Employee reactions to talent management
Part I: Is TM a legitimate topic of academic study?
Is TM a legitimate topic of academic study?
Theory-driven research
TM = phenomenon-driven field
Phenomenon-driven research = “hard sell”
Stages in the evolution of a phenomenon
Results of 2015 bibliometric analysis
35% of articles use this definition:
The “talent” construct itself…
In HR practice: the 9-box
“Talent pools”/forced comparison
“HR architecture”: Pivotal positions
Critique: “rank & yank”
Part II: Data collected 2004 – 2014
1| Outcome = career type
2| Outcome = career satisfaction
3| Outcome = perceived PC obligations
4| Outcome = PC breach
5| Perceived justice as a key mediator
6| Outcome = Work satisfaction/effort
6| Outcome = Work satisfaction/effort
7| Outcome = Employee morale
Next steps: Going full-cycle

Phenomenon-driven research = “hard sell”
“After years of comparing notes with colleagues about the rejection letters we have received, it seems the most annoying passage—which I am sure editors have preprogrammed for handy one-click insertion—is this one: The reviewers all agree that your paper addresses an

important topic and is well argued; moreover, they find your empirical results convincing and interesting. At the same time, however, the reviewers believe the paper falls short in making a theoretical contribution. Therefore, I’m sorry… etc., etc., etc.”