TALENT MANAGEMENT

Talent Management

Talent Management

Introduction

Discussions regarding the link between HR and strategy have long been evolving. From as far back as the industrial revolution, managing human resources was seen as the most costly and uncontrollable activity of the firm. The focus was on driving these costs down through person-job fit. Later, with the complexities of global competition, diversification, and total quality management, HR management was seen as something that needed to be consistent across the firm and aligned with the firm's strategy. More recently, with the increase of highly dispersed and diversified workforces, scholars have tried to understand how HR is coterminous and even formative to a firm's strategy. The implications of which are pushing scholars to venture into areas that neither HR nor strategy scholars have gone before.

The key objective of HR strategy is to guide the process by which firms develop and deploy people, relationships, and capabilities to enhance their competitiveness (Snell et al., 2001). Interestingly, this objective has not changed much over time, rather the context and environment in which firms are operating has changed. While our purpose here is not to discuss the evolution of markets and work environments, a discussion void of these considerations would be detrimental in understanding how HR strategy has and continues to evolve. Such an evolution, as we see it, has been beneficial to the overall productivity of firms as well as the overall value of the individual inside the firm.Talent Management

Theoretical underpinnings of talent management and its strategic importance

In the past, HR strategy has focused on requisite behaviors required by individuals to implement a given strategy (cf. Snell et al., 2001). For example, if a firm used a low-cost strategy, as defined by Porter (1980), their HR strategy would need to focus on efficient behaviors, which meant applying routinized job design, output-based incentives, and relatively low levels of training. If the firm strategy was differentiated, as we see more of today, an emphasis would need to be placed on creativity and innovation, which suggested attracting and retaining high-skilled employees, high employee participation, and extensive training.

However, even if the firm had a differentiated strategy, earlier strategy models did not incorporate HR or even view it as an important dimension. Adaptations were made as strategy scholars turned inward (using the resource-based view of the firm) to examine how internal resources could be valuable, immobile, and heterogeneous (Barney, 1991). As a result, HR strategy turned to the notion that some aspect of HR or a firm's KSAs could generate a sustained competitive advantage (e.g., Lado and Wilson, 1994; Wright et al., 1994; Coff, 1997; Boxall, 1998). Hence, the earlier separation of strategy implementation and formulation was reduced, as how people were managed and their human capital was seen as a vital source of value, immobility, and heterogeneity.

Underlying individual heterogeneity and the differentiated work environment, HR strategy started to focus on an architectural approach to managing talent. The architectural perspective takes into account that people have different knowledge, skills, and abilities and that these people need to ...