Before we can determine what TM approach, activities, and/or practices might be applicable within any particular organization, it is necessary to first determine the meaning of talent and TM. Only then will it make sense to try to understand why TM is so important. Very few companies really understand what managing talent means, which also means that very few companies are currently benefitting from their investment in TM. Many companies employ Directors of Talent, Talent Acquisition Specialists, and Global Talent Managers, but if a company does not have a clear idea of what talent means to it or which members are considered talent, then it cannot engage in TM.
What or Who is Talent?
Researchers studying TM are still debating the exact meaning of “talent” (Nijs, Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, & Sels, 2014), and these discussions will probably continue within the scholarly literature for quite some time. In practice, it has been found that many organizations are unwilling to explicitly define what they consider talent does and does not include (Dries, 2013). It is often assumed that everyone has a similar understanding of talent, which leads to multiple different interpretations across the organization. This complacent attitude can cause ambiguity and, perhaps even worse, resources being wasted on ineffective TM programs. Thus, an essential first step for organizations is to clearly define what talent means, otherwise it will be impossible for them, when they design TM strategies and programs, to determine what will be managed. The meaning of talent in any organization will primarily depend on its competitive strategy and where it derives value; that should be the starting-point for its development of a shared and widely understood meaning.
How talent is defined and conceptualized will also be influenced by culture, as different regions interpret the meaning of the word talent differently. For example, in North America talent is generally referred to in relation to output in the form of performance, but in Europe definitions tend to refer to a combination of both input and output (i.e., effort, motivation, and ambition vs. achievement, performance, and results) (Thunnissen & Gallardo-Gallardo, 2017). Further, in Germanic European cultures (e.g., Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland) talent is considered something that is an innate gift that allows for excellence, while in Eastern European cultures (e.g., Albania, Greece, Poland, and Russia) it is more about being motivated and willing to work hard, and in Latin European cultures (e.g., France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) it relates to learning, creativity, and the ability to be innovative (Dries, Cotton, Bagdadli, & De Oliveira, 2014). In addition, Anglo culture clusters (e.g., Australia, the United Kingdom (UK), New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States) associate talent with high potential or high performance requiring exceptional knowledge. In these countries it is believed that talent can be considered as a resource for organizations, however, in Latin American cultures (e.g., Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico) talent reflects an individual’s “calling” and leads to career success (Dries et al., 2014, p. 23).
Academics have concentrated on, and unpacked, two primary approaches for defining talent, considering it as a “what” or “object”; and considering it as a “who” or “subject.” Some organizations focus on the specific knowledge and skills that are needed for their future competitive operation and will accordingly define talent as an object. This influences the value they place on such talent and whether they will seek to develop or buy it. Other organizations will consider their talent as individuals who possess, or have the potential to possess, crucial knowledge, skills, and characteristics. Sometimes these employees are referred to as A players or Stars and high-potentials (Huselid, Beatty, & Becker, 2005). Such organizations place value on the individuals, and TM policies and practices are focused on ensuring the development and retention of these specific people.
A third approach to defining talent, which draws from the literature that considers how TM is defined, focuses on key or pivotal positions within a company, which are sometimes referred to as A positions (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Huselid et al., 2005). This approach considers the job as the talent because of the disproportionate value it adds. The focus here is on providing all the necessary resources to the individual filling the talent position. The effectiveness of this approach depends the identification of the positions within the company that have strategic importance and where individual variability in performance can have the greatest impact on the organization’s overall performance.
The three approaches to defining talent are discussed individually below, but they are all valid ways for defining talent. In addition, how talent is defined should be organization-specific and is usually influenced by the industry and how its members compete. Determining methods to define and identify talent is a significant decision that will determine the type and design of the organization’s TM strategy. Organizations must know what their TM program is supposed to manage and achieve. Thus, talent should not be defined too broadly or vaguely – otherwise it is no longer considered special or ends up being merely used to explain differential performance. At the same time, talent should also not be defined so specifically that it risks missing important players.
Talent as a What (Object)
Originally, the word talent referred to a type of measurement or currency, but later, around the fifteenth century, it related to a special ability (Tansley, 2011). Thus, talent has been traditionally and widely considered as a what. Multiple terms have been utilized to refer to the “what,” including ability, capacity, capability, commitment, experience, knowledge, and skills (Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, & González-Cruz, 2013). Another important aspect of this form of talent is that it is identified through an individual performing better than others or exhibiting excellent performance.
Drawing from this, the object approach to talent defines it as specialized and in-demand knowledge, skills, and abilities possessed by an individual that result in excellent performance. For companies, however, it is important that this knowledge, and those skills and abilities, are contextualized and deployed so that they enhance the company’s overall performance and competitive position (Nijs et al., 2014). If an individual has a high level of musical skill, for example, they may be considered as having talent, but it is unlikely that this talent would influence the performance and competitive advantage of, say, a food and beverage company. When talent is considered as an object, the focus is on how to identify and develop the knowledge, skills, and abilities that individuals possess (Dries, 2013), making knowledge and competence management important practices that are central to the organization’s TM program (Dries, 2013).
Utilizing the object approach to defining talent necessitates first being clear about the future strategic direction of the company. Once this is determined, the knowledge and skills the workforce will need to implement this direction can be identified, and then, current employees of the company can be assessed to determine whether they already have these skills or if there is potential to develop them. When these knowledge and skills are absent, the company will need to develop targeted talent acquisition practices to recruit them. When the potential to develop the knowledge and skills is identified, however, the company should introduce programs that do so. When strategically valuable knowledge and skills are found within the company, programs should also be designed that aim to place these skills and the individuals who possess them in positions where they can have the greatest impact, and to retain them.
Another important aspect of the object approach is motivation. Although it is frequently underappreciated (Dries, 2013), motivation can be seen as one of the most influential variables affecting performance. It also influences the performance of individuals seen as having potential and is often considered important in combination with natural abilities as a precondition to achieving excellent performance (Nijs et al., 2014). In what is referred to as the AMO Framework, performance is considered to result from a combination of ability, motivation, and opportunity (Boxall & Purcell, 2008). When the AMO Framework is viewed from a TM perspective, both ability and opportunity can be assumed because in the case of the former, the individual is seen as having talent; and in the case of the latter, the TM program has placed them in a role where they can make a strategic contribution. Motivation, however, is variable and highly dependent on the individual (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). Thus, motivation can be considered as a, if not the, key variable that influences the relationship between a company’s strategic TM activities and its performance.
Motivation is also contained in a popular definition of talent that equates it as being made up of competence × commitment × contribution (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2012). In this formula, competence refers to the knowledge and abilities that are necessary to do a job both in the present and in the future, or as the “right skills, right place, right job, right time” (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2012, p. 60). Contribution refers to an individual finding a purpose or meaning in the job that they do – the personal needs of individuals being met through their contribution (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013). Commitment, on the other hand, can be considered as the individual’s motivation. A result of commitment is that individuals are engaged, willing to devote their time and energy, and work hard to achieve what is necessary (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2012). It is this internal drive that leads to individuals doing jobs that they like and find important, and in which they want to invest energy.
In the competence × commitment × contribution equation, each element must be present and cannot be compensated for by other elements – they are multiplicative, not additive. Therefore, no element within the equation can be replaced by having the other two; talent must be “capable, committed, and contributing” (p. 60). For example, an employee who has a high level of competence and the opportunity to contribute will not be considered talent unless motivated and willing to do the job. Motivation is difficult to measure, however, and most companies prefer to focus not on personal characteristics but on the measurable abilities and skills that individuals possess or have the capacity to develop (Dries, 2013; Meyers, van Woerkom, & Dries, 2013).
Knowledge, skills, and abilities, as talent, can be viewed as being either innate or something acquired (or at least acquirable) by the individual. These two characteristics can be placed on a nature versus nurture continuum, where the variance in talent is explained by one or the other. Each perspective has important implications for a company’s TM activities. The implication of innate talent is that only some people will have it and that it would be difficult or impossible to develop in others. But talent that is acquirable knowledge, skills, and abilities can potentially be developed in anyone.
Is Talent Innate? Historically, talent has been interpreted as a natural ability, and this is still apparent in its dictionary definition where it is described as an innate ability that does not need to be taught (Meyers et al., 2013). Outside of the dictionary definition, whether talent is considered innate can be affected by culture. For example, linguistically the meaning of talent in the German, French, Russian, and Danish languages tends to emphasize its innate nature (Tansley, 2011). Thus, talent is not something an individual needs to learn, but is rather something they are born with. In German, for example, talent “is seen as a ‘gift’ which enables someone to achieve a conspicuously exceptional or above-average performance in a particular field” (Tansley, 2011, p. 268).
Some scholars also argue that talent is innate to an individual (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013). Since talent is something that occurs naturally, it cannot be taught. This, however, does not mean that innate talent does not require development, but rather that “innate talent is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for reaching exceptional performance levels” (Meyers et al., 2013, p. 309). This perspective also implies that only a few individuals have talent. Both individuals with talent and those without it agree about the rarity of talent (Meyers et al., 2013). Clearly, then the percentage of people who can have rare gifts or talent is very low and a 10% threshold is typically recommended (Gagne, 2000; Swailes, Downs, & Orr, 2014), though some estimates suggest that as few as 1% have talent (Meyers et al., 2013). To identify talent, organizations typically utilize potential and performance, and estimates have ranged from 10% to 15% of employees being considered as high potentials (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2012) to 20% of the total workforce being described as top performers (Welch & Welch, 2005, as cited in Meyers et al., 2013).
Given that from the “talent as innate” perspective only some people have talent (most do not) and that it cannot be learned, talent is viewed as an inherently exclusive resource worth fighting for. This makes attracting and recruiting individuals with talent and finding ways of retaining it of the utmost importance (Meyers et al., 2013). Therefore, TM activities aimed at the assessment, identification, and selection of talent become the focus of organizations (Dries, 2013). In addition, from this perspective, organizations must find ways to enable talent (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013).
Is Talent Acquired? The “talent as acquired” perspective views knowledge, skills, and abilities as something that can be taught to, and learned by, individuals. This perspective also values experience and believes that, over time, individuals will learn lessons, which implies that people are capable of change (Dries, 2013). As with the “talent as innate” perspective, culture can influence whether talent is considered as acquired. In non-European cultures, for example, the meaning of the word “talent” is more commonly something that is learned or that can be acquired by an individual (Tansley, 2011). In particular, in Japanese there is no suggestion of talent being something innate: rather, it is considered to be something that requires many years of practice and hard work to attain perfection (Tansley, 2011).
Although, from the “talent as acquired” perspective, knowledge, skills, and abilities can be learned, innate factors are still generally assumed to affect performance. But what is important from this perspective is that an individual practices. In particular, deliberate practice is required that is directed toward performance, is adequately difficult, is accompanied by constructive feedback, and provides opportunities to repeat and correct any errors (Meyers et al., 2013). This is in line with learning theories in that acquiring skills and behaviors requires not just exposure, but also guidance, reproduction, and opportunities to make adjustments (Bandura, 1977). This perspective also emphasizes the importance of experience, and of having characteristics that can influence individuals to develop talent by seeking out learning experiences and feedback, and learning from their mistakes (Meyer et al., 2013).
Considering talent as abilities and skills that can be acquired implies that anyone can acquire them (Meyers et al., 2013), meaning that talent is not confined to only some individuals. Thus, more employees (potentially all of them) can be a part of the TM program of the organization. Contrary to the “talent as innate” perspective, where recruitment is of primary importance, in the “talent as acquired” perspective it is development activities that matter. Organizations adopting this perspective therefore focus on TM activities aimed at developing talent through education, training, learning, and experience (Dries, 2013).
Talent as a Who (Subject)
Talent as a person or individual was first observed in the nineteenth century, and referred to individuals who could demonstrate high levels of ability in mental or physical domains (Tansley, 2011). The subject approach to defining talent sees talent as individuals who possess specialized and in-demand knowledge, skills, and abilities. More recently, a subject approach to talent has also referred to the key individuals in the organization that it cannot effectively operate without (Valverde, Scullion, & Ryan, 2013). Identifying talented individuals relies heavily on their performance and how it impacts the organization’s performance. When talent is considered as a subject, the focus is on how to both identify and how to develop talented people; thus emphasizing the use of succession planning and career management as central practices in TM programs (Dries, 2013).
When a subject approach to talent is adopted, individuals are considered as talent because of the knowledge, skills, and abilities that they possess. But an additional element is important. When talented people are identified, additional individual characteristics such as loyalty, trustworthiness, and company involvement are often seen as especially important (Valverde et al., 2013). As well as this, talents tend to have accumulated various forms of capital: social capital (access to actual and potential resources through social network membership), cultural capital (understanding of and ability to act appropriately according to the organizational culture), political capital (having a reputation to get things done, effectivity building support, and acquire legitimacy), and human capital (producing economic value through the use of competencies, knowledge, skills, and social and personality characteristics to perform a job). They use these to provide and demonstrate value to the organization (Al Ariss, Cascio, & Paauwe, 2014). Research also suggests that a personal allegiance to the company, particularly in smaller companies where the allegiance may be to the owner or to one’s manager, can be utilized to classify someone as talent or as an important resource – making the relationship within the company another important criterion of talent (Valverde et al., 2013).
Talents are often identified based on their performance, but those who are seen as having high potential or the future possibility of excellent performance can also be considered as talent. Potenti...
