The International Journal of Human Resource

Management

ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

HR managers’ talent philosophies: prevalence and

relationships with perceived talent
management practices

Maria Christina Meyers, Marianne van Woerkom, Jaap Paauwe & Nicky Dries

To cite this article: Maria Christina Meyers, Marianne van Woerkom, Jaap Paauwe & Nicky
Dries (2019): HR managers’ talent philosophies: prevalence and relationships with perceived
talent management practices, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, DOI:
10.1080/09585192.2019.1579747

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1579747

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 08 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 241

View Crossmark

data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1579747

HR managers’ talent philosophies: prevalence and

relationships with perceived talent
management practices
Maria Christina Meyersa, Marianne van Woerkoma, Jaap Paauwea and
Nicky Driesb
a
Department of Human Resource Studies, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands;
b
Research Centre for Work and Organisation Studies, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

HR managers have different beliefs about the nature, Received 30 October 2017
value, and instrumentality of talent—referred to as ‘talent Revised 1 November 2018
philoso- phies’. In line with cognitive psychology, we Accepted 15 January 2019
reason that tal- ent philosophies are similar to mental
KEYWORDS
models that influence how HR managers interpret and
Strategy-as-practice; talent
use talent man- agement (TM) practices within their management; talent
organizations. In this article, we explore the prevalence of philosophy; talent
four different talent philosophies (exclusive/stable; identification; workforce
exclusive/developable; inclu- sive/stable; differentiation
inclusive/developable) in a sample of 321 HR managers.
We then explore how talent philosophies relate to
organizational context (i.e. size, ownership form, multi-
national orientation) as well as to HR managers’ percep-
tions of their organization’s TM practices. Cluster
analysis corroborated the presence of the four talent
philosophies in our dataset. All four talent philosophies
were repre- sented almost equally often in the overall
dataset. Organizational size was found to be related to
talent phi- losophies, such that HR managers who
worked in smaller organizations were more likely to hold
an inclusive talent philosophy. We also found support for
the relationship between talent philosophies and
perceptions of the exclu- siveness or inclusiveness of the
organization’s definition of talent, and its degree of
workforce differentiation. Contrary to expectations,
results did not support a link between tal- ent
philosophies and perceived talent identification criteria.

Introduction
Practitioners and academics agree that talent management (TM) is one
of the top priorities for HR professionals. However, they often disagree

CONTACT Maria Christina Meyers m.c.meyers@uvt.nl Department of Human Resource Studies,

Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2 PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built
upon in any way.
2 M. C. MEYERS ET
AL.

on the exact meaning of the construct (e.g. Dries, Cotton, Bagdadli, &
Oliveira, 2014; Lewis & Heckman, 2006). The different meanings
ascribed to TM can be attributed to differences in individual perspectives
on the nature, value, and instrumentality of talent (Gallardo-Gallardo,
Dries, & Gonz´alez-Cruz, 2013; Swailes, Downs, & Orr, 2014)—
referred to as ‘talent philosophies’ (Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014). Talent
philos- ophies have been proposed to vary along two dimensions. The first
dimension captures the assumed rareness or exclusiveness of talent, rang-
ing from the assumption that very few people are talented (exclusive) to
the assumption that everyone has ‘a talent’ (inclusive) (Iles, Chuai, &
Preece, 2010; Stahl et al., 2012). The second dimension captures the
assumed malleability of talent, with the assumptions that talent is either
a stable (innate) or a developable (acquired) construct at the two
extremes of the continuum (Howe, Davidson, & Sloboda, 1998). The
combination of these two dimensions leads to four distinct talent philos-
ophies that all have different implications for the nature of TM: the
exclusive/innate, exclusive/developable, inclusive/innate, and inclusive/
developable talent philosophy (Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014).
The first aim of the present article is to investigate these talent philos-
ophies empirically by exploring whether all four talent philosophies can
be found among HR managers of different organizations in different
countries. This aim is relevant because we cannot understand managerial
actions without understanding the individual manager’s mental models
(i.e. talent philosophies) (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Similarly, the strat-
egy-as-practice literature advocates that we need to look into the percep-
tions, discourses, and actions of individual managers (strategists) to fully
understand strategy (Whittington, 1996). Second, we investigate three
organizational context factors (i.e. size, ownership form, multinational
orientation) that may be related to managers’ talent philosophies. The
bulk of TM research has been conducted in US-based, large, private sec-
tor, multinational organizations (Gallardo-Gallardo & Thunnissen, 2016),
and it remains to be seen whether the dominant exclusive TM paradigm
that is found there can also be found in other types of organizations.
Third, we investigate whether an HR manager’s talent philosophy is
related to his or her perception of the organization’s TM approach, that
is, the organization’s definition of talent, degree of workforce differenti-
ation, and the degree to which the process of talent identification relies
on the assessment of stable, foundational criteria, such as intelligence, or
on the assessment of criteria that indicate an individual’s capacity to
grow such as adaptability (Silzer & Church, 2009).
Empirically testing the prevalence of talent philosophies is a necessary
step to gain a more thorough understanding of TM as a practical
phenomenon. To date, only few other studies have addressed practitioner
perspectives on talent and TM (e.g. Festing, Sch€afer, & Scullion, 2013;
Iles et al., 2010), and these studies have typically relied on qualitative
research designs and focused on organizational TM approaches within one
specific (cultural) context. A thorough understanding of TM in practice,
however, is direly needed to inform and direct the academic discourse on
the nature of TM. This discourse has repeatedly attested to different
conceptu- alizations of TM (e.g. Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Dries, 2013;
Lewis & Heckman, 2006), but now gravitates towards an exclusive TM
conceptual- ization following Collings and Mellahi’s (2009) seminal work
(Gallardo- Gallardo & Thunnissen, 2016). The present empirical
investigation into TM in practice will elucidate whether this exclusive
conceptualization of TM needs to be complemented by other scientific
perspectives. Ultimately, this will help TM scholars to develop more
refined and nuanced theories regarding antecedents and outcomes of TM.

Theoretical framework
Talent philosophies
Talent philosophies can be defined as the ‘fundamental assumptions and
beliefs about the nature, value, and instrumentality of talent that are held
by a firm’s key decision makers’ (Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014). In
other words, talent philosophies capture how senior (HR) managers
define talent, who they regard as talented, how valuable they consider
talented employees to be, and how they think talented employees should
be deployed to maximize performance. As such, talent philosophies
resemble mental models that have been extensively researched in the
area of cognitive psychology and cognitive science (e.g. Craik, 1943).
Mental models are cognitive representations of reality that influence
individual reasoning, decision-making, and behavior. In addition, they
serve as selective filters that determine an individual’s perceptions and
interpretations of events. In line with the idea that cognitive representa-
tions of reality differ per individual, Dries (2013) has pointed out that
talent philosophies tend to vary considerably between individual manag-
ers. Most notably, individuals disagree on whether talent is either rare or
common (exclusive versus inclusive), and on whether talent is deter-
mined by either nature or nurture (innate versus developable) (Howe
et al., 1998; Meyers, van Woerkom, & Dries, 2013; Stahl et al., 2012).
Based on these two areas of disagreement, Meyers and van Woerkom
(2014) developed a conceptual framework of four distinct talent philoso-
phies that vary along the two dimensions exclusive/inclusive and innate/
developable (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Talent philosophies according to Reprinted from Meyers and van Woerkom
(2014).

The exclusive/stable talent philosophy reflects the managerial belief that

only a small percentage (< 20%) of employees are talented and that
nature has provided these employees with special skills, capabilities, or
‘gifts’ (Tansley, 2011). As a consequence of this belief, HR managers div-
ide the workforce into a small group of employees possessing talent (i.e.
A players, star performers), and a much larger group of employees not
possessing it (i.e. B and C players) (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, &
Axelrod, 2001). Their basic assumption is that only the former group is
likely to make substantial contributions to organizational performance
(Becker, Huselid, & Beatty, 2009) triggering these managers to fight the
‘war for talent’ (Michaels et al., 2001). That is, they provide favorable
treatments to talented employees within the firm (e.g. bonuses, quick
advancement) to bind them to the organization, while also trying to
identify and headhunt talented employees working for competitors.
HR managers who hold an exclusive/developable talent philosophy
believe that talent is a rare and latent construct that can be wasted if it
remains undiscovered, and that will only result in excellent performance if
it is systematically developed (Gagn´e, 2004). Employees will be consid-
ered as talented if they show the potential or promise to perform in a
more challenging position at a higher hierarchical level in the future
(Altman, 1997; Silzer & Church, 2009). When belonging to the 10–15%
of employees who are commonly credited with this ‘high potential’,
employees are provided with a variety of developmental opportunities
and assignments for the purpose of unlocking their potential.
The inclusive/stable talent philosophy builds on positive psychology
and the inherent assumption that every individual possesses stable, posi-
tive traits referred to as ‘strengths’ (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
Positive psychologists suggest that individuals who are able to use their
strengths will not only be happy, but will also perform at their personal
best (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In
line with this reasoning, managers holding an inclusive/stable talent phil-
osophy appreciate the strong points of all employees, as diverse as they
may be, and aim to increase person-job fit so that employees work on
tasks that play to their strengths.
Individuals who hold an inclusive/developable talent philosophy assume
that all seemingly ‘ordinary’ people can become extraordinary performers
through dedicated training (Biswas-Diener, Kashdan, & Minhas, 2011;
Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Ro€mer, 1993). This philosophy reflects
a deep-seated belief in the human capability to change and grow (c.f.
growth mindset; Dweck, 2012), and is, in organizational practice, associ-
ated with a strong focus on the training and development of all employ-
ees. Managers holding this philosophy believe that leaders and other
incumbents of key organizational positions hold these positions because
of their accumulated experiences and lessons learned, and not because
they were ‘born’ to be there (Ericsson, Prietula, & Cokely, 2007).

Talent philosophies in relation to context

Up to now, empirical talent-management research has not paid much
attention to the role of the organizational context. However, it has been
argued that we cannot discuss definitions of talent (or, talent philoso-
phies) without discussing the context in which talent is situated (Nijs,
Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, & Sels, 2014; Thunnissen, Boselie, & Fruytier,
2013). The context may actually determine who and what we consider to
be a talent. This reasoning can also be underpinned by mental model
theory, proposing that our mental models are dynamic entities that can
be adjusted in response to exposure to different environments
(Hodgkinson & Johnson, 1994).
To date, most talent-management research has been conducted in
large, private-sector, and multinational corporations, and scholars often
apply the findings of this research to all other organizations without con-
templating whether this is feasible (Gallardo-Gallardo & Thunnissen,
2016; Thunnissen et al., 2013). We therefore explicitly consider the fol-
lowing three context factors: organizational size, ownership form (public/
private), and status as a multinational enterprise (MNE) in this research.
As existing research in large, private MNE’s often points to exclusive
TM as the leading paradigm (Gallardo-Gallardo & Thunnissen, 2016),
we reason that these context factors may be related to talent philoso-
phies, most notably to beliefs about the inclusiveness of talent. The
relationship between organizational size and inclusiveness may be
explained by the fact that customized HR solutions for every single
employee are required to do justice to the belief that all people possess
valuable talents. Per employee, one needs to identify his or her talents,
and find a suitable position that allows him or her to use them (Swailes
et al., 2014). While these customized solutions may be feasible in small
organizations, they are much more difficult to realize in large organiza-
tions. In line with this idea, Festing et al. (2013) found that CEO’s and
owners of small and medium-sized organizations (SMEs) were likely to
use an inclusive talent-management approach, contrary to the more
exclusive approaches in larger organizations. A similar reasoning applies
to the relationship between MNE’s and inclusiveness: Compared to
domestic organizations, MNEs are more inclined to implement standar-
dized HR approaches to realize economies of scale, which makes the use
of customized trajectories per employee unlikely. Finally, the relationship
between ownership form and inclusiveness can be explained in relation
to hard versus soft approaches to HRM. The exclusive understanding of
talent is often associated with a ‘hard’, instrumental HR approach
directed at performance increases, whereas the inclusive understanding is
more closely associated with a ‘soft’ approach directed at facilitating
employees in their talent development (Thunnissen, 2016). The exclusive
understanding of talent may therefore also be more closely aligned with
the competitive, and performance-oriented culture of private organiza-
tions, whereas the inclusive understanding may fit within public sector
organizations that protect the interests and rights of their employees.
In line with this reasoning, we formulate the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: HR managers who work in (a) relatively larger, (b) private-sector,
and/or (c) multinational organizations are more likely to identify with an
exclusive/developable or an exclusive/innate talent philosophy than HR managers
of relatively smaller, public-sector, and/or domestic organizations.

Hypothesis 2: HR managers who work in (a) smaller, (b) public-sector, and/or (c)
domestic organizations are more likely to identify with an inclusive/developable or
an inclusive/innate talent philosophy than HR managers of relatively larger, private-
sector, and/or multinational organizations.

Talent philosophies in relation to talent management practices

Understanding HR managers’ talent philosophies is relevant in light of
mental model theory (Craik, 1943) proposing that individuals’ cognitive
representations of the world influence how they perceive and act upon
things. Prior research has already applied mental model theory to the
strategic management domain. Managers’ mental models of their
competitive environment, for instance, have been found to determine
which strategic events they perceive and how they respond to them
(Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Hodgkinson & Johnson, 1994; Kaplan, 2011).
Building on this, we suggest that talent philosophies form an important
part of a manager’s mental model of the TM domain, which, in turn,
influences his or her perceptions of and strategic actions regarding TM.
The relevance of understanding the cognitions and actions of individual
managers has been highlighted by the strategy-as-practice literature
(Bjo€rkman, Ehrnrooth, M€akel€a, Smale, & Sumelius, 2014;
Whittington, 1996). This literature proposes that a firm’s strategy is not
only captured in official organizational policy documents, but first and
foremost in the actions of organizational strategists, that is, managers. The
strategic behavior of managers is illustrated by the tools or practices they
use. Even if managers use the official organizational practices (e.g. HR or
tal- ent-management practices), they will infuse them with their own mean-
ing depending on their beliefs and intentions (Jarzabkowski, 2004). In
other words, the meaning of a practice only manifests itself in the inten-
tion with which it is used. In this article, we build on the strategy-as-
practice literature to argue that talent philosophies that capture HR man-
agers’ inherent beliefs about the value and instrumentality of talent
(Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014), will influence how they perceive, inter-
pret, and/or use (organizational) TM practices, most notably the official
organizational definition of talent, the degree of workforce differenti-
ation, and used criteria for talent identification.

The relationship between talent philosophies and perceived

organizational definitions of talent
There are different ways to explain the relationship between the defin-
ition of talent held by an HR manager and the ‘official’ definition of tal-
ent used by the organization (s)he is working for. HR managers might
be hired due to an initial fit between their own beliefs about talent and
the organization’s beliefs (Bowen, Ledford, & Nathan, 1991), they might
adapt their own beliefs during the socialization process to reflect the
organizationally accepted beliefs (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998), or they might
gradually change the organizational beliefs about talent to match their
own talent philosophy. The latter process is most likely to be initiated by
highly senior HR managers who are part of the ‘dominant coalition’ and
who can actually influence an organization’s strategy (Hambrick &
Mason, 1984; Paauwe, 2004). Whatever the direction of influence may
be, when we ask HR managers about their organization’s talent defini-
tion–which is what HR and TM scholars commonly do when they want
to assess organizational HR/TM practices (Arthur & Boyles, 2007)–their
answer will always be permeated by their own sense making processes (i.e.
talent philosophies) (Bjo€rkman et al., 2014). This sense-making pro-
cess, in turn, is strongly influenced by the manager’s mental models serv-
ing as interpretative filters (Kaplan, 2011). We thus reason that HR- or
talent managers who believe that only few people are talented are prone
to indicate that the organization’s TM approaches are also directed at
those few employees only. Parallel to this, we assume that HR managers
who believe that all employees are talented will indicate that the organ-
izational talent definition reflects the inclusive nature of talent. We there-
fore formulate the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3: The exclusive/innate and the exclusive/developable talent
philosophies are positively, and the inclusive/innate and the inclusive/developable
talent philosophies negatively, related to a perceived, exclusive organizational
definition of talent.

The relationship between talent philosophies and perceived

workforce differentiation
The essence of workforce differentiation is investing disproportionately
in employees who are expected to generate disproportionate returns for
the company (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005). Workforce differentiation
will therefore only be a sensible strategic choice for HR managers who
perceive that employees differ greatly in their contribution to overall
company performance. This is the case for managers with an exclusive
talent philosophy who believe that talents, by definition, contribute much
more to a firm’s performance than average employees (Becker &
Huselid, 2006; Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Michaels et al., 2001). HR
managers with an inclusive talent philosophy, by contrast, believe that all
employees possess unique talents that allow them to make equally valu-
able contributions to an organization (Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014).
In line with the idea that our cognitive representations of the world
influence how we perceive and act on it (cf. Hodgkinson & Johnson,
1994), we reason that HR managers’ inclusive or exclusive talent philoso-
phies are related to the degree to which they report to perceive work-
force differentiation within their organization. This relationship may, on
one hand, be explained by a predominantly cognitive process during
which the managers’ mental models of talent serve as filters that deter-
mine which factual information regarding workforce differentiation is
perceived and stored. On the other hand, the relationship may be
explained by a behavioral process in which the managers’ cognitive
framework of talent inspires his or her behavior, and thus, the
implementation of workforce differentiation (Hambrick & Mason, 1984).
Consequently, we formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: The exclusive/innate and the exclusive/developable talent
philosophies are positively, and the inclusive/innate and the inclusive/developable
talent philosophies negatively, related to the perceived degree of workforce
differentiation within an organization.

The relationship between talent philosophies and talent

identification: Reliance on growth or foundational dimensions
Organizational representatives have reported to identify employee talent
based on a variety of criteria including leadership competencies, per-
formance records, potential, career drive or motivation, mobility, adapt-
ability or flexibility, specific experiences, learning abilities, personality,
and commitment to the company (Silzer & Church, 2009). These criteria
can be categorized into a foundational- and a growth dimension (Silzer
& Church, 2009). The foundational dimension captures stable traits that
can directly contribute to career success, such as cognitive abilities and
personality. The growth dimension, by contrast, encompasses relatively
stable criteria such as adaptability, learning orientation, and motivation
that contribute to career success indirectly by facilitating personal devel-
opment and growth.
There appear to be large inter-organizational differences in the policies
that are used for identifying organizational talents (Pepermans,
Vloeberghs, & Perkisas, 2003), and, arguably, in the importance attached
to either the growth- or the foundational dimension in this regard. We
reason that these differences are related to the talent philosophies of HR
managers who are often responsible for designing organization-wide
models for talent identification and -development (Ulrich, Younger,
Brockbank, & Ulrich, 2012). Again, as cognitive representations of real-
ity, talent philosophies infuse managerial perceptions and actions
(Hodgkinson & Johnson, 1994).
The exclusive/stable talent philosophy delineates talent as particular
(rare) personality traits or superior intelligence, criteria belonging to the
foundational dimension (Silzer & Church, 2009). The inclusive/stable tal-
ent philosophy, similarly, delineates talent as individual strengths defined
as stable character traits (also belonging to the foundational dimension;
Peterson & Seligman, 2004). When holding either of these two philoso-
phies, managers would therefore likely perceive that talent can be
assessed directly by measuring the respective stable (foundational) crite-
ria associated with talent.
 Conversely, HR managers holding the inclusive/developable or exclusive/
developable talent philosophy will likely perceive that talent is measured in
a different way. By definition, the term potential, that is used interchange-
ably with talent by holders of an exclusive/developable talent philosophy, is
a mere promise or something that has not yet materialized (Altman, 1997).
As a consequence, potential cannot be measured directly, but has to be
evaluated based on a number of criteria that indicate an individual’s ability
to grow in the future—that is, criteria belonging to the growth dimension
such as learning agility (Silzer & Church, 2009). Similarly, holders of an
inclusive/developable talent philosophy commonly interpret talent as a
manifestation of outstanding performance, which can be reached by all
individuals who invest sufficient time in training (Ericsson et al., 2007).
Training investments, in turn, are likely to depend upon an individual’s
motivation, willingness to make personal sacrifices (Ericsson et al., 2007),
learning orientation, drive, and openness to feedback, all of which appertain
to the growth dimension (Silzer & Church, 2009). Building on this, we pro-
pose that advocates of the exclusive/developable and inclusive/developable
talent philosophy are more likely to perceive that talent is identified based
on criteria of the growth- than of the foundational dimension, leading to
the following research hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: The exclusive/innate and the inclusive/innate talent philosophies are
negatively, and the inclusive/developable and the exclusive/developable talent
philosophies positively, related to the extent to which talent identification is based
on growth criteria as opposed to foundational criteria.

Method
Sample and procedure
Data were collected by means of an online survey which was sent to HR
directors or senior HR managers of companies operating in countries all
over the world. In order to increase the number of responses, respondents
were asked to forward the survey to other senior HR managers in their net-
work (i.e. snowball sampling) resulting in 321 complete responses. 62.3% of
the respondents were female and their mean age was 59.56 years. On aver-
age, respondents had 12.25 years of experience in an HR function.
Respondents had 44 different nationalities and worked in 49 different coun-
tries. Additional sample characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Measures
Talent philosophy: belief that talent is innate
The belief that talent is innate was measured using the item ‘To what
extent do you believe that talent is something people are born with?’ The
Table 1. Overview of sample characteristics (total N ¼ 321).
Multinational N % Company size (number of employees) N %
Yes 1 57 <100 5 1
8 .9 2 6.
6 2
No 1 42 100–500 4 1
3 .1 0 2.
5 5
501–1000 2 9.
9 0
Company ownership form 1001–5000 5 1
7 7.
8
Private 2 81 5001–10,000 2 9.
6 .6 9 0
2
Public 5 18 >10,000 1 3
9 .4 1 5.
4 5
Cultural background (GLOBE Sector
dimension)a
African 6 1 Manufacturing 4 1
. 8 5.
9 0
Anglo 9 29 Professional, scientific, technical 3 1
3 .0 services 7 1.
5
Confucian 4 1 Finance/insurance 3 1
. 5 0.
2 9
Eastern European 2 7 Educational services 3 9.
3 . 1 7
1
7
Germanic 8 26 Health care and social assistance 2 6.
6 .8 1 5
Latin American 1 5 Information 1 3.
8 . 2 7
6
Latin European 7 21 Retail trade 9 2.
0 .8 8
Nordic 1 3 Other 1 3
0 . 2 9.
1 8 9
Southern Asian 1 3
0 .
1
Note: a10 dimensions of culture that originated from the GLOBE [Global Leadership and Organizational
Behavior Effectiveness] study drawing on a sample of over 17,000 managers working in 62 different
societies (House et al., 2004).

answer scale reached from 0 to 100% (0–100%), and participants were

instructed to drag a bar in order to indicate their response to this ques-
tion. Descriptive analyses revealed that respondents used the whole range
of the scale (minimum value = 0; maximum value = 100;
M ¼ 55.60; SD ¼ 22.88).

Talent philosophy: belief that talent is inclusive

The belief that talent is inclusive (i.e. that everyone has talent) was meas-
ured using the item ‘What percentage of all the employees within your
company do you, personally, consider ‘talented’?’ The same answer scale
from 0 to 100% as for the variable ‘belief that talent is innate’ was used.
Again, descriptive analyses revealed that respondents used the whole
range of this scale (minimum value = 0; maximum value = 100;
M ¼ 51.65; SD ¼ 32.28).

Perception of one’s organization’s definition of talent

In order to measure whether the respondents perceived that the organi-
zations they worked for used an inclusive versus exclusive definition of
talent, a six-item scale was developed that reflected the descriptions of
inclusive and exclusive approaches to TM proposed by Iles, Chuai, and
Preece (2010). We asked respondents to indicate whether items such as
‘Everybody has a certain talent (reverse coded)’, ‘A talent is not some-
thing that everyone possesses, but just the lucky few’, and ‘A talent is a
special individual that can make a significant difference to a company’
reflected the official position of their company. Responses were given on
a 5-point Likert scale from one (1 ¼ Not at all the position of my com-
pany) to five (5 ¼ Completely the position of my company). Principal
component analysis (PCA) revealed that the five items loaded on one
factor with factor loadings of .36 or higher. Internal consistency of the
scale proved to be adequate (a = .67).

Perception of one’s organization’s degree of workforce differentiation

The perceived degree of workforce differentiation within the company was
measured by a self-developed 7-item scale. Respondents were asked to
rate the extent to which they agreed with statements such as ‘A high
potential is treated differently from other employees within the organiza-
tion’ and ‘A high potential gets more opportunities for training than other
employees within the organization’ on a 5-point Likert answer scale from
one (1 ¼ do not agree at all) to five (5 ¼ completely agree). PCA revealed
a clear one-factor structure with all seven items displaying factor loadings
of .59 or higher. The scale had a good internal consistency (a = .79).

Perception of one’s organization’s focus on growth versus foundational

crite- ria for talent identification
To measure this variable, nine pairs of identification criteria were pre-
sented to the respondents. Within each pair, one identification criterion
belonged to the growth-, and one to the foundational dimension. All iden-
tification criteria were based on the classification developed by Silzer and
Church (2009). Examples of pairs are ‘cognitive abilities’ (foundational
dimension) versus ‘learning orientation’ (growth dimension), and
‘sociability’ (foundational dimension) versus ‘adaptability’ (growth dimen-
sion). For each pair of identification criteria, respondents were asked to
select the one that they considered more important for talented employ-
ees. Per pair, we assigned the value 1 if respondents selected the criterion
of the growth dimension or the value 0 if they selected the criterion of
the foundational dimension. The scores of the nine pairs of variables were
then added to form the overall scale score ranging from 0 to 9.

Statistical analysis
We conducted cluster analysis in SPSS 19 on the two variables reflecting
the belief that talent is innate and the belief that talent is inclusive to
explore whether our data corroborated the existence of the four different
talent philosophies proposed in the literature (Meyers & van Woerkom,
2014). To this end, we followed the two-step approach recommended by
Burns and Burns (2008). In the first step, we used hierarchical cluster
analysis following Ward’s method (Ward, 1963) to determine the num-
ber of clusters represented in the data. Similarity between two data
points was measured by squared Euclidian distances, the appropriate
technique for data in which the elevation of scores (low versus high) is a
relevant grouping criterion (Clatworthy, Buick, Hankins, Weinman, &
Horne, 2005). The number of clusters was assessed based on the dendro-
gram and agglomeration schedule (Clatworthy et al., 2005). In a second
step, we used k-means clustering as an iterative partitioning method to
form the previously indicated number of clusters. The resultant clusters
were then compared on a range of control variables (e.g. gender, age,
experience in HR, cultural background) to examine their validity. In add-
ition, the clusters were compared in terms of company size, status as
multinational (yes/no), and ownership form (public/private) to investi-
gate Hypotheses 1a–c and 2a–c.
To test whether the proposed clusters were related to the perceptions
of the organization’s definition of talent, workforce differentiation, and
talent-identification focus (Hypotheses 3–5), sequential multiple regres-
sion analyses were conducted. Dummy variables were created represent-
ing the clusters.

Results
Results of the hierarchical cluster analysis following Ward’s method, in
which we clustered the data based on the two variables ‘belief that talent
is innate’ and ‘belief that talent is inclusive’ (these variables were uncor-
related; r = .06, p = ns), revealed that there were indeed four substantial
clusters in the data. Based on this information, we formed four clusters
through K-means clustering. As can be seen in Table 2, the four clusters
represent the four talent philosophies proposed. Cluster 1 (N¼ 80)
encompasses respondents who scored low on the belief that talent is
innate and high on the belief that talent is inclusive (inclusive/develop-
able philosophy). Cluster 2 (N¼ 84) comprises respondents who scored
high on the belief that talent is innate and low on the belief that talent is
inclusive (exclusive/innate philosophy). Cluster 3 (N¼ 71) represents
respondents with an inclusive/innate philosophy, indicated by high scores
on both variables. Finally, Cluster 4 (N ¼ 84) encompasses respondents
who scored low on the belief that talent is innate and low on the belief
that talent is inclusive (exclusive/developable philosophy). One-way anal-
yses of variance corroborated that the means of the variables belief that
talent is innate (F(3315) = 255.62, p < .001) and belief that talent is
inclusive (F(3315) = 387.89, p < .001) differed significantly between the
four clusters. Conform to expectations, Tukey post-hoc tests indicated
 Table 2. of
Characteristics clusters.
Cluster Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 T
1 ot
al
Talent philosophy Incl/de Excl/inn Incl/inn Excl/dev
v
N 8 84 71 84 3
0 1
9
Belief that talent 39.02 74.20 76.61 35.01 F (3315) ¼
p ¼ nsis innate (12.94) (10.44) (11.48) (14.30) 255.62,
p < .001
Belief that talent 81.85 26.85 81.65 22.32 F (3315) ¼
(14.94) (16.28) (15.06) (13.49) 287.89,
is inclusive p < .001
Individual
characteristics v2 (3319) ¼
Gender (%) v 1.18,
(9319) ¼ 49.48,
(GLOBE) (%) p < .001
Anglo 36.3 2 33.8 1
8 7
. .
6 9
Germanic 33.8 2 42.3 1
Organizational characteristics
Ownership form (%) v2 (3319) ¼ 1.98,
p ¼ ns
Private 82.5 85.7 77.5 79.8
Public 17.5 14.3 22.5 20.2
Company size (%) v2 (15,319) ¼ 28.15,
p < .05
< 100 employees 2 10.7 23.9 7.1
3
.
8
100–500 employees 1 19.0 7.0 13.1
0
.
0
501–1000 employees 5 10.7 11.3 9.5
.
0
1001–5000 employees 1 15.5 11.3 25.0
8
.
8
5001–10,000 8 14.3 7.0 6.0
employees .
8
>10,000 employees 3 29.8 39.4 39.3
Multinational (%) 3 v2 (3319) ¼
. 5.77,
8
p ¼ ns
Yes 5 61.9 46.5 64.3
7
.
5
No 4 38.1 53.5 35.7
2
.
5

that both innate clusters (Cluster 2 & 3) had higher mean scores on the
variable ‘belief that talent is innate’ than the two developable clusters
(Cluster 1 & 4), and that both inclusive clusters (Cluster 1 & 3) had
higher mean scores on the variable ‘belief that talent is inclusive’ than
the two exclusive clusters (Cluster 2 & 4).
We compared the four clusters on a number of variables reflecting
characteristics of the respondents (see Table 2). We started by comparing
the clusters on the control variables gender, age, and experience in HR.
Results indicated that the clusters differed neither in terms of gender nor
in terms of respondent experience in HR. We found a marginally signifi-
cant difference in terms of age (F(3216) = 2.18, p < .10), reflecting that
respondents who were categorized as belonging to Cluster 1 were, on
average, slightly older than respondents in Cluster 2. We also explored
whether talent philosophies were associated with the respondents’
cultural background. As it was not feasible to analyze all 62 nationalities
prevalent in our dataset separately, we bundled countries according to
the GLOBE dimensions (cf. House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta,
2004) and used these country dimensions as proxies for cultural back-
ground. In particular, we focused on respondents from the Anglo,
Germanic, and Latin European GLOBE dimension, as they were most
strongly represented in our dataset (cf. Table 1). Those three dimensions
were compared to all other cultural backgrounds combined (comprising
the African, Confucian, Eastern European, Latin American, Nordic, and
Southern Asian GLOBE dimension). A Pearson’s chi-square test revealed
a significant association between the talent philosophies and GLOBE
dimensions (v2(9319) = 49.48, p < .001). More specifically, we see that
HR managers from the Anglo and Germanic GLOBE dimension are
strongly represented in Cluster 1 (inclusive/developable); HR managers
from the Anglo and Latin European dimension are strongly represented
in Cluster 2 (exclusive/innate); HR managers from the Germanic (and
Anglo) GLOBE dimension are strongly represented in Cluster 3 (inclu-
sive/innate); and that HR managers from the other GLOBE dimensions
are strongly represented in Cluster 4 (exclusive/developable).
With regard to the organizational variables, we did not find a signifi-
cant association between the talent philosophies and respectively owner-
ship form (public versus private) and multinational (yes/no). This led us
to reject Hypothesis 1 b, 1c, 2 b, and 2c. We did, however, find a signifi-
cant association with company size (v2(15,319) = 28.15, p < .05) and a
closer inspection of results revealed that Cluster 1 (inclusive/developable)
and Cluster 3 (inclusive/innate) encompassed a higher proportion of
companies with less than 100 employees than the other two clusters. In
Cluster 2 (exclusive/innate), a slightly higher proportion of companies
with 5000 to 10,000 employees was found than in the other three clus-
ters, and Cluster 4 (exclusive/developable) included the highest propor-
tion of companies with 1000 to 5000 employees. These findings
corroborate Hypothesis 1a and 2a.
The correlations between all study variables are reported in Table 3.
Ta bl e 4 shows the results of three sequential multiple regression
analy-
ses which we conducted to predict the perceived exclusiveness of an
organization’s definition of TM, the degree of workforce differentiation,
and the focus of talent identification by membership of one of the four
talent philosophy clusters (with the inclusive/innate talent philosophy as
reference category). In all analyses, we controlled for gender, age, experi-
ence in HR, company size, ownership form, and status as multinational.1
While none of the control variables exerted a significant influence on
the perceived exclusiveness of the organization’s talent definition in the
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between study variables. 16
M S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1
D . . . . . . . . . . 1 2
2. Age 59.56 10.52 —.21mm – M.
mm . .
3. Experience in HR 13.25 8.61 —.13 .73 – C.
4. Ownership formc – – .07 .07 M
—.02 –
5. Multinationald – – .09 .09 .01 .33mm – EY
6. Company sizee 3.98 1.89 —.07 —.04 .10 —.07 —.60mm – ER
7. DUM incl/devf – – .03 .15m .10 —.02 .01 —.06 – S
ET
8. DUM excl/devf – – —.04 —.02 —.01 .03 —.08 .09 —.35mm –
AL
9. DUM excl/innatef – – .04 —.13m —.04 —.07 —.05 —.02 —.35mm —.36mm –
10. Exclusiveness of organization’s talent definition 2.58 .68 .03 .15m .09 .01 —.09 .10 —.12m .21mm .19mm .67
11. Workforce differentiation 3.38 .66 .00 —.05 —.16 —.05 —.26mm .23mm —.07 .12m .14m .31mm .79
m
12. Talent identification (growth versus foundational) 5.04 1.47 —.01 —.02 .06 —.01 —.00 .12m .04 —.05 .00 —.06 —.06 –
Note: aGender (1¼male; 2 female).
b
higher values indicate a fixed mindset.
c
Ownership form (1 ¼private company; 2 public company).
d
Multinational (1¼yes; 2 no).
e
Company size (treated as a continuous variable with higher values indicating bigger companies).
f
Dummies for talent philosophies¼ (1 belonging to this cluster; 0 not belonging to this cluster).
mp < .05.mm p < .01.
 Table 4. Results of sequential multiple regression analyses predicting the organization’s definition of talent, workforce differentiation, and the
identifica- tion of talent based on the growth versus foundational dimension.
Focus on growth versus foundational
Exclusiveness of organization’s talent definition Degree of workforce identification criteria
differentiation
B(SE) b B(SE) B B(SE) b B(SE) b B(SE) b B(SE) b
Step 1
1. Gendera . .01 . .00 . .04 . .04 —.06(.22) —.08(. —
2. Age
—.01(.01) 01(.10) —.15 01(.09)
—.01(.01) —.08 05(.09) —.07 05(.09)
—.00(.01) —.03 —.02(.02) —.11 22)
—.02(.02) .0
—.12
3. Experience in HR .00(.01) .02 .00(.01) —.04 .02(.01) .21m .01(.01) .18 .02(.02) .12 .02(.02) .12
4. Ownership formb .08(.13) .04 .07(.12) .04 .07(.12) .04 .07(.12) .04 .09(.29) .02 .08(.29) .02 TH
— — —
5. Multinationalc —.09(.13) —.06 —.01(.12) —.01 —.30(.12) —.23m —.26(.12) —.19m E
—.36(.28) .12 .36(.29) .12
6. Company sized .02(.03) .06 .03(.03) .07 .03(.03) .08 .03(.03) .09 .13(.07) .17 .14(.07) .18 IN
Step 2 TE
7. DUM incl/deve .25(.13) .16 .13(.13) .09 .14(.31) .04 RN
8. DUM excl/deve .60(.13) .39mm .33(.13) .22m —.15(.30) —.05 AT
9. DUM excl/innatee .58(.13) .37mm .36(.13) .24mm —.01(.31) .00 IO
R2 ¼.03 DR2 =.12mm R2 ¼.10 DR2 ¼.05m R2 ¼.03 DR2 ¼.01 NA
L
Note: Gender (1¼male; 2 female).
a
JO
b
Ownership form (1 ¼private company; 2 public company). UR
c
Multinational (1¼yes; 2 no). NA
d
Company size (treated as a continuous variable with higher values indicating bigger companies). L
e
Dummies for talent philosophies¼ (1 belonging to this cluster; 0 not belonging to this cluster). OF
mp < .05; mmp < .01.
HU
MA
N
RE
SO
UR
CE
MA
NA
GE
ME
NT

17
1 M. C. MEYERS ET
AL.

first regression analysis, adding the three dummy variables led to a sig-
nificant increase in R square (DR2 = .12, p < .001). Both the exclusive/
developable (b = .38, p < .001) and the exclusive/innate cluster (b = .37,
p < .001) were significant predictors of the degree to which an organiza-
tion’s talent definition is perceived as exclusive, thereby supporting
Hypothesis 3.
In the second regression analysis, the control variables experience in
HR and multinational were found to be significant predictors of per-
ceived workforce differentiation. In particular, results reveal that higher
degrees of workforce differentiation were reported by HR managers who
were more experienced (b = .21, p < .05), and who worked for inter-
nationally operating companies (b = ˗.23, p < .05). Adding the dummy
variables in the second step of the regression analysis led to a significant
increase in explained variance (DR2 = .05, p < .05). Supporting
Hypothesis 4, the exclusive/developable (b = .21, p < .05) as well as the
exclusive/innate cluster (b = .24, p < .01) were significantly related to
higher degrees of workforce differentiation.
Finally, the third regression analysis revealed that none of the control
variables had a significant influence on the perceived focus of talent
identification (growth versus foundational dimension). Adding the three
talent philosophy dummy variables in the second model did not lead to
a significant increase in explained variance (DR2 = .01, ns), rejecting
Hypothesis 5.

Discussion
The present article aimed to shed light on the talent philosophies held
by HR managers, as well as on the relationships between talent philoso-
phies, context, and perceptions of TM practices. Analyses indicated that
HR managers’ ideas about talent differed markedly (Dries et al., 2014),
reflecting the prevailing ambiguity about the construct talent within the
scientific literature (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013). In line with the
framework of talent philosophies proposed by Meyers and Van
Woerkom (2014), we found that combinations of beliefs about the
innateness and exclusiveness of talent can be clustered into four different
talent philosophies. More specifically, we found that HR managers either
believe that talent is rare and innate (exclusive/stable philosophy), that
talent is rare but can be developed (exclusive/developable philosophy),
that talent is common and innate (inclusive/stable philosophy), or that
talent is common and can be developed (inclusive/develop-
able philosophy).
 Most notably, we found that all four talent philosophies occurred with
almost equal prevalence in our sample. This is surprising because one
might intuitively assume that the two dimensions we used to construct
the four philosophies are interrelated in such a way that a stronger belief
in the possibility to develop talent would lead to a more inclusive under-
standing of the construct, and that, vice versa, a stronger belief in innate
talent would be related to a more exclusive understanding. Furthermore,
given that the bulk of the academic literature conceptualizes TM in an
exclusive way (Gallardo-Gallardo & Thunnissen, 2016), one would
assume that the exclusive understanding of talent is also predominant in
practice. However, our findings show that the inclusive understanding is
just as common, indicating that HR managers may hold distinctly differ-
ent mental models of talent. This opens up an interesting area for future
research because strategy scholars have long suggested that managers’
mental models of aspects such as the organization’s competitive environ-
ment influence their strategic actions (Hambrick & Mason, 1984;
Hodgkinson & Johnson, 1994). Strategic actions of individual key deci-
sion makers, in turn, are important to understand the overall organiza-
tional strategy (Jarzabkowski, 2004; Whittington, 1996), and ultimately
organizational performance.
While the cross-sectional nature of this research does not allow us to
draw conclusions about causal antecedents or consequences of talent phi-
losophies, it does allow us to map a network of related factors. In line
with the idea that mental models are dynamic and context-dependent
(Hodgkinson & Johnson, 1994), we found some evidence for significant
relations between the four talent philosophies and contextual factors.
First, although not explicitly hypothesized, we found evidence for cul-
tural differences in the four talent philosophies. HR managers from
Anglo countries (including the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia)
showed an almost equal representation in three out of four talent philos-
ophies, but were under-represented in terms of the exclusive/developable
philosophy. This underrepresentation in comparison to the exclusive/
innate talent philosophy may be explained by the idea that these manag-
ers are mainly exposed to the US-centric literature on the war for talent
(Michaels et al., 2001), advocating that organizations need to identify,
attract, and bind the few employees with innate talent. However, we can-
not clearly explain why managers from this GLOBE dimension are also
very likely to hold one of the two inclusive talent philosophies. HR man-
agers from the Germanic GLOBE dimension (including Austria,
Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland) were most strongly repre-
sented in the two inclusive talent philosophy clusters. This is in line with
research findings by Festing et al. (2013), which were explained by the
idea that the inclusive talent philosophy is rooted in the German educa-
tional system that emphasizes the equal development of all. In contrast to
this, HR managers who originate in Latin European countries (e.g. France,
Italy, Portugal, and Spain) were most likely to hold one of the two exclu-
sive talent philosophies, which is in line with findings by Valverde,
Scullion, and Ryan (2013). The authors explained their findings by the
Latin European tradition of closely valuing in-group or family- members,
while showing little concern for others. In companies, talented employees
will be seen as an elite group of in-group members that merit special
treatment, while other employees are disregarded (Valverde et al., 2013).
Second, we found that HR managers of relatively smaller organizations
were more likely to hold an inclusive talent philosophy, whereas HR man-
agers of larger organizations were more likely to hold an exclusive talent
philosophy. This may be related to their respective exposure to inclusive
TM in smaller organizations (Festing et al., 2013) or exclusive TM in
larger organizations (Krishnan & Scullion, 2017). Such exposure can affect
mental models which are shaped in constant interactions between individ-
uals and the environments they are in (Hodgkinson & Johnson, 1994).
However, our findings suggested that neither status as multinational nor
ownership form (public versus private) are linked to any of the talent phi-
losophies. Insignificant findings regarding status as MNC may be
explained by its conceptual overlap with organizational size. Not finding
differences in the talent philosophies of managers who work in public- as
opposed to private sector organizations may indicate that the assumptions
about the public sector as more ‘soft’ are obsolete. In line with this,
Thunnissen’s (2016) qualitative work in academia highlights that an exclu-
sive, very competitive talent-management system is used for at least some
employees, that is, academics who occupy an assistant professor position
or higher. It may be that organizations, independent of the sector, use
exclusive TM approaches for employees who are of high strategic value.
This is also in line with the finding that many organizations try to imple-
ment hybrid TM approaches, with exclusive TM for the upper echelons,
and inclusive TM for the rest (Stahl et al., 2012)
In line with the idea that mental models determine individual percep-
tions, decisions, and behavior (Craik, 1943), we furthermore found signifi-
cant associations between managers’ talent philosophies and their
perceptions of organizational TM. HR managers who held either an exclu-
sive/developable or an exclusive/innate talent philosophy were more likely
to indicate that their organization applied an exclusive definition of talent
and made use of workforce differentiation. These findings might be
explained by either the influence of an HR manager on HR-related poli-
cies and practices (Paauwe, 2004), the influence of organizational context
factors on values, norms, and, beliefs of the managers (Meglino & Ravlin,
1998), or on a perceptual bias on the side of HR managers causing them
to interpret the actual organizational practice in line with their own values
and ideas (Starbuck & Milliken, 1988). Both the mental models- and strat-
egy-as-practice literature actually combine these different explanations
assuming that managers influence organizational praxis through who they
are, how they act, and how they interpret and use practices, while the
wider social and organizational context simultaneously exerts an influence
on them (Jarzabkowski, Balogun, & Seidl, 2007). Whatever the exact direc-
tion of influence may be, the strategy-as-practice school advocates that we
need to study the perceptions and actions of HR managers to fully under-
stand any HR-related strategy at the organizational level (Bjo€rkman et
al., 2014). In this regard, talent philosophies may be studied as mental
models that provide HR managers with a cognitive frame of reference that
guides their talent-related perceptions and actions.
Contrary to what we expected, we did not find relationships between
the exclusive/developable and inclusive/developable clusters and the
degree to which HR managers perceived growth as opposed to founda-
tional criteria to be important for talent identification. On one hand, this
finding might be related to the measurement of the latter variable by
means of a forced choice scale. Such scales rely on the assumption that a
pair of variables encompasses two opposites and that both choices are
equally socially desirable, but it is difficult to ascertain whether these
assumptions have been met (Ray, 1990). This, highlights the necessity to
develop valid and reliable scales to measure core constructs in the TM
domain. On the other hand, there might be less variation than assumed
in the actual talent identification procedures that organizations use. Prior
research has indicated that past performance is the most important cri-
terion for talent identification in many organizations (Dries &
Pepermans, 2007). Given that identifying different forms of talent is a
complex endeavor (cf. Silzer & Church, 2009), HR managers may rely on
performance as a generic, easily accessible criterion instead of trying to
align their talent identification procedure with their view on talent.

Limitations and future research

The research at hand is subject to four major limitations. First, we pre-
sent results of cross-sectional research which does not allow drawing
conclusions about cause and effect relationships. The question whether
managerial beliefs influence perceptions of organizational practices or
whether perceptions of organizational practices influence managerial
beliefs cannot be conclusively answered by the results of this study.
Second, the use of single-item measures to determine talent philosophies
can be criticized. However, prior research has shown that single-item
measures often represent an economical, valid, and reliable alternative to
multiple-item measures (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001). Third,
the results of our study rely on single-source data. While it is appropriate
to measure talent philosophies at the level of the individual manager,
other sources might be used to measure organizational TM practices in
future research. Ideally, both the perceptions of employees and other
senior managers would have been measured in the present study.
However, it has been recommended, and established as common practice
to use (senior) HR managers as key informants in HRM research, most
notably, when assessing HR practices (cf. Arthur & Boyles, 2007). In gen-
eral, we reason that the same recommendation holds for TM research.
However, to move TM research forward, we need to open up an aca-
demic discussion on the valid and reliable measurement of key TM con-
structs (intended, actual, and perceived) at different levels of analysis
(organizational, team, and individual-level). Fourth, while we did target
HR directors or the most senior HR manager in an organization, the use
of snowball sampling limits the control we had over the sampling pro-
cedure and we do not know for sure how much power our respondents
had and whether they can be considered real strategists (Jarzabkowski
et al., 2007). Based on the respondents’ average age of 59.56 years and an
average experience in HR of 12.25 years, we can, however, assume that
most of our respondents were indeed senior HR managers. Nonetheless,
it remains to be questioned whether even senior HR managers hold
‘absolute’ power over organizational approaches to TM. It is likely that
other senior managers and/or the board of directors exert an influence
on intended HR practices, while line managers influence the actual
implementation of practices on the shop-floor. Moreover, the power of
an HR manager will also depend on whether he or she is located at the
headquarters or at a subsidiary of the organization. To gain a complete
understanding of an organization’s approach to TM, we would therefore
have to question or observe each of these TM ‘strategists’ and we would
need to gain additional information on their strategic position within the
organization.
Future research should address the limitations mentioned above by
making use of longitudinal designs in which both HR manager- and
objective organizational data are collected over a period of at least one
but preferably several years. Moreover, future research might aim to gain
insights into the links between talent philosophies and employee out-
comes such as perceptions of HR practices, employee well-being, and
engagement. Meyers and van Woerkom (2014) have, for instance,
proposed that inclusive philosophies affect employees in a more favorable
way than exclusive philosophies, but this hypothesis still remains to be
investigated by means of a multi-level study. This multi-level study
would ideally include objectively measured organizational performance
to explore whether different talent philosophies affect organizational out-
comes differently. However, conducting such a study is easier said than
done. Given that many variables have an effect on organizational per-
formance, scholars would need to ensure to include, relevant proximal
outcomes in this study–instead of only distal outcomes such as financial
performance. Examples are staff turnover, career progress, retention, and
the fulfilment of individual and/or team assignments. Another valuable
addition to future research might be to collect data on the talent philoso-
phies of line managers instead of HR managers because literature on
SHRM highlights that the responsibility for managing the workforce gets
more and more devolved from the HR department to the line (Becker &
Huselid, 2006).

Theoretical and practical implications

In response to theoretical papers in which the persisting ambiguity of
the constructs talent and TM was highlighted (Dries, 2013; Gallardo-
Gallardo et al., 2013; Tansley, 2011), this article aimed to shed light on
the nature of these ambiguities in organizational practice. We found that
HR managers from various organizations had divergent ideas about the
degree to which talent is innate and the degree to which talent is exclu-
sive. This indicates that HR managers hold different mental models of
talent. Different mental models, in turn, indicate that different actual
models of TM exist because mental models affect the strategic actions of
individual managers (Kaplan, 2011). In more detail, the strategy-as-prac-
tice literature (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007), suggests that managers will
infuse HR practices with meaning depending on their own beliefs and
ideas (in interaction with situational factors). In other words, the beliefs
and ideas of HR managers influence which practices they will use and
how they will use them (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). Overall, this implies
that TM theorizing can be refined by paying more attention to cognitive
processes among managers. This is particularly relevant because actions
of HR managers have a trickle-down effect to middle- and line manage-
ment, which ultimately influences how employees perceive and respond
to managerial actions (Paauwe, 2004).
In conclusion, our results regarding the diversity of talent philosophies
call for an explicit consideration of different forms of TM in future
research. It appears indispensable to complement the predominant,
exclusive TM literature with different (more inclusive) perspectives to do
justice to TM as a practical phenomenon. In line with Boudreau (2013),
we therefore reason that the diversity in the literature as well as in prac-
tice should be embraced as a resource that can help to increase our
understanding of TM and the processes and outcomes it triggers.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interests was reported by the authors.

Note
1. We also ran all regression analyses with three dummy variables representing the
three biggest GLOBE dimensions as additional control variables (Anglo, Germanic,
and Latin European; with all other GLOBE dimensions combined as reference
category). As the results remained largely unchanged when adding these dummies,
and as none of the dummy variables displayed a significant relationship with either
outcome variable, we report the results without controlling for the respondents’
cultural background.

References
Altman, Y. (1997). The high-potential fast-flying achiever: Themes from the English lan-
guage literature 1976-1995. Career Development International, 2(7), 324–330. doi:
10.1108/13620439710187954
Arthur, J. B., & Boyles, T. (2007). Validating the human resource system structure: A
levels-based strategic HRM approach. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1),
77–92. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.02.001
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic human resources management: Where
do we go from here? Journal of Management, 32(6), 898–925. doi:10.1177/
0149206306293668
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Beatty, R. W. (2009). The differentiated workforce:
Transforming talent into strategic impact. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T. B., & Minhas, G. (2011). A dynamic approach to psycho-
logical strength development and intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
6(2), 106–118. doi:10.1080/17439760.2010.545429
Bjo€rkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., M€akel€a, K., Smale, A., & Sumelius, J. (2014). From
HRM
practices to the practice of HRM: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Organizational
Effectiveness: People and Performance, 1(2), 122–140. doi:10.1108/JOEPP-02-2014-0008
Boudreau, J. W. (2013). Appreciating and ‘retooling’ diversity in talent management
conceptual models: A commentary on “The psychology of talent management: A review
and research agenda”. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), 286–289.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.08.001
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustain-
ability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human
Resource Management, 44(2), 129–136. doi:10.1002/hrm.20054
Bowen, D. E., Ledford, G. E., & Nathan, B. R. (1991). Hiring for the organization, not
the job. Academy of Management Perspectives, 5(4), 35–51. doi:10.5465/
ame.1991.4274747
Burns, R. P., & Burns, R. (2008). Business research methods and statistics using SPSS.
London, UK: SAGE.
Clatworthy, J., Buick, D., Hankins, M., Weinman, J., & Horne, R. (2005). The use and
reporting of cluster analysis in health psychology: A review. British Journal of Health
Psychology, 10(3), 329–358. doi:10.1348/135910705X25697
Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and
research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304–313. doi:10.1016/
j.hrmr.2009.04.001
Craik, K. J. W. (1943). The nature of explanation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Dries, N. (2013). The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda.
Human Resource Management Review, 23, 272–285.
Dries, N., Cotton, R., Bagdadli, S., & Oliveira, M. (2014). HR directors’ understanding of
‘talent’: A cross-cultural study. In A. Al Ariss (Ed.), Global talent management:
Challenges, strategies, and opportunities. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2007). ’’Real’ high-potential careers: An empirical study into
the perspectives of organisations and high potentials. Personnel Review, 37(1), 85–108.
doi:10.1108/00483480810839987
Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets and human nature: Promoting change in the Middle
East, the schoolyard, the racial divide, and willpower. The American Psychologist,
67(8), 614–622. doi:10.1037/a0029783
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-R€omer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate
prac- tice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–
406. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
Ericsson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., & Cokely, E. T. (2007). The making of an expert.
Harvard Business Review, 85(7–8), 114–121.
Festing, M., Sch€afer, L., & Scullion, H. (2013). Talent management in medium-sized
German companies: An explorative study and agenda for future research. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(9), 1872–1893. doi:10.1080/
09585192.2013.777538
Gagn´e, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental
theory.
High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119–147. doi:10.1080/1359813042000314682
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & Gonz´alez-Cruz, T. F. (2013). What is the meaning of
‘talent’ in the world of work? Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), 290–300.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.002
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., & Thunnissen, M. (2016). Standing on the shoulders of giants? A
critical review of empirical talent management research. Employee Relations, 38(1), 31–
56. doi:10.1108/ER-10-2015-0194
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection
of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. doi:10.2307/258434
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Johnson, G. (1994). Exploring mental models of competitive
strategists: The case for a processual approach. Journal of Management Studies, 31(4),
525–552. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00629.x
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J., & Sloboda, J. (1998). Innate talents: Reality or myth? The
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(3), 399–407.
Iles, P., Chuai, X., & Preece, D. (2010). Talent management and HRM in multinational
companies in Beijing: Definitions, differences and drivers. Journal of World Business,
45(2), 179–189. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.014
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-
use. Organization Studies, 25(4), 529–560. doi:10.1177/0170840604040675
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., & Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: The challenges of a prac-
tice perspective. Human Relations, 60(1), 5–27. doi:10.1177/0018726707075703
Kaplan, S. (2011). Research in cognition and strategy: Reflections on two decades of pro-
gress and a look to the future. Journal of Management Studies, 48(3), 665–695. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00983.x
Krishnan, T. N., & Scullion, H. (2017). Talent management and dynamic view of talent
in small and medium enterprises. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 431–
441. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.10.003
Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human
Resource Management Review, 16(2), 139–154. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.001
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts,
controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24(3), 351–389. doi:10.1177/
014920639802400304
Meyers, M. C., & van Woerkom, M. (2014). The influence of underlying philosophies
on talent management: Theory, implications for practice, and research agenda.
Journal of World Business, 49(2), 192–203. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.003
Meyers, M. C., van Woerkom, M., & Dries, N. (2013). Talent — Innate or acquired?
Theoretical considerations and their implications for talent management. Human
Resource Management Review, 23(4), 305–321. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.003
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School.
Nijs, S., Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & Sels, L. (2014). A multidisciplinary review
into the definition, operationalization, and measurement of talent. Journal of World
Business, 49(2), 180–191. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002
Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and performance: Achieving long-term viability. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Pepermans, R., Vloeberghs, D., & Perkisas, B. (2003). High potential identification poli-
cies: An empirical study among Belgian companies. Journal of Management
Development, 22(8), 660–678.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook
and classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ray, J. J. (1990). Acquiescence and problems with forced-choice scales. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 130(3), 397–399. doi:10.1080/00224545.1990.9924595
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-
esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem
scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 151–161. doi:10.1177/
0146167201272002
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5
Silzer, R., & Church, A. H. (2009). The pearls and perils of identifying potential.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(04), 377–412. doi:10.1111/j.1754-
9434.2009.01163.x
Stahl, G. K., Bjo€rkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S. S., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P., et al.
(2012). Six principles of effective global talent management. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 53(2), 25–32.
Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice
and how they make sense. In D. C. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts
and methods for studying top managers. US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Swailes, S., Downs, Y., & Orr, K. (2014). Conceptualising inclusive talent management:
Potential, possibilities and practicalities. Human Resource Development International,
17(5), 529–544. doi:10.1080/13678868.2014.954188
Tansley, C. (2011). What do we mean by the term “talent” in talent management?
Industrial and Commercial Training, 43(5), 266–274. doi:10.1108/00197851111145853
Thunnissen, M. (2 01 6) . Talent management: For what, how and how well? An
empirical
exploration of talent management in practice. Employee Relations, 38(1), 57–72.
[[Mismatch] doi:10.1108/ER-08-2015-0159]
Thunnissen, M., Boselie, P., & Fruytier, B. (2013). Talent management and the relevance
of context: Towards a pluralistic approach. Human Resource Management Review,
23(4), 326–336. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.004]
Ulrich, D., Younger, J., Brockbank, W., & Ulrich, M. (2012). HR talent and the new HR
competencies. Strategic HR Review, 11(4), 217–222. doi:10.1108/14754391211234940
Valverde, M., Scullion, H., & Ryan, G. (2013). Talent management in Spanish medium-
sized organisations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(9),
1832–1852. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.777545
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of
the American Statistical Association, 58(301), 236–244. doi:10.1080/
01621459.1963.10500845
Whittington, R. (1996). Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning, 29(5), 731–735. doi:
10.1016/0024-6301(96)00068-4