David G Collings

CiteSeerX

Integrating global mobility and global talent management: Exploring
the challenges and strategic opportunities
David G. Collings *
DCU Business School, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland
1. Introduction
The centrality of global talent management (GTM) to the
achievement of multinational enterprises’ (MNEs) strategic
objectives has become widely acknowledged in recent years
(Scullion, Collings, & Caligiuri, 2010; Stahl et al., 2012; Tarique &
Schuler, 2010). Emerging empirical insights highlight the impor-
tance of international employee mobility as a key element of
MNE’s global talent strategies (McDonnell, Lamare, Gunnigle, &
Lavelle, 2010; Sparrow, 2007; Stahl et al., 2012). Upper-echelons
research provides empirical support for the positive relationship
between top-management team (TMT) international assignment
experience and indicators of firm performance (Carpenter,
Sanders, & Gregersen, 2001), and levels of international diversifi-
cation (Tihanyi, Ellstrand, Daily, & Dalton, 2000). Similarly, the use
of parent-country national (PCN) expatriates to staff subsidiary
operations has been shown to improve subsidiary labor produc-
tivity, particularly in new operations in culturally distant locations
(Gong, 2003). An emerging body of literature also points to the
strategic benefits of employee transfers from subsidiary operations
to the corporate HQ (inpatriates) (Reiche, 2012). These studies
point to the importance of international experience of organisa-
tional leaders on the strategic direction of their firms and its
impact on firm performance. They provide an evidence-based logic
for the connection between global mobility and global talent
management in MNEs. Indeed, in some MNEs being open to
international job rotations is a condition of being a member of the
organization’s leadership talent pool (Hall, Zhu, & Yan, 2001).
The academic literature has largely been silent on the
integration between global mobility and global talent manage-
ment (GTM). This is a significant gap, as organisations have little
theoretical or empirical guidance on how to maximise the
integration of global mobility and global talent management
and how to maximise the contribution of global mobility to
organisational performance. This paper aims to begin a dialog
around the integration of global talent management and global
mobility. The paper draws upon human capital and social capital
theories to integrate these areas of practice and provide a
theoretical point of departure for future study in this important
area. A central argument in the paper is that global mobility as a
function needs to move from an overly transactional focus on
compliance and tax issues, to a more strategic focus that ensures
the organisation can effectively deliver its global talent strategy.
Structurally the paper begins by introducing the areas of GTM
and global mobility. The different functions of global mobility and
their alignment with the MNE’s GTM strategy will then be
explored, and human capital and social capital theories introduced
as theoretical frames for considering the integration of the areas.
Finally, some challenges and opportunities in integrating the GTM
and global mobility functions in organisations are outlined.
2. Global talent management
While acknowledging that debate continues around the
conceptual boundaries of global talent management, there are a
number of principal elements of GTM that are identifiable. Firstly,
Journal of World Business 49 (2014) 253–261
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Available online 11 December 2013
Keywords:
Global talent management
Global mobility
Expatriation
Inpatriation
Talent pool
Human capital theory
Social capital theory
A B S T R A C T
Although global mobility represents an important element of many multinational enterprise’s (MNEs)
global talent management systems, the two areas of practice have largely been decoupled in research
and practice. The current paper aims to build a dialog around the integration of these two important
areas of practice and illustrate how the integration of global mobility and global talent management can
contribute to the success of the MNE. Human capital and social capital theories are introduced as
theoretical frames for the integration of the two areas and global talent pools and routines for managing
global staffing flows are introduced as key organizational routines that can maximize the contribution of
global mobility to the MNE. The paper also considers challenges and opportunities for the integration of
mobility and talent and outlines some directions for future study.
 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
* Tel.: +353 1 7006937.
E-mail address: david.collings@dcu.ie
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of World Business
jo u r nal h o mep age: w ww.els evier . co m/lo c ate / jwb
1090-9516/$ – see front matter  2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.009
GTM systems are generally focused on the management of high-
potential and high-performing employees, or those with high
levels of human capital, across the organization (Stahl et al., 2012).
Second, GTM is focused on human resource (HR) practices aimed at
attracting, developing, and retaining those individuals with high
levels of human capital aligned with the organization’s strategic
intent (Scullion et al., 2010; Tarique & Schuler, 2010). Thirdly,
organizations globally continue to struggle to source the quality
and quantity of global talent that they require to operative
effectively in the global context (Farndale, Scullion, & Sparrow,
2010; Hartmann, Fiesel, & Schober, 2010). Finally, GTM is argued to
have brought issues around human capital to the agenda of the
corporate top management team to a far greater degree than has
been the case in the past (Joyce & Slocum, 2012; Scullion et al.,
2010). For example, a study of CEOs conducted by Cornell
University found that metrics around talent and leadership were
those most demanded of Chief Human Resource Officers by CEOs
(Wright, Stewart, & Moore, 2012).
For the purposes of the current paper, I adopt Mellahi and
Collings’ (2010: 143) definition of GTM as involving: (1) the
systematic identification of key positions that differentially
contribute to the organization’s sustainable competitive advantage
on a global scale; (2) the development of a talent pool of high-
potential and high-performing incumbents, who reflect the global
scope of the MNE to fill these roles; and (3) the development of a
differentiated human resource architecture to facilitate filling
these positions with the best available incumbents in order to
ensure their continued commitment to the organization. This
definition has a number of important implications for unpacking
the relationship between global mobility and global talent
management. Firstly, it acknowledges that talent management is
not limited to leadership positions and that there are other pivotal
positions (Becker & Huselid, 2010; Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007;
Collings & Mellahi, 2009) that disproportionately contribute to the
organization’s sustainable competitive advantage. The filling of
these positions may also be covered by an organization’s global
talent management system. Second, building a talent pool of high-
performing and high-potential incumbents that ‘‘reflects the global
scope of the MNE’’ reflects the importance of staffing flows beyond
the traditional ethnocentric flow of parent-country national (PCN)
expatriates from HQ to subsidiaries. Thus, the consideration of
third-country national expatriates and inpatriates also emerge as
important elements of the global talent strategy (Collings,
McDonnell, Gunnigle, & Lavelle, 2010; Harvey, Speier, & Novicevic,
2000; Reiche, 2012). These staffing options are often ignored in the
global mobility literature (c.f. Harvey & Buckley, 1997; Harvey,
Speier, & Novicevic, 1999). Finally, the development of a
differentiated HR architecture to support the deployment and
retention of these talents requires organizations to carefully
balance initiatives to reduce the costs of expatriate assignments
with ensuring the ongoing commitment and performance of such
employees (see for example Tait, DeCieri, & McNulty’s, 2013
critique on the opportunity cost of the monetary savings of
permanent transfers). I now consider some central issues around
global mobility.
3. Global mobility in the MNE
Global mobility represents an important element of the global
staffing system of the contemporary MNE. Although the landscape
of global mobility has altered significantly over recent decades (see
Collings, Scullion, & Morley, 2007), global mobility remains a
central element of the GTM strategies of leading MNEs (Brookfield
GMAC, 2013; E&Y, 2012; Stahl et al., 2012). The topography is
complex however, with the contemporary MNEs relying on a range
of staffing options to fulfill business needs. For example,
permanent transfers, international business travel, commuter
and rotational assignments as well traditional long-term assign-
ments (generally 3–5 years) and short-term assignments (longer
than a business trip but less than a year) all represent important
elements of an organization’s global mobility strategies (Collings
et al., 2007). For the current paper, I focus on corporate expatriates
– ‘‘employees who are temporarily relocated by their organizations
to another country. . .to complete a specific task or accomplish an
organizational goal1’’ (Shaffer, Kraimer, Chan, & Bolino, 2012:
1287).
The differing objectives of international assignments have long
been recognised and have significant implications for how we
think about the integration between global mobility and global
talent management. Over 35 years ago Edström and Galbraith
(1977) outlined three objectives of international assignments as
position filling, where suitably qualified local talent was unavail-
able; to facilitate the development of individual employees; and as
a means of organisational development with a focus on the transfer
of knowledge between subsidiaries and to sustain and modify the
organizational structure and decision processes. More recently,
Black, Gregersen, Mendenhall, and Stroh (1999) argued that the
use of international assignments had become more strategic. This
strategic perspective emphasises the use of international assign-
ments for succession planning and leadership development; in
coordination and control; and in information exchange around the
multinational network. Recognising these differences is important
in evaluating the outcomes of international assignments (IAs), and
linking global mobility and global talent. For example, empirical
research has confirmed that assignments premised on manage-
ment development foster personal change and role innovation as
the assignee adapts his or her frame of reference in acclimatizing to
the new environment. This perhaps explains why developmental
assignments appear to have greater career-enhancing effects than
other forms of assignment (Kraimer, Shaffer, & Bolino, 2009: 42;
Stahl, Chua, Caligiuri, Cerdin, & Taniguchi, 2009).
Alternatively, in control-driven assignments, locals are
expected to absorb the new demands of the expatriate manager
and change their frames of reference (Shay & Baack, 2004). The
differing objectives of global mobility also point to potential
differences in how the assignees are managed from a HR
perspective. For example, an assignee deployed for position filling
may require significant support in the interpersonal competencies
required to adjust to the host country and to transfer his or her
knowledge to the host employees, as there is often a strong
teaching focus in selecting for these roles (Evans, Pucik, & Barsoux,
2002). In contrast, support for those selected for developmental
assignments should focus on assimilating learning opportunities
from the host country and facilitating the application of this
knowledge on repatriation. Further, Dickmann and Doherty (2010)
argue that, those sent on developmental assignments are more
inclined to leave their organizations. They argue that, this is related
to better career opportunities available to them in the external
labor market, and point to the particular influence of commitment-
oriented and/or retention-oriented HR policies in aiding retention.
Additionally, unpacking the various objectives of global
mobility has important implications as organizations begin to
consider the return on investment (ROI) on such assignments.
1 Shaffer et al. prioritise assignments lasting several years in their definition.
Given the incorporation of short-term assignments in the present discussion, I
recognise the importance of such shorter-duration assignments. This definition also
excludes self-initiated expatriates – those individuals who relocate internationally
in search of work without the support of an employer. Although these employees
clearly represent an important source of global talent, they are not generally
managed by the global mobility function, and hence fall beyond the scope of the
current discussion. For a discussion of these and other staffing options see Al Ariss
and Crowley-Henry (2013) and Fang, Samnani, Noviceivc, and Bing (2013).
D.G. Collings / Journal of World Business 49 (2014) 253–261254



Integrating global mobility and global talent management: Exploring the challenges and strategic opportunities

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=CD840D8FB1FBCB248099C570A545B8FF?doi=10.1.1.1041.231&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Integrating global mobility and global talent management: Exploring the challenges and strategic opportunities

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CiteSeerX