Employee reactions to talent management:Assumptions versus evidence

Two assumptions about employee reactions are currently driving debates around talent management (TM): First, that TM leads to positive outcomes in employees identified as talents; and second, that TM creates differences between talents and employees not identified as talents. This review critically evaluates these assumptions by contrasting theoretical arguments from the non-empirical literature on employee reactions to TM with the empirical evidence available. Our analysis partly supports both assumptions. Although positive reactions to TM were indeed found in terms of affective, cognitive, and behavioral employee outcomes, our review also found evidence for negative affective reactions in employees identified as talents. Significant differences between talents and non-talents were found for behavioral reactions, but not for affective and cognitive reactions; for the latter types of reactions, our review found mixed effects. We summarize these findings in an integrative framework on the basis of social exchange theory, which our review shows is the dominant theory underlying assumptions about employee reactions to TM. We propose that 3 elements are missing in our current understanding, which can help explain our review findings: uncertainty, power, and social identity. We conclude with recommendations for TM research and practice

Feedback-seeking behavior: A person-environment fit perspective

status: accepte

Employee reactions to talent management: Assumptions versus evidence

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Two assumptions about employee reactions are currently driving debates around talent management (TM): First, that TM leads to positive outcomes in employees identified as talents; and second, that TM creates differences between talents and employees not identified as talents. This review critically evaluates these assumptions by contrasting theoretical arguments from the non-empirical literature on employee reactions to TM with the empirical evidence available. Our analysis partly supports both assumptions. Although positive reactions to TM were indeed found in terms of affective, cognitive, and behavioral employee outcomes, our review also found evidence for negative affective reactions in employees identified as talents. Significant differences between talents and non-talents were found for behavioral reactions, but not for affective and cognitive reactions; for the latter types of reactions, our review found mixed effects. We summarize these findings in an integrative framework on the basis of social exchange theory, which our review shows is the dominant theory underlying assumptions about employee reactions to TM. We propose that 3 elements are missing in our current understanding, which can help explain our review findings: uncertainty, power, and social identity. We conclude with recommendations for TM research and practice.status: publishe

Werknemersreacties op (exclusief) talentmanagement

status: publishe

Prestatiemanagement 2.0? Naar een beter begrip van mensgedreven prestatiemanagement in de praktijk

peer reviewedAs an HR tool, performance management aims to increase employee commitment and motivation and seeks to ascertain that employees contribute to the strategic goals of the organization. In practice, however, these outcomes are not always achieved, and frustration is growing among managers and employees with the slow, cumbersome and subjective nature of these traditional performance management systems. In response, an increasing number of organizations are abandoning this traditional, mainstream approach to performance management and have begun to experiment with a more flexible, employee-driven approach instead, in which the needs of the employee take centre stage. The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of this alternative approach to performance management by exploring (1) what the defining features of this alternative approach to performance management are and (2) how organizations transition from one system to the other. As part of this transition, the focus of performance management shifts from past performance to future performance, while the responsibility for the performance management process shifts from the manager to the employee. Nonetheless, and through a process of experimentation, evaluation, and adjustment, organizations often end up with a hybrid system in which elements of traditional and employee-driven performance management are combined. The nature of this transition can be seen as evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary