE institutes, the institutes TM system shows little care for the intrinsic motives of the academics to excel in their work. They attempt to motivate their employees in an extrinsic way. With the rise of the entrepreneurial university the universities have adopted a hard approach to managing and mobilizing their academic staff (Legge, 2005), in which they accentuate performance and production. As we described in chapter 7, this hard approach is grounded in the assumption that employees are lazy and that their performance needs to be controlled and managed. The possibility to pursue an academic career after obtaining tenure is used as a carrot to reward academics, while performance agreements are used to pressure academics to be productive (the stick ). The ones who do not meet the performance agreements do not get tenure, or are reprimanded in another way, e.g., by reducing their research time. This approach is incompatible with the self-propelling power ascribed to the talented academic. With this way of managing academic staff the university addresses the needs of one dominant stakeholder, the government, but it neglects the needs and preferences of other stakeholders. Many Dutch academics have protested against these developments and wonder whether the efficiency and flexibility leads to decreasing quality in research and education (e.g., De Jonge Academie, 2011; Allesandro, 2012; 210 Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

212 Schruijer, 2013; De Graaf, 2014). Dutch academics united in Science in Transition express their concern about several major problems in the Dutch academic system, e.g., the accent put on publish-or-perish instead of on societal relevancy of research, and have started a debate on fundamental reforms in science (Science in Transition, 2013). Students also have contributed to the debate and have expressed their concern for the knowledge factory and one-size-fits-all educational programs (e.g., Griffioen & Van Winden, 2014). So, according to these stakeholders the current academic approach creates productive but non-committed scholars, which can be a risk for the academic organization in the long run. Moreover, it is also uncertain if the managerialist control over the performance of the HE institutes and its academics has any use at all. According to Birnbaum (1988), the key issue of universities is whether they can exist because of, or in spite of, the managerial interference. He states that as universities become more diverse, fragmented, and connected with other social systems, institutional missions do not become clearer. Multiple goals addressed by multiple stakeholders bargaining with each other about allocating the scarce resources become sources of stress and conflict rather than integration, because it is not possible to optimize all goals at the same time (Birnbaum,1988). These difficulties were illustrated in the present study at the level of the management of academic staff. It showed the difficulty of controlling the implementation of the managerialist and hard TM policy, because of the involvement of different actors, who act based on their own interests, perceptions and philosophies. This resulted in a fragmented and inconsistent TM policy and practice. We therefore concluded that twenty years after the first steps towards strategic HRM initiated by the government (Fruytier & Timmerhuis, 1995), academic personnel management has evolved, but it is still in its childhood. It can mature towards adulthood if it approaches the academic staff not as resources but as humans whose needs and preferences are taken into account. By this we do not mean that the university needs to go back to the traditional collegial model to manage and mobilize its academic staff. This would be inappropriate in the modern university, in which managerial and professional rationalities co-exist. We suggest a balanced approach in which the interests of both the organization and the employees are a concern, and in which the university takes on its corporate social responsibility as an employer in society and invests in societal TM value as well (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). The content of academic work could be the starting point in balancing these dualities. After all, the content of academic work is what unites academics, young and old, potential and proven talents, subordinates and managing academics. This has the following implications for academic TM. First, instead of controlling performance and production we would recommend a focus on building motivation and commitment (also see Collings & Mellahi, 2009). According to Hakanen, Schaufeli and Ahola (2008) and Bakker and Bal (2010), the best Talent Management in academia 211

213 way to do this is through a resourceful job environment. This refers to creating room for, for example, autonomy, supervision, coaching and opportunities for development, aspects the talents in our study mentioned when talking about a meaningful and challenging working environment. Today, these aspects are an essential part of the daily work routines of academics, but are not formalized or adopted in TM strategies. In the formal TM policies the accent is put on managing performance and productivity. In a balanced approach both stimulating and measuring performance for example through mutual goal setting and regular and objective progress assessments -, and supporting the professional development e.g., through job design, coaching and social support from supervisor and co-workers are equally important in creating a pleasant and productive climate for scholars to work in (e.g., Gruman & Sacks, 2010; Gagné, 2004; Pelz & Andrew, 1966). So, we suggest that instead of emphasizing the typical HR practices to manage people (the people practices), the management of their work (work practices) needs to be put central in academic TM (Boxall & Macky, 2009). Moreover, emphasizing work practices could imply that the HR department and the Academic Affairs Office whose activities concern the organization of academic work need to cooperate in developing a balanced TM approach. Second, the study indicated that talents attach great value to cooperation with other academics in the university. A study by Van Balen, Van Arensbergen, Van der Weijden and Van den Besselaar (2012) found that mentor support and network building opportunities were important determinants for the career success of academics (even more than performance). Additionally, in chapter 4 it was noted that research had become more multidisciplinary and team work based. The importance of teamwork is in sharp contrast to the focus on the individual performance that is so dominant in contemporary academic TM. Accentuating individual performance causes competition that can be hazardous for the team performance (Pfeffer, 2001). Furthermore, the selection and performance criteria used in academic TM leave little room for individual differences, and talents and some managers suggest to leave more room for variation and individual differences, so each academic can contribute to the team in his or her own way. Based on the above reasoning we would encourage the development of a TM approach that gives room to team performance, and to a division of tasks and duties within a team based on individual competencies and developmental needs. Third, the present study showed that the success of a TM policy is probably more dependent on the actors involved in the implementation of TM than on the (consistent and strategically linked) TM policy. Within Dutch academia this particularly refers to the full professors who manage their own team of researchers and teachers. As the study of Guest and Bos-Nehles (2013) indicates, line managers can have several reasons for not performing their HR responsibilities. They can be unwilling, but also unable due to a lack of time or sufficient HR-related competencies, or a lack of support 212 Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

214 from upper management or the HR department. So, next to motivating and developing talents themselves, it is important that academic TM facilitates academic management in carrying carry out their responsibilities in attracting and developing their academic staff. We do not recommend HR instruments such as Academic leadership training programs. Learning from peers is more common in academia (Austin, 2002), so we attach more value to the learning from colleague professors, e.g., by promoting good examples, mentoring of professors, intercollegial consultation meetings, et cetera. Fourth, at this moment the central debate in academic TM is on who gets tenure and who does not?. Tenure has become a synonym for the talent proof academic. Collings and Mellahi (2009) suggest an alternative for this emphasis on the talented individual. In their opinion the first priority in TM is the systematic identification of strategic jobs or jobs which can provide above-average impact on an organization s sustainable competitive advantage, in contrast to an over-investment in individual talents in non-strategic jobs and jobs with marginal impact. Once the key positions are identified, the identification of high potentials or high performers to fill the pivotal positions can take place (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). Adopting this line of reasoning in the context of Dutch universities would move the discussion from the identification of individual talents to the identification of key positions in the university. This implies that university departments need to reflect on the pivotal positions in their department. The question arises whether this is the position of associate or full professor, or, perhaps, the position of dean or director of a research institute. Next, the option is to develop an exclusive approach for the high potentials eligible for these positions. For all other academics, tenured or not, an inclusive approach is appropriate, in which the professional development is enhanced through the aforementioned combination of work and people practices. Finally, as was stated before, the hard, exclusive approach to TM probably does not harmonize with the corporate social responsibilities and tasks of the Dutch public university. For nearly 70% of all PhD-candidates and post doc researchers an academic career is not possible (De Goede, Belder & De Jonge, 2013), so they have to find a job outside Dutch academia. It is therefore remarkable that the Dutch universities do so little to invest in the development of their temporary staff. In order to increase their chances in the external labor market, it is important that they develop more skills and competencies than the purely academic skills. However, the study showed that the university primarily focuses on developing abilities that are relevant in an academic setting. The university positions itself as a corporate university. We would argue that, as a public sector organization, a university needs to apply a TM policy that looks beyond the boundaries of the organization. It is necessary to focus explicitly on the outflow of talented young academics who are not permanently appointed. This means, for example, that the developmental programs invest in the Talent Management in academia 213

215 development of transferable skills, and that national and international networks used for recruiting and selecting talented young academics also needs to play a role in the outflow of young academics. The current development regarding the cooperation with the private sector organizations in the PhD-projects is also a way to make PhD-candidates familiar with non-academic organizations. This may also imply that other networks need to be developed in order to support young academics in finding employment outside academia. In this the HR department and their connections with regional companies can play a vital role. To conclude, we urge universities to include their responsibility as an employer in society in the way they manage and mobilize their academic staff, and to show more care for employee well-being and societal well-being in their TM policy and practice. We suggest that actors involved academic TM expand their view on talent and TM, and start to adopt a broader and more balanced TM approach in their debate on talent and TM. The broader TM approach will help TM decision makers in building a well-thought out TM system in which all options are explicitly considered, so the organization can anticipate the potential positive and negative effects of their talent decisions. 214 Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

216 References Alessandro, R. (2012). Wat is uw impact meneer Kant?, NRC 15 mei 2012, p. 16 Astley, W. & Van der Ven, A. (1983). Central Perspectives and Debates in Organization Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), Bakker, A.B., & Bal, P.M. (2010), Weekly Work Engagement and Performance: A Study Among Starting Teachers, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83, Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work. the cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers. Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Höglund, M., Mäkelä, K., Smale, A., & Sumelius, J. (2013). Talent or not? Employee reactions to talent identification. Human Resource Management, 52(2), Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009), Research and Theory on High-Performance Work Systems: Progressing the High-Involvement Stream, Human Resource Management Journal, 19, Boxall, P. & Purcell, J. (2011). Strategy and Human Resource Management (Third edition). New York: Palgrave Macmilan. Boxall, P., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. M. (2007). Human resource management: Scope, analysis, and significance. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell & P. M. Wright (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management (pp. 1-16) Christensen, T., Laegrid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rovik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory for the public sector. instrument, culture and myth. Florence: Routledge. Collings, D. (2014), Towards Mature Talent Management: Beyond Shareholder Value, Human Resource Development Quarterly, (25)3, Collings, D.G., & Mellahi, K. (2009), Strategic Talent Management: A Review and Research Agenda, Human Resource Management Review, 19, Davies, B. & Davies, B. (2010). Talent management in academies, International Journal of Educational Management, 24(5), De Goede, M., Belder, B. & De Jonge, J. (2013), Feiten en cijfers: Academische carrières en loopbaanbeleid. The Hague: Rathenau institute. De Graaf, B. (2014), De huidige universiteit biedt service, dat is meer dan het platte nut. NRCWeekend, 31 May De Jonge Academie (2011), Wetenschap is geen innovatiefabriek, column op de site van de Jonge Academie, 4 januari DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review. 48(2), Talent Management in academia 215

217 Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2008), Real High-Potential Careers: An Empirical Study into the Perspectives of Organizations and High Potentials, Personnel Review, 37, Dries, N., Van Acker, F., & Verbruggen, M. (2011), How Boundaryless are the Careers of High Potentials, Key Experts and Average Performers? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, Dries, N. & De Gieter, S. (2014). Information Asymmetry in High Potential Programs a Potential Risk for Psychological Contract Breach, Personnel Review, 43(1), Farndale, E., & Hope-Hailey, V. (2009). Personnel departmental power: Realities from the UK higher education sector. Management Revue, 20(4), Fruytier, B., & Timmerhuis, V. (1995). Mensen in onderzoek. het mobiliseren van human resources in wetenschapsorganisaties. Assen: Van Gorcum. Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), Gagné, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High ability studies, 21(2), Garavan, T. N., McGuire, D., & O Donnell, D. (2004). Exploring human resource development: A levels of analysis approach. Human Resource Development Review, 3(4), Greenwood, M.R. (2002), Ethics and HRM: A Review and Conceptual Analysis, Journal of Business Ethics, 36, Greenwood, R. & Hinings, C. (1996). Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing together the Old and the New Institutionalism. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2), Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), Griffioen, R., & Van Winden, J. (2014), Nonderwijs, NRCWeekend, 31 May Gruman, J.A., & Saks, A.M. (2010), Performance Management and Employee Engagement, Human Resource Management Review, 21, Guest, D.E. & Bos-Nehles, A.C. (2013) HRM and Performance: the role of effective implementation, In: Guest, D. E., Paauwe, J., & Wright, P. (Eds.). (2012). HRM and Performance: Achievements and Challenges. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp Hakanen, J.J., Schaufeli, W.B., & Ahola, K. (2008), The Job Demands-Resources Model: A Three-Year Cross-Lagged Study of Burnout, Depression, Commitment, and Work Engagement, Work & Stress, 22, Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

218 Höglund, M. (2012), Quid Pro Quo? Examining Talent Management Through the Lens of Psychological Contracts, Personnel Review, 41, Jones, B. F., & Weinberg, B. A. (2011). Age dynamics in scientific creativity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(47), Knies, E. & Leisink, P. (2014) Linking people management and extra-role behaviour: results of a longitudinal study. Human Resource Management Journal 24: 1, Larsen, V., & Lubbe, M. (2008). Quick-scan jong talent. over loopbanen van jonge wetenschappers. The Hague: VSNU. Legge, K. (2005). Human resource management: rhetorics and realities. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Leyste, L., & Enders, J. (2011). The strategic responses of English and Dutch university life academics to the changes in their institutional environments. In J. Enders, H. F. De Boer & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reforms in higher education in Europe (pp ). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Marsden, D. (2004). The Network economy and models of the employment contract. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42(4), Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), Meyers, M. C., & van Woerkom, M. (2013). The influence of underlying philosophies on talent management: Theory, implications for practice, and research agenda. Journal of World Business, 49(2), Noordegraaf, M. (2011). Risky business: How professionals and professional fields (must) deal with organizational issues. Organization Studies, 32(10), Nijs, S., Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & Sels, L. (2013). A multidisciplinary review into the definition, operationalization, and measurement of talent. Journal of World Business, 49(2), Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and performance: Achieving long-term viability. Oxford University Press. Paauwe, J. & Boselie, J.P.E.F. (2003). Challenging strategic human resource management and the relevance of the institutional setting, Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), Paauwe, J. & Boselie, P. (2007). HRM and Social Embeddedness. In: Boxall, P., J. Purcell & P. Wright (2007). The Oxford Handbook of HRM (pp ), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pelz, D., & Andrews, F. M. (1966). Scientists in organizations Productive climates for research and development. New York: Wiley. Pfeffer, J. (2001), Fighting the War for Talent is Hazardous to Your Organization s Health, Organizational Dynamics, 29, Schruijer, S. (2013), Venalisme. Over de perverse consequenties van outputfinanciering in het hoger onderwijs, De Psycholoog, July-August 2013, Talent Management in academia 217

219 Sonnenberg, M. (2006). The Signalling Effect of HRM on Psychological Contracts of Employees A multi-level perspective. Rotterdam: ERIM, Erasmus University Rotterdam Sonnenberg, M. (2011). Talent-Key ingredients. Accenture Talent & Organization Performance. Sparrow, P., Hird, M., & Balain, S. (2011), Talent Management: Time to Question the Tablets of Stone? White paper 11/01, October, Lancaster University Management School. Swailes, S. (2013). The ethics of talent management. Business Ethics: A European Review, 22(1), Tansley, C. & Tietze, S. (2013). Rites of passage through talent management progression stages: an identity work perspective, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(9), Teelken, C. (2008). The intricate implementation of performance measurement systems: Exploring developments in professional-service organizations in the Dutch non-profit sector. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(4), Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, American journal of Sociology, 105(3), Townley, B. (1997). The institutional logic of performance appraisal. Organization studies, 18(2), Truss, C., Gratton, L. Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P. & Stiles, P. (1997). Soft and hard models of human resources management: a reappraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 34, p Tsui, A., Pearce, J., Porter, L. & Tripoli, A. (1997). Alternative Approaches to the Employee-Organization Relationship: Does Investment in Employees Pay off? The Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), Tsui, A., & Wang, D. (2002). Employment relationships from the employer s perspective: Current research and future directions. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 17, Ten Hooven, M. (15 mei 2013), Uw 5 kost mij twaalfduizend euro. Hoe de markt huishoudt op de Vrije Universiteit, Groene Amsterdammer, 15 May Science in Transition (2013), Why Science Does Not Work as It Should. And What To Do about It. POSITION PAPER, 17 October Stahl, G.K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S.S., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P., Trevor, J., & Wright, P.M. (2012), Six Principles of Effective Global talent management, MIT Sloan Management review, 53, Suchman, M. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

220 Susskind, L., & Movius, H. (2009), Built to Win: Creating a World Class Negotiating Organization, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. Vaiman, V., Scullion, H.& Collings, D. (2012), Talent Management Decision Making, Management Decision, 50, Van Arensbergen, P., Hessels, L., & Van der Meulen, B. (2013), Talent Centraal: ontwikkeling en selectie van wetenschappers in Nederland. The Hague: Rathenau institute. Van Balen, B., Van Arensbergen, P., Van der Weijden, I., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2012). Determinants of success in academic careers. Higher Education Policy, 25, Van den Broek, J., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in health care: Productive Ward: Releasing Time to Care. Public Management Review, 16(1), Verbree, M., Van der Weijden, I., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2011). Academic leadership of high-performing research groups. working paper The Hague: Rathenau Instituut. Wright, P. & Nishii, L. (2013), Strategic HRM and Organizational Behaviour: Integrating Multiple Levels of Analysis, in: HRM and Performance. Achievements and Challenges, eds. Paauwe, J., Guest & Wright, P. (2013), Chichester: Wiley, pp Talent Management in academia 219

221 220 Chapter 9 - Conclusions and discussion

222 Appendix

223 Appendix 1 Facts and figures on publicly funded universities in the Netherlands Tasks Academic education and research, knowledge transfer to society Number of institutes 11 universities founded by the government (employees are civil servants): -- Leiden University -- Utrecht University -- The University of Groningen -- University of Amsterdam (UvA) -- Delft University of Technology -- Eindhoven University of Technology -- University of Twente -- Erasmus University Rotterdam -- Wageningen University and Research Centre -- Maastricht University -- Open University 3 denominational institutes (employees fall under private law): -- VU University Amsterdam (founded by Dutch Protestant theologian Abraham Kuyper; current legal form: association) -- Radboud University Nijmegen (founded by the Catholic Radboud Foundation; current legal form: foundation) -- Tilburg University (founded as a catholic college by a few professors; current legal form: foundation) Number of programs (2012) 423 bachelor and 798 master programs Number of students (2013) 248, 247 students (ratio academic staff student: 6:1) Staff (2013) Number of employees in fte: 40, 221, of which 58% academic staff Composition academic staff: -- Full professor: 11% (of which 6% with a temporary contract) -- Associate professor: 9% (4% temporary contract) -- Assistant professor: 19% (30% temporary contract) -- Other academic staff (post doc researchers, lecturers, etc.): 28% (74% temporary contract) -- PhD-candidates: 35% (100% temporary contracts) Although the employees of the three denominational institutes fall under private law, the working and employment conditions of all academic employees are arranged in one collective labor agreement for all Dutch universities 222

224 Funding Universities obtain their funding from a number of sources: Direct funding: government funding in the form of a block grant to cover the costs of all university activities, based on a funding model that includes various parameters for teaching and research Indirect funding: governmental resources for research activities purchased via the Dutch Research Counsil (NWO) and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) Contract research: funding (contract revenue) from third parties (public and private, national and international) for both teaching and research Student fees: universities receive this revenue directly from students An average of 46% of the universities research input is paid for from direct government funding. There is, however, a lot of variation between the universities. This is also the case for the indirect funding and funding via contract research General differences between the 14 universities The oldest Dutch universities are Leiden University (founded in 1575), University of Groningen (1614), University of Amsterdam (1632) and Utrecht University (1636). The youngest universities are University of Twente (1961), Maastricht University (1976) and The Netherlands Open University (1984) Utrecht University and University of Groningen are the largest universities (both ca. 30, 000 students). Small universities, such as Wageningen University and Research Centre and Eindhoven University of Technology, provide education to approximately 7, 000 students Six of the 14 universities are comprehensive universities, providing teaching and conducting research covering the full breadth of the scientific spectrum. The other universities are specialized universities, limited to specific fields, e.g. technology (the universities of Delft, Eindhoven and Twente), agriculture and life sciences (Wageningen University and Research Centre) or humanities and social science (Tilburg University, Erasmus University Rotterdam); the Open University provides higher education in a long distance format Eight universities have an affiliated medical centre, which are engaged in teaching, research and patient care Other actors in Dutch HE system (education and research) Other institutes for academic education: 1 private university (Nyenrode Business university), 4 institutes funded with other public funds (Theological University Kampen, University of Humanistic Studies Utrecht, Protestant Theological University, Theological University Apeldoorn) 39 Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS), which provide higher professional education: 30,000 employees (in fte), in ,000 students were registered in 220 different bachelor programs. The UAS are mainly occupied with education, although the past decade applied research became a more prominent objective and task 40% of all research expenditure in the Netherlands is done by the universities. 47% of the research and development is carried out by the private sector, and 13% is carried out by public research institutions Sources: Chiong Meza (2013), VSNU (2013) Talent Management in academia 223

225 Appendix 2 Topic list interviews with HRM representatives 2009 Introduction The interview starts with a short introduction to the aim and research design of the thesis study. We explain the procedure in the interview. We underline the interview is confidential, and that in the analysis we only use the interview transcription that is approved by the interviewee. The conceptualization of talent? Does the university department have a formal definition of talent? If so, what is that definition? Is this definition widely accepted within the organization? What is your personal definition of talent/ a talented academic? TM policy and practices Does the university (department) have difficulties in attracting and retaining talented academics? What difficulties? What are the TM objectives? What practices, instruments and activities have been developed by the university department to meet these objectives? (check for broad scope: recruitment & selection, development, performance & retention, exit and possible other practices) What TM practices, instruments and activities have actually been implemented by the stakeholders involved in TM? Evaluation of TM implementation What practices are successful? Why? What practices are least successful? Why? Can you recommend any improvements? What practices are missing and should, in your opinion, be included? Why? Actors involved in TM Who is involved in the development and implementation of the TM practices? Who is responsible for TM? (employee, line manager, HR staff, etc) Conclusion Ask the interviewee if everything has been discussed sufficiently, and thank him/her for the interview. 224

226 Appendix 3 Topic list interviews with talented employees 2009 A: Focus group/ interview with talented employee employed by the university department Introduction The focus group/ interview starts with a short introduction to the aim and research design of the thesis study. We explain the procedure in the interview. We underline the interview is confidential, and that in the analysis we only use the interview transcription that is approved by the interviewee. Opening What is your name? Since when have you worked at this university department? What is your work experience? The conceptualization of talent What, in your opinion, is the meaning of talent/ talented academic? Attractive working conditions Can you respond to these propositions? 1. I have chosen this university department because. 2. A demerit of this university department is. 3. What can the university department do to remove the minus point mentioned above? TM policy and practices What practices, instruments did you use to support your personal and professional developments? What practices/ instruments, in your opinion, are successful? Why? What practices/ instruments, in your perception, are least successful? Why? Can you recommend any improvements? What practices/ instruments, in your perception, are missing and should be included in your opinion? Why? What practices/ instruments, in your opinion, are useless and can be cancelled? Why? Talent Management in academia 225

227 Conclusion Ask the interviewees if everything has been discussed sufficiently, and thank them for the interview. B: Checklist telephone interview with talents who have left the university department What position did you have at the university department? What is your work experience? What was the reason for your departure? What is your current position? What/ who is your current employer? What was the reason to apply for the new position? Can you tell me more about the exit-process at your former employer? Are you satisfied with the way your exit was handled? Why? 226

228 Appendix 4 Topic list interviews with HRM representatives 2013 Introduction The interview starts with a short introduction to the aim and research design of the thesis study. We also look back at the TM activities of the university department in 2009, to refresh the memory of the interviewee. Finally, we explain the procedure in the interview. We underline the interview is confidential, and that in the analysis we only use the interview transcription that is approved by the interviewee. Objectives talent management (TM) I want to start the interview by looking back upon the objectives in What was the most important objective at that time? Were there any other objectives? If so, can you explain which objectives? In 2009 TM was high on the strategic agenda. Is that still the case? What are the current TM objectives? If the objectives changed between 2009 and 2013, can you explain the reason for the change? Outcomes and effects What, in your opinion, is the most important outcome of the TM policy and practice we investigated in 2009? What other results have been obtained? Are there any unexpected effects? What objectives were not realized? Does the university department assess the outcomes and progress of its TM objectives? What factors outside and inside the organization have affected the effectiveness of the TM policy in your perception? TM policy Have the TM policies and practices changed since 2009? If so, what and why? If not, can you explain why not? Did the economic crisis affect the TM policy and practice? If so, in what way? Conclusion Ask the interviewee if everything has been discussed sufficiently, and thank him/her for the interview. Talent Management in academia 227

229 Appendix 5 Questionnaire talented employees 2013 Dear << name>>, In 2009 you participated in a study on the recruitment, selection and development of talented academics. In 2010 the results of this study were presented in a research report. In 2011 I started a PhD study on talent management at Dutch universities. Because of this PhD-study I would like to ask the interviewees of 2009 to fill in a short questionnaire in which I ask you to reflect on your career between 2009 and now and the support offered by the university department. If you are currently not employed at a (Dutch) university department I would also like you to participate in the study, because all experiences are important. You can enter the questionnaire via <<hyperlink>>. The link is accessible until June the 5 th, The questionnaire consists of 14 questions, and some spaces for personal notes to clarify your answers. Filling in the questionnaire will take about 10 minutes. The findings of this questionnaire will be used for a conference paper in which the value of talent management from an employee s perspective is discussed. In this paper the results cannot be traced to individual respondents. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 228

230 Evaluation of talent management policy and practices at Dutch universities Academic career The next questions refer to you professional career since spring 2009 (March-June). Please mark the answer that corresponds to your personal situation. 1. Your employer in 2009 * : The Humanities department The Social sciences department, The Law department The Medical sciences department The Science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) department. 2. Your position in 2009: PhD-student Post doc researcher Lecturer Assistant professor Associate professor Full professor Other, namely: 3. What kind of contract did you have in 2009? A fixed-term contract A fixed-term contract, with the option of a permanent contract in the future A permanent contract 4. What is your current employer: The Humanities department The Social sciences department The Law department The Medical sciences department The Science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) department Another Dutch university A university abroad Another employer, namely I am currently unemployed * In the questionnaire the actual names of the case studies were used, but because of the anonymity of the cases they are now replaced by their general names, which are used throughout the complete thesis. Talent Management in academia 229

231 5. What is your current position? PhD-student Post doc researcher Lecturer Assistant professor Associate professor Full professor Other, namely 6. What kind of contract do you have currently? A fixed-term contract A fixed-term contract, with the option of a permanent contract in the future A permanent contract 7. Do you combine your current position with a position elsewhere? No Yes, namely 8. Were you employed as an academic at an international university between 2009 and now? No Yes 9. Did you acquire a scholarship or financial funding between 2009 and now? No Yes, namely Talent management The next section contains questions on the talent management practices employed by your employer of What is your opinion on the contribution of the talent management practices of your employer in 2009 to your professional development and career? The university department s contribution to my professional development and career was: None Limited Reasonable Large Comments: 230

232 11. What or who has delivered a great contribution to your professional development and career? (A max. of three answers can be marked) Supervision by professor Good research facilities Development and career possibilities within the university department Open and transparent selection procedures Possibility of a tenure track Possibility to work abroad Expertise in my research group Good contacts with academics in my field Training facilities Scholarships and grants Development is the result of my own efforts Other Comments: 12. What should be the most important objective of TM at a university? To contribute to: development of the organization professional development as an academic personal development of an employee fulfillment of the societal task of a university Comments: 13. What objective of TM was given priority by your employer in 2009? To contribute to: development of the organization professional development as an academic personal development of an employee fulfillment of the societal task of a university I don t know Comments: Talent Management in academia 231

233 14. Who is responsible for talent development in science organizations? Supervising professor Dean of the department HRM department Department of academic affairs Employee him/herself Colleague academics NWO Others, namely Do you have something to add or to remark on? Thank you for your cooperation. 232

234 Summary (In Dutch)

235 Nederlandse samenvatting Talent management (TM) is hot! In de HR-vaktijdschriften, op internet sites en of social network sites zoals LinkedIn is TM een veelbesproken onderwerp. Verschillende maatschappelijke trends en ontwikkelingen hebben TM op de kaart gezet: de ontgroening en vergrijzing op de arbeidsmarkt die leidt tot schaarste, de toenemende diversiteit aan etnische achtergronden, culturen, leeftijden en sekse in het personeelsbestand, maar ook de opkomst van de kenniswerker en de nieuwe manieren van werken en organiseren (o.a. Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Schuler, Jackson & Tarique, 2011). Het succes van een organisatie wordt steeds meer bepaald door de mate waarin de organisatie in staat is met deze ontwikkelingen om te gaan (Schuler et al., 2011). De uitdaging is om de juiste persoon op het juiste moment op de juiste plek te krijgen en tegen de juiste prijs. Topmanagers van grote organisaties zien dit als één van de grootste uitdagingen voor de toekomst, zeker zodra de crisis voorbij zal zijn (o.a. Paauwe, 2007; Guthridge, Komm & Lawson, 2008). HR-professionals en consultants hebben het thema TM dan ook met graagte omarmd. Ook in wetenschappelijke tijdschriften en boeken is de afgelopen tien jaar veelvuldig aandacht aan het onderwerp besteed. Wetenschappers uit verschillende deeldisciplines hebben zich gebogen over het onderwerp, maar benaderen daarbij TM veelal vanuit een enkele invalshoek zonder de verschillende perspectieven met elkaar te verbinden. Ondanks de waardevolle bijdragen van deze wetenschappers ontbreekt het nog steeds aan eenduidige en consistente definities en een gedegen theoretische fundering (o.a. Collings, Scullion & Vaiman, 2011). Bovendien zijn de definities en modellen in de TM literatuur niet of nauwelijks gebaseerd op empirisch onderzoek (Lewis & Heckman, 2006; Dries, 2013). Op dit moment heeft TM een sterk conceptueel en normatief karakter, waarbij vooral het accent ligt op het voorschrijven van best practices, zonder een grondig inzicht te hebben van wat er daadwerkelijk in de praktijk gebeurt en wat effectief is (of in de toekomst zal zijn) of niet. Dit promotieonderzoek heeft als doel om door middel van empirisch onderzoek diepgaande kennis te verwerven over de vormgeving en uitvoering van TM in de praktijk, en streeft er tevens naar om bij te dragen aan de ontwikkeling van een meer gebalanceerde en multidimensionale benadering van TM. Om dit doel te bereiken is de analytical Human Resources Management (HRM) approach toegepast, zoals beschreven door Boxal, Purcell en Wright (2007). Deze benadering impliceert dat gevestigde theoretische modellen uit verwante wetenschappelijke disciplines, zoals HRM, Organizational Behavior (OB), organisatietheorie en onderwijspsychologie, benut zijn om te beschrijven en te verklaren wat er speelt in de praktijk. Tevens is talent en TM in een bredere context geplaatst. Er is gekeken naar de invloed van de organisatiecontext, inclusief de invloed van actoren die betrokken zijn bij TM, op het definiëren van talent, het talentbeleid evenals de implementatie daarvan. Ten derde is naast de gebruikelijke groep respondenten in TM onderzoek managers en HRM-adviseurs, 234 Summary (In Dutch)

236 ook de percepties en ervaringen van talentvolle medewerkers bevraagd, want ook al draait het in de TM literatuur om talent, zelden wordt TM vanuit het perspectief van de talentvolle medewerker benaderd. Er is onderzocht wat zij belangrijk vinden in TM en hoe zij het talentbeleid van hun werkgever beoordelen. Ten slotte, het onderzoek heeft plaatsgevonden in een specifieke context, te weten die van Nederlandse publieke universiteiten. De centrale onderzoeksvraag is: Wat is de potentiele en daadwerkelijke waarde van TM voor de organisatie en haar talentvolle werknemers, en welke factoren beïnvloeden de ontwikkeling, implementatie en effectiviteit van TM in Nederlandse universiteiten? Een onderzoek naar TM op Nederlandse universiteiten kan niet plaatsvinden zonder een uitgebreide verkenning van enerzijds de TM literatuur, en anderzijds de context van de Nederlandse universiteiten. In hoofdstuk 2 worden dan ook eerst de bevindingen van een analyse van 62 wetenschappelijke publicaties over TM (verschenen tussen 2001 en 2012) besproken. Hieruit blijkt dat veel studies over TM ingaan op (1) de betekenis van talent en TM, (2) het (beoogde) effect van talentmanagement, en (3) de TM maatregelen en instrumenten. In het hoofdstuk wordt besproken wat de heersende opvattingen zijn ten aanzien van deze drie thema s. Aan de hand daarvan wordt een aantal omissies benoemd. De dominante benadering van TM, althans zeker in de wetenschappelijke literatuur, legt vrij eenzijdig de nadruk op het organisatiebelang: er is naar verhouding weinig oog voor de verwachtingen, doelen en wensen van de betreffende medewerkers en/of van andere stakeholders, zoals consumenten of maatschappij. Tevens domineert een beheersmatige en rationele logica, waarbij men ervan uitgaat dat talent eenvoudig, middels een systematische aanpak, te managen is. Ten slotte, gaat de aandacht vooral uit naar personeelsinstrumenten gericht op het aantrekken en managen van het talent, en worden uitstroommanagement en de organisatie van het werk buiten beschouwing worden gelaten. In hoofdstuk 3 wordt beargumenteerd dat TM niet benaderd kan worden als een losstaand rationeel systeem en dat de invloed van de bredere organisatie context meegenomen moet worden. Zo wordt bijvoorbeeld de actor benadering geplaatst naast de systeem-structurele benadering, en worden de ideeën van nieuw institutionalisme meegenomen in de gedachtenvorming over de waarde van TM (o.a. Astley & Van der Ven, 1983; Christensen, Laegrid, Roness & Rovik, 2007). In het hoofdstuk wordt een multi-level benadering ontwikkeld voor de waarde van TM: de economische en niet-economische waarde van TM op het niveau van de individuele werknemer, de organisatie en de maatschappij wordt uiteengezet. Hoofdstuk 4 beschrijft vervolgens de belangrijkste ontwikkelingen in de externe context van Nederlandse universiteiten, de gevolgen hiervan voor de interne organisatie en voor het HRM beleid. De data voor dit hoofdstuk zijn verkregen door literatuuronderzoek en veertien interviews met vertegenwoordigers van diverse stakeholdergroepen in de Nederlandse wetenschap. Het hoofdstuk toont aan dat ook al Talent Management in academia 235

237 heeft de overheid zich teruggetrokken uit de directe sturing en controle op de universiteiten, de overheidsinvloed op het wetenschappelijk personeelsbeleid onverminderd groot blijft. Vooral door het beschikbaar stellen van financiële impulsen aan individuele toponderzoekers en talenten geeft zij sturing aan de carrières van een selecte groep wetenschappers. Tevens blijkt dat de universiteit zich de afgelopen decennia heeft ontwikkeld van een professorenuniversiteit tot een professionele, bedrijfsmatige organisatie. Het wetenschapspersoneelsbeleid heeft zich in lijn hiermee ontwikkeld. De afgelopen 25 jaar is het gerijpt van voornamelijk informele praktijken tot een geformaliseerd beleid. Het beleid, maar ook de praktijk, is harder geworden. Daarentegen zijn de behoeften van de wetenschappers, opvallend genoeg, de afgelopen 25 jaar nagenoeg onveranderd gebleven. Wetenschappers worden gedreven door de inhoud van hun werk. Met het harder worden van het beleid, is HRM steeds verder af komen te staan van de behoeften van de wetenschappers en lijkt zelfs de aantrekkelijkheid van het inhoudelijke werk in het gedrang te komen. De verkenning van de TM-literatuur en van de universitaire context heeft input gegeven voor het empirische onderzoek, waarvan de opzet wordt beschreven in hoofdstuk 5. In het empirische onderzoek is gekeken naar het beleid dat Nederlandse universiteiten voeren om talentvolle wetenschappers aan te trekken, te ontwikkelen en te behouden. De data zijn verzameld door middel van 5 casestudies bij 5 faculteiten die elk een andere wetenschappelijke discipline vertegenwoordigen, en verbonden zijn aan verschillende universiteiten. Op 2 momenten van dataverzameling, in 2009 en 2013, zijn zowel bestuurders, beleidsmakers, leidinggevenden, als talenten zelf zijn betrokken geweest in het onderzoek. Bij aanvang van het onderzoek is geen definitie van talent en TM ontwikkeld, omdat de onderzoekers juist wilden onderzoeken welke definities er in de praktijk van de cases gehanteerd werden. De definitie van talent staat centraal in hoofdstuk 6. In de huidige TM literatuur wordt er veel gediscussieerd over de definitie van talent. Echter, de meeste wetenschappers benaderen talent vanuit één dimensie, bijvoorbeeld is het aangeboren of nog te ontwikkelen, waardoor een te smalle en vereenvoudigde kijk op de werkelijkheid wordt geschetst (o.a. Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, Gonzalez-Cruz, 2013; Meyers & Van Woerkom, 2013). Omdat talent en talentontwikkeling een belangrijk en veelvuldig onderzocht onderwerp is in het veld van onderwijspsychologie, wordt in dit hoofdstuk een uitstapje gemaakt naar de dit wetenschappelijke veld en wordt het Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) van Gagné (2004; 2010) gebruikt als kapstok om de conceptualisering van talent uiteen te rafelen. Voor dit hoofdstuk zijn de data van het onderhavige empirische onderzoek gecombineerd met de data van een onderzoek naar talent selectie binnen de NWO-subsidiepanels (Van Arensbergen, Hessels & Vermeulen, 2013). De resultaten tonen aan dat talent, in tegenstelling tot in de academische TM literatuur, door zowel talenten zelf, wetenschappelijk management en beleidsadviseurs als door NWO-beoordelaars wordt gezien als een combina- 236 Summary (In Dutch)

238 tie van verschillende componenten. Een talent heeft bovengemiddelde vaardigheden ( abilities ), persoonlijke eigenschappen zoals motivatie en doorzettingsvermogen én laat excellente prestaties zien. Echter, binnen deze triade van talentkenmerken leggen de verschillende actoren andere accenten. De talenten zelf benadrukken het belang van persoonlijke eigenschappen, de NWO-panel leden en management en beleidsmakers accentueren het belang van prestatie en academische vaardigheden, inclusief de nieuwe vaardigheden, zoals ondernemerschap en creativiteit. Ook zijn er verschillen in definiëring tussen de faculteiten en wetenschapsgebieden, wat aantoont dat één enkele definitie van talent niet bestaat omdat talent niet losgezien kan worden van de context. Het talentontwikkelingsproces zoals beschreven in het DMTG geeft vervolgens handvatten voor het talentbeleid van organisaties. Gagné (2004) pleit voor een exclusief beleid waarin het stellen van doelen en prestatiebeoordelingen wordt gecombineerd met een ruime ondersteuning van de ontwikkeling van het talent. Het talentontwikkelingsprogramma houdt rekening met het vermogen om sneller dan gemiddeld te ontwikkelen. Het onderzoek toont aan dat het talentbeleid van de universiteiten meer lijkt op regulier HRM-beleid dan op het talentontwikkelingsbeleid zoals gesteld door Gagné. Hoofdstuk 7 gaat in op het TM proces. Vanuit het perspectief van de organisatie wordt beschreven wat de doelen zijn van het talentbeleid, welke beleid er is ontwikkeld (instrumenten en maatregelen) en hoe de invoering in de praktijk verloopt. In de TM literatuur domineert de veronderstelling dat TM een eenvoudig en rechtlijnig proces is, gericht op het realiseren van organisatiedoelen zoals een flexibeler personeelsbestand, verbetering efficiëntie en prestaties. Om een beter inzicht te krijgen in de wijze waarop TM in de praktijk werkelijk werkt, zijn het HRM proces-model van Wright en Nishii (2013) en de hard en soft benadering van HRM (Truss et al., 1997; Legge, 2005) gebruikt om het talentbeleid en het TM proces uiteen te rafelen. De resultaten laten zien dat de universiteiten hoofdzakelijk economische en rationele redenen hebben om TM in te voeren: het vergroten van flexibiliteit en efficiency. Zij zetten daarbij vooral in op een hard TM benadering waarbij prestatie voorop staat. Alleen de talenten die in staat zijn om hun kwaliteiten aantoonbaar te maken in een excellente prestatie krijgen een vaste aanstelling, inclusief de bijbehorende mogelijkheden om door te groeien naar de positie van hoogleraar. De harde benadering geldt vooral voor de medior en senior posities (universitair docent en hoger); voor de junior posities, de promovendi, staat de ontwikkelingsgerichte soft TM benadering nog voorop. Echter, ook bij het beleid t.a.v. deze jonge talenten zijn signalen van een verharding zichtbaar. Er is een hiaat in het beleid ten aanzien van de wetenschappers met een tijdelijke positie, zoals post doc onderzoekers en tijdelijke docenten. Vervolgens laat het onderzoek zien dat er een discrepantie is tussen het ontwikkelde beleid en de uitvoering daarvan in de praktijk. Decanen en hoogleraren nemen de ruimte om het talentbeleid in de praktijk anders in te vullen als zij vinden dat de situatie daarom Talent Management in academia 237

239 vraagt. Tevens blijkt dat in de praktijk een groot accent ligt op het informele leren, maar dat de wijze waarop (en de mate waarin) sterk afhankelijk is van de betrokken leidinggevende wetenschappers. Het onderzoek wijst uit dat de faculteiten tussen 2009 en 2013 niet zozeer hun beleidsdoelen hebben aangepast, maar wel hun TM aanpak. Daar waar veranderingen optreden komt dat onder meer door ontwikkelingen op de arbeidsmarkt (en die verschilt per wetenschapsgebied), veranderingen in de financiële situatie van de faculteit of de komst van een andere decaan. De interviews uit 2013 wijzen uit dat de vertegenwoordigers van de organisatie over het geheel genomen tevreden zijn over de opbrengsten van het in 2009 onderzochte talentbeleid. De doelen zijn nagenoeg behaald. Dit kunnen zij echter niet funderen op feiten en cijfers. Beleidsevaluaties zijn geen gemeengoed. In hoofdstuk 8 wordt TM vanuit het perspectief van de talentvolle medewerker besproken. Er wordt hierbij gebruik gemaakt van theoretische concepten m.b.t. de arbeidsrelatie (o.a. Marsden, 2004; Tsui & Wu, 2005) en psychologisch contract (o.a. Guest, 2007). Daar waar TM voor de organisatie vooral een economische waarde heeft, heeft het voor de talenten zelf vooral niet-economische waarde. Het onderzoek toont aan dat zij zoeken naar een uitdagende en stimulerende werkomgeving die hen de mogelijkheid biedt om zich als wetenschapper te ontwikkelen en te groeien. Dat laatste moet gepaard gaan met daadwerkelijke carrièrestappen richting de positie van hoogleraar, omdat men in die positie de ruimte krijgt een eigen onderzoekslijn met een eigen onderzoeksgroep te ontwikkelen. Over het algemeen zijn de talenten niet tevreden over de mogelijkheden die de organisatie hun biedt. Vooral het gebrek aan carrièremogelijkheden speelt hun parten. Ook is voor velen de begeleiding door de hoogleraar (en de wijze waarop hij of zij uitvoering geeft aan het talentbeleid) een belangrijk punt van kritiek, hoewel er ook zeker talenten zijn die hier lovend over zijn. Dit laatste toont wederom aan dat de hoogleraar als direct leidinggevende een belangrijke rol speelt in TM. Ondanks hun kritische kanttekeningen op het gevoerde wetenschappelijke talentbeleid zijn de meeste talenten wel in de wetenschap blijven werken (ca. twee derde bij hun werkgever van 2009 en twee tiende bij een andere (inter)nationale universiteit), hebben zij carrièrestappen gezet sinds 2009, of hebben een vaste aanstelling gekregen. Echter, deze opbrengsten wijzen zij niet toe aan het talentbeleid van hun werkgever. In tegendeel, zij geven aan dat dit het resultaat is van hun eigen inspanningen samen met die van hun begeleider. Kortom, de talenten ervaren de huidige aanpak in TM als minder waardevol. Resumerend, de twee belangrijkste belanghebbenden in TM, de organisatie en de talentvolle medewerkers, hebben een afwijkend beeld van de potentiele en daadwerkelijke waarde van TM. Van de kant van de organisatie worden vooral rationele, economische opbrengsten benadrukt én gerealiseerd, terwijl voor de medewerkers 238 Summary (In Dutch)

240 TM vooral niet-economische waarde heeft. Gezien het hiaat tussen het talentbeleid en hun behoeften, zien zij het beleid (en de uitvoering daarvan) als minder waardevol. Het promotieonderzoek heeft laten zien dat de werkelijkheid van TM, in de context van Nederlandse universiteiten, complexer is dan de huidige academische TM literatuur doet voorkomen. TM is meer dan een geïsoleerd systeem. Factoren in de brede organisatorische context (extern en intern) en de actoren actief in die context oefenen enorme invloed uit. Het gebruik van meerdere theoretische modellen uit aanverwante wetenschapsgebieden en de toepassing daarvan in empirisch onderzoek in een specifieke context, conform de analytical HRM approach, heeft een rijker en een genuanceerder beeld van TM gegeven. Desalniettemin blijven er nog vele vragen onbeantwoord of zijn nieuwe onderzoeksvragen ontstaan die nader onderzoek verdienen, zoals de toetsing van de bevindingen in andere sectoren en type organisaties. In het slothoofdstuk, hoofdstuk 9, zijn dan ook aanbevelingen voor vervolgonderzoek gedaan. Echter, het onderzoek heeft ook aangetoond dat in de praktijk organisaties, maar ook zeker de talenten zelf, TM net zo eenzijdig benaderen als in de academische TM literatuur gebeurt. In het talentbeleid dat de universiteiten ontwikkeld hebben staat het organisatiebelang voorop. Echter, volgens de stakeholder theorie hebben organisaties en managers een verantwoordelijkheid ten aanzien van alle stakeholders die betrokken zijn bij de organisatie, en niet alleen ten aanzien van de eigenaren of aandeelhouders. Dit impliceert dat ook het welzijn van het talent zelf meer ogenschouw genomen moet worden. In hoofdstuk 9 wordt gepleit voor een gebalanceerd TM systeem, dat ingebed is in een bredere context en streeft naar een balans tussen de doelen van de individuele talentvolle werknemers en de organisatie, en zich inspant voor een maatschappelijke bijdrage (zoals uitgewerkt in hoofdstuk 2). De universiteiten wordt aangeraden om een bredere, meer gebalanceerde benadering van talent en TM te hanteren, en daarbij meer aandacht te besteden aan de inhoud van het werk, de motivatie van de talenten (in plaats van de prestaties), het ontwikkelen en beoordelen van talent in een team i.p.v het individuele talent, en de rol van de hoogleraar in het talentbeleid. Ook wordt aandacht gevraagd voor een talentbeleid dat over de grenzen van de eigen organisatie heenkijkt. Immers, voor een overgrote meerderheid van de promovendi en post doc onderzoekers ligt er geen wetenschappelijke carrière in het verschiet (De Goede, Belder & de Jonge, 2013), en een goed talentbeleid kan wellicht hun kans op een baan buiten de wetenschap versterken. Talent Management in academia 239

241 240 Summary (In Dutch)

242 Acknowledgements (In Dutch)

243 Dankwoord Na 3,5 jaar is dit bijzonder project bijna ten einde. Alleen de verdediging van het proefschrift rest nog. Ik heb genoten van deze periode. Een periode die bestond uit vele spannende uitdagingen, successen en geluksmomenten, maar die ook zeker zijn dieptepunten heeft gehad. Eén van de meest verdrietige momenten is het overlijden van mijn co-promotor en dierbare collega Ben Fruytier in juli Ik ben Ben enorm dankbaar voor zijn bijdrage aan dit proefschrift en aan mijn persoonlijke en professionele ontwikkeling. Ben heeft mij geïnspireerd om te beginnen met het promotieonderzoek, ervoor gezorgd dat ik daaraan lekker en goed kon werken, mij op de momenten dat ik daar behoefte aan had inhoudelijk gevoed en als klankbord gefungeerd bij de keuzes die op mijn pad kwamen. Hij was enorm inhoudelijk betrokken. Ook zorgde Ben voor de nodige sociale afleiding. Ik heb genoten van onze reizen naar congressen in o.a. Helsinki, Boston, Istanbul en Leuven. We gingen voor de inhoud, maar om eerlijk te zijn werd een congres aantrekkelijker als het in een mooie of bijzondere stad werd gehouden. We wilden het nuttige met het aangename verenigen. Dus, aan elk congres plakten we 1 of 2 dagen vast om de betreffende stad te verkennen, het liefst wandelend of met het openbaar vervoer. Het was heerlijk om ons hoofd op deze manier leeg te maken en ruimte te creëren voor nieuwe ideeën en plannen. Het stemt mij verdrietig dat Ben de afronding van dit proefschrift niet mee kan maken, en er op de dag van de verdediging niet fysiek bij kan zijn. Ik troost mij met de gedachte dat hij altijd vol trots sprak over de vorderingen, en mij het vertrouwen gaf dat ik op de goede weg zat. Met dit vertrouwen treed ik de verdediging tegemoet. Uiteraard gaat mijn dank ook uit naar mijn promotor Paul Boselie. Paul, bedankt voor je kritische reflecties op mijn werk. Jazeker, in het begin waren ze confronterend en pittig, maar al snel had ik in de gaten dat ze uitsluitend opbouwend bedoeld waren. Ze daagden mij uit om meer uit mijzelf te halen en mijzelf en mijn werk verder te verbeteren, en hebben ertoe geleid dat ik gaande weg de lat steeds hoger wilde en ook kon leggen. Ook bedankt voor de ondersteuning bij het aanleren van, voor mij, nieuwe academische vaardigheden: het schrijven van papers en wetenschappelijke publicaties, het reviewen van artikelen, het reageren op reviews van eigen artikelen, het voorbereiden van presentaties voor wetenschappelijke congressen, etc. Het was aangenaam om op deze manier een kijkje in de keuken van de wetenschapper te krijgen. In dit dankwoord wil ik ook SoFoKles, Sociaal Fonds voor de Kennissector, bedanken. De eerste fase van het empirische onderzoek is namelijk mogelijk gemaakt door een project dat de Hogeschool Utrecht samen met Radboud Univ ersiteit Nijmegen in opdracht van SoFoKles hebben uitgevoerd. Ik wil mijn mede-onderzoekers in dat project, Marieke, Fenke en Ariana, ook hartelijk bedanken voor hun bijdrage. 242 Acknowledgements (In Dutch)

244 Uiteraard gaat mijn dank ook uit naar de vijf universiteiten en faculteiten en alle respondenten die meegewerkt hebben aan het onderzoek. Zonder hun inbreng zou dit onderzoek überhaupt niet mogelijk zijn geweest. Ook wil ik de HR-beleidsmedewerkers bedanken die ik aan het eind van het promotieonderzoek heb bezocht om samen met mij te reflecteren op de uitkomsten en de aanbevelingen voor de praktijk. Dankzij een promotie-voucher die beschikbaar is gesteld door het College van Bestuur en de opleiding HRM van de Hogeschool Utrecht heb ik de afgelopen jaren mijn onderwijstaken kunnen reduceren, zodat ik me heb kunnen concentreren op mijn proefschrift. Ik ben de Hogeschool Utrecht enorm dankbaar voor deze gelegenheid en zie het als een bijzonder geschenk om te kunnen investeren in mijn persoonlijke ontwikkeling. Ook gaat mijn dank uit naar de collega s van de opleiding HRM, van het Kenniscentrum voor Sociale Innovatie en het lectoraat OCA voor hun inhoudelijke en morele steun en interesse. Ik wil mijn vakgenoten die ik geregeld heb ontmoet bij de internationale congressen hartelijk danken voor hun betrokkenheid, interesse en inhoudelijke feedback. Christine, Pleun, Dorien en Nicky (en vele anderen) hartelijk dank voor jullie feedback op mijn papers en presentaties. A special thanks to Eva Gallardo-Gallardo for the intellectual but most of all the social input. You became a true friend. Malcolm Wren, thanks for your corrections and your virtual English lectures. Tot slot, wil ik mijn familie en vrienden bedanken. Vooral de steun van Sander en mijn kinderen is van onschatbare waarde geweest. Sander, ik besef dat het voor jou niet altijd makkelijk moet zijn geweest, en ik wil je dan ook enorm bedanken voor het draaiende houden van ons gezin tijdens mijn congresbezoeken en tijdens de avonden en andere momenten dat ik achter mijn laptop verstopt zat. Ik weet dat je het met alle liefde hebt gedaan, maar het mag ook wel eens gezegd worden: heel, heel erg bedankt dat je me de ruimte hebt geboden om te doen waar mijn hart naar uitgaat! Maar de meeste dank gaat uit naar mijn kinderen, Rosa, Josephine en Jacco, en hun humor en onbeperkte liefde. Het vinden van een goede balans tussen werk en gezin was het meest moeilijke aspect aan het promotieonderzoek: deadlines voor papers en congresbezoek en het afronden van het proefschrift maakten dat ik onrustig, geestelijk of fysiek niet altijd aanwezig was. Soms sloeg ik door en keek ik vanuit de wetenschappelijke bril naar de jullie talenten. Ik hoop dat jullie daar niet al te veel last van hebben gehad. Jullie uitspraken zetten mij telkens weer met beide voeten op de grond en zorgden zij ervoor dat ik bleef beseffen dat er veel meer is in het leven dan hard werken en wetenschap. Leuk was de uitspraak voorafgaand aan een congresbezoek: Mam! Ga je nu alweer op vakantie voor je werk? (en zo voelde de buitenlandse congressen ook een beetje ). Het was even slikken bij de vraag: Mama, MOET je zoveel werken als je groot bent?. Dat was niet het voorbeeld wat ik wilde geven. Ik hoop ook niet dat dat beeld is blijven hangen. Ik hoop dat ik vooral heb laten zien dat het waardevol is om, ongeacht je leeftijd en persoonlijke situatie, je talenten te ontwikke- Talent Management in academia 243

245 len, je eigen hart en interesses te volgen, kansen te pakken, te leren, door te bijten en je best te doen op de dingen die je inspireren en verder kunnen brengen. Ik hoop dat we nog heel, heel, heel (!) lang van elkaar kunnen genieten. Marian Thunnissen Oktober Acknowledgements (In Dutch)

246 Talent Management in academia 245

247