The Big Idea
COMPETING
TALENT ANA
What the best companies know about their people—
and how they use that information to outperform rivals
by Thomas H. Davenport, Jeanne Harris, and Jeremy Shapiro
1390 Oct10 Davenport.indd 52
9/2/10 7:47:07 AM
HBR.ORG
D
ILLUSTRATION: LAURENT CILLUFFO
ON
LYTICS
Do you think you know
how to get the best
from your people? Or
do you know? How do
investments in your
employees actually
affect workforce
performance? Who are
your top performers?
How can you empower
and motivate other
employees to excel?
October 2010 Harvard Business Review 53
1390 Oct10 Davenport.indd 53
9/2/10 7:47:22 AM
COMPETING ON TALENT ANALYTICS
Applying Talent Analytics
Leading-edge companies are increasingly adopting sophisticated methods of analyzing employee
data to enhance their competitive advantage. Google,
Best Buy, Sysco, and others are beginning to understand exactly how to ensure the highest productivity,
engagement, and retention of top talent, and then
replicating their successes. If you want better performance from your top employees—who are perhaps
your greatest asset and your largest expense—you’ll
do well to favor analytics over your gut instincts.
Harrah’s Entertainment is well-known for employing analytics to select customers with the greatest profit potential and to refine pricing and promotions for targeted segments. (See “Competing on
Analytics,” HBR January 2006.) Harrah’s has also extended this approach to people decisions, using insights derived from data to put the right employees
in the right jobs and creating models that calculate
the optimal number of staff members to deal with
customers at the front desk and other service points.
Today the company uses analytics to hold itself accountable for the things that matter most to its staff,
knowing that happier and healthier employees create better-satisfied guests.
For example, Harrah’s used metrics to evaluate the effects of its health and wellness programs
on employee engagement and the bottom line.
Preventive-care visits to its on-site clinics have increased, lowering urgent-care costs by millions of
dollars over the past 12 months. And because Harrah’s
understands the relationship between employee engagement and top-line revenue, it can evaluate the
program according to revenue contribution as well.
Here’s how other organizations use analytics to
improve their management of human capital:
• Almost every company we’ve studied says it
values employee engagement, but some—including
Starbucks, Limited Brands, and Best Buy—can precisely identify the value of a 0.1% increase in engagement among employees at a particular store. At Best
Buy, for example, that value is more than $100,000
in the store’s annual operating income.
• Many companies favor job candidates with stellar academic records from prestigious schools—but
AT&T and Google have established through quantitative analysis that a demonstrated ability to take initiative is a far better predictor of high performance
on the job.
• Employee attrition can be less of a problem when
managers see it coming. Sprint has identified the factors that best foretell which employees will leave af-
Six kinds of analytics can
help companies answer
critical talent questions—
from the simple ones at
the bottom of this ladder
to the more sophisticated
ones at the top.
TALENT
SUPPLY CHAIN
WHY DO EMPLOYEES
CHOOSE TO STAY
WITH—OR LEAVE—
MY COMPANY?
Google suspected that
many of its low-performing
employees were either misplaced in the organization
or poorly managed. Employee performance data
bore that out.
WHICH ACTIONS HAVE
THE GREATEST IMPACT
ON MY BUSINESS?
By keeping track of the
satisfaction levels of delivery associates, Sysco improved their retention rate
from 65% to 85%, saving
nearly $50 million in hiring
and training costs.
WHAT ARE THE KEY
INDICATORS OF MY
ORGANIZATION’S
OVERALL HEALTH?
JetBlue analysts
developed a metric—
the “crewmember net
promoter score”—that
monitors employee engagement and predicts
financial performance.
TALENT
VALUE MODEL
WORKFORCE
FORECASTS
HUMAN-CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
ANALYSIS
HOW SHOULD MY
WORKFORCE NEEDS
ADAPT TO CHANGES
IN THE BUSINESS
ENVIRONMENT?
Retail companies can
use analytics to predict
incoming call-center
volume and release
hourly employees early
if it’s expected to drop.
HOW DO I KNOW
WHEN TO STAFF UP
OR CUT BACK?
Dow Chemical has a
custom modeling tool that
predicts future head count
for each business unit and
can adjust its predictions
for industry trends, political or legal developments,
and various “what if”
scenarios.
ANALYTICAL HR
HUMAN-CAPITAL
FACTS
WHICH UNITS,
DEPARTMENTS,
OR INDIVIDUALS
NEED ATTENTION?
Managers at Lockheed
Martin use an automated
system to collect timely
performance-review data
and identify areas needing
improvement.
54 Harvard Business Review October 2010
1390 Oct10 Davenport.indd 54
9/2/10 7:47:36 AM
HBR.ORG
Idea in Brief
Leading companies
such as Google, Best
Buy, P&G, and Sysco use
sophisticated datacollection technology
and analysis to get the
most value from their
talent.
These companies have taken
the guesswork out of employee
management by leveraging
analytics to improve their
methods of attracting and retaining talent, connecting their
employee data to business
performance, differentiating
themselves from competitors,
and more.
ter a relatively short time. (Hint: Don’t expect a long
tenure from someone who hasn’t signed up for the
retirement program.)
• Professional sports teams, with their outsize
expenditures on talent, have been leading users of
analytics. To protect its investments, the soccer team
AC Milan created its own biomedical research unit.
Drawing on some 60,000 data points for each player,
the unit helps the team gauge players’ health and fitness and make contract decisions.
What’s driving this shift to analytics? Certainly,
companies today want more from their talent. That’s
why some are reinventing a whole range of people
practices: Netflix has tossed aside traditional HR
absence policies, and Best Buy’s corporate office eschews standard work schedules. Analytics takes the
guesswork out of fresh management approaches. At
the same time, voluminous “digital trails” of data
from knowledge management systems and social
networks are now available for analysis. The public
relations firm Ketchum, for example, analyzed personal networks in its London office to learn how easily information flowed across teams. Cognizant, a
U.S.-based professional services firm with many employees in India, analyzed social media contributions,
particularly blogs. It found that bloggers were more
engaged and satisfied than others and performed
about 10% better, on average.
In this article are six key ways
to track, analyze, and use
employee data: They range
from establishing simple
metrics that monitor your
organization’s overall health
to identifying talent shortages
and excesses long before they
happen.
Companies that want to compete on talent analytics must
have access to high-quality
data and manage them at an
enterprise level, support analytical leaders, choose realistic
targets for analysis, and hire
analysts with a broad base of
expertise.
In our work with companies like these, we have
seen best practices emerge for using analytics to
manage people.
Six Uses of Talent Analytics
Analyzing talent is not significantly different from
analyzing customer relationships or supply chain
management. It starts with the delivery of historical
facts (“What happened?”) and ends with real-time
deployment of talent based on rapidly changing
needs. The six kinds of analytics for managing your
workforce, from simplest to most sophisticated, are
human-capital facts, analytical HR, human-capital
investment analysis, workforce forecasts, the talent
value model, and the talent supply chain.
Human-capital facts are a single version of
the truth regarding individual performance and
enterprise-level data such as head count, contingent labor use, turnover, and recruiting. Companies
should carefully consider what facts will give them
that version. For some, one or two data points may
indicate overall health. For example, JetBlue created an employee-satisfaction metric around its
people’s willingness to recommend the company
as a place to work. This “crewmember net promoter
score” (modeled after the customer-satisfaction
metric) has been used to study the impact of compensation changes and to help determine executive
$100,000
$100
At Best B
increase in employee engagement
at a particular store is $100,000.
October 2010 Harvard Business Review 55
1390 Oct10 Davenport.indd 55
9/8/10 2:21:47 PM
COMPETING ON TALENT ANALYTICS
Talent Analytics at Google
Google’s highly analytical culture and practices
extend to its human resources function.
The company’s goal is to
identify leading peoplemanagement practices and
confirm them with data and
analysis. To achieve it, Google
created a people analytics
function with its own director
and a staff of 30 researchers,
analysts, and consultants who
HBR.ORG Do you have
questions or comments
about this article? Tom
Davenport will respond to
reader feedback at hbr.org
through mid-October.
study employee-related decisions and issues. The People
and Innovation Lab (PiLab)
conducts focused investigations for internal clients.
Google has analyzed a variety of HR topics and has often
moved in new directions as a
result. It has determined what
backgrounds and capabilities are associated with high
performance and what factors
are likely to lead to attrition—
such as an employee’s feeling
underused at the company.
It has set the ideal number of
recruiting interviews at five,
down from a previous average
of ten.
Google’s Project Oxygen—so
named because good manage-
bonuses. Employees are asked annually on their hiring date if they would recommend the company, so
JetBlue can effectively monitor employee engagement monthly.
JetBlue and other successful organizations are
transparent with end users about the process: Any
manager or employee may see how the data were
collected, what formulas are being used, and, most
important, why the data matter to the operation. For
example, Harrah’s provides documentation in its HR
scorecard to ensure that all readers understand how
human-capital facts are created and what they mean
for daily management.
Analytical HR collects or segments HR data to
gain insights into specific departments or functions.
For example, a manager might be able to see that
staff-turnover intervention is needed for the East
Coast sales team but not the West Coast team. Analytical HR integrates individual performance data, such
as personal achievement in key result areas, with HR
process metrics, such as cost and time, and outcome
metrics, such as engagement and retention.
Lockheed Martin built a performance management system to link each employee’s performance
to organizational objectives. The automated system
collects timely performance-review data throughout
the year. The data can then be compared with knowledge management information, such as who has
undergone formal training in specific areas. With the
system, Lockheed Martin can identify its high potentials for special programs or monitor employees who
need improvement in certain areas.
Human-capital investment analysis helps
an organization understand which actions have the
greatest impact on business performance. One leader
in this area is Sysco, the $36.8 billion Fortune 100
global food-service company. Sysco is a complex organization made up of nearly a hundred autonomous
operating units and about 51,000 full-time employ-
ees serving approximately 400,000 customers. The
company began its workforce analysis with three
gross measures for each operating unit: work climate
and employee satisfaction, productivity, and retention. It has drilled deeper to understand, measure,
and manage seven other dimensions of the work environment, including frontline supervisor effectiveness, diversity, and quality of life.
Sysco’s analysis revealed that operating units with
highly satisfied employees have higher revenues,
lower costs, greater employee retention, and superior customer loyalty. The company can efficiently
identify what actions by management will have the
greatest impact on the business. For example, in six
years it has improved the retention rate for delivery
associates—who provide customer service and build
customer relationships—from 65% to 85%. Sysco
tracks the group’s satisfaction scores, and when
they dip, it institutes immediate improvements to
get them back on track. By retaining this key talent,
Sysco saved nearly $50 million in hiring and training
costs for new associates.
Workforce forecasts analyze turnover, succession planning, and business opportunity data to identify potential shortages or excesses of key capabilities
long before they happen. As Vinay Couto, Frank Ribeiro, and Andrew Tipping wrote recently in Strategy
+ Business, Dow Chemical has evolved its workforce
planning over the past decade, mining historical data
on its 40,000 employees to anticipate workforce
needs throughout the chemical industry’s volatile
business cycles. It forecasts promotion rates, internal
transfers, and overall labor availability. Dow uses a
custom modeling tool to segment the workforce into
five age groups and 10 job levels and calculates future
head count by segment and level for each business
unit. These detailed predictions are aggregated to
yield a workforce projection for the entire company.
Dow can engage in “what if” scenario planning, al-
56 Harvard Business Review October 2010
1390 Oct10 Davenport.indd 56
9/8/10 2:22:50 PM
HBR.ORG
ment keeps the company
alive—was established to
determine the attributes of
successful managers. The
PiLab team analyzed annual
employee surveys, performance management scores,
and other data to divide
managers into four groups according to their quality. It then
interviewed high- and lowscoring managers (interviews
were double-blind—neither interviewers nor managers knew
which category the managers
were in) to determine their
managerial practices. Google
was eventually able to identify
eight behaviors that characterized good managers and five
behaviors that all managers
should avoid.
Google’s vice president of
people operations, Laszlo
tering assumptions on internal variables such as staff
promotions or external variables such as political and
legal considerations. Workforce forecasts can be used
to staff up in key growth areas or identify knowledge
management risks for retiring employees before they
are clear to managers.
The talent value model addresses questions
like “Why do employees choose to stay with our
company?” A company can use analytics to calculate what employees value most and then create a
model that will boost retention rates. Such a model
can help managers design personalized performance
incentives, assess whether to match a competitor’s
recruitment offer, or decide when to promote someone. Google uses employee performance data to determine the most appropriate intervention to help
both high- and low-performing employees succeed.
Laszlo Bock, Google’s vice president of people operations, told us, “We don’t use performance data to look
at the averages but to monitor the highest and lowest performers on the distribution curve. The lowest
5% of performers we actively try to help. We know
we’ve hired talented people, and we genuinely want
them to succeed.” The company’s hypothesis was
that many of these individuals might be misplaced or
poorly managed, and a detailed analysis supported
that idea. Understanding individuals’ needs and values allowed Bock’s team to successfully address a
number of difficult situations.
The talent supply chain helps companies make
decisions in real time about talent-related demands—
from optimizing a retail store’s next-day work schedules, on the basis of predicted receipts and individuals’ sales performance patterns, to forecasting
inbound call-center volume and allowing hourly staff
members to leave early if it’s expected to drop. This
is the most complex of the six kinds of talent analytics, because it requires particularly high-quality data,
rigorous analysis, and the integration of broad talent
Bock, says, “It’s not the
company-provided lunch that
keeps people here. Googlers
tell us that there are three
reasons they stay: the mission, the quality of the people,
and the chance to build the
skill set of a better leader or
entrepreneur. And all our analytics are built around these
reasons.”
management and other organizational processes.
Talent supply chains are still in their infancy, but the
early success of some organizations, particularly in
the retail space, suggest that they will spread.
Mastering Talent Analytics
Unsurprisingly, building a capability in this domain
requires the same fundamentals that most other
business analysis does. We summarize them with
the acronym Delta (access to high-quality data, enterprise orientation, analytical leadership, strategic
targets, and analysts).
Data. Organizations can get increasingly good HR
data from their enterprise systems, but they some-
Cognizant’s analytics revealed
that employees who blogged were
more engaged and satisfied.
times need to augment them with new metrics, like
JetBlue’s. At Harrah’s many line managers, who are
already on the floor at its properties, observe and record the frequency with which customer-facing staff
members smile, because that behavior is highly correlated with customer satisfaction. Data needn’t be
perfect to be appropriate for analysis—just sufficient
to understand trends that matter.
Enterprise. HR can no longer confine employee
data to its silo; organizations need access to those
data to be successful. JetBlue, Best Buy, and Limited
Brands have observed an important statistical relationship between employee satisfaction and company performance—usually at the station, branch, or
store level. The significance of the relationship motivated Best Buy to make its employee engagement
surveys quarterly rather than annual.
October 2010 Harvard Business Review 57
1390 Oct10 Davenport.indd 57
9/2/10 7:48:04 AM
COMPETING ON TALENT ANALYTICS
!
HBR.ORG
Common Mistakes in Talent Analytics
Companies that use analytics for employee
management can create tangible value for
themselves as long as they avoid these mistakes:
*
Making analytics
an excuse to treat
human beings like
interchangeable
widgets
a metric
* Keeping
live even when it has
no clear business
reason for being
*
Insisting on 100%
accurate data
before an analysis
is accepted—which
amounts to never
making a decision
*
Assessing employees
only on simple measures such as grades
and test scores,
which often fail to
accurately predict
success
on just a few
* Relying
metrics to evaluate
employee performance, so smart
employees can game
the system
Dow mines
employee data
to forecast
promotion rates
and internal
transfers.
*
Using analytics to
hire lower-level
people but not when
assessing senior
management
*
Failing to monitor
changes in organizational priorities, thus
creating irrelevant—
if accurate—analyses
aspects of
* Ignoring
performance that
can’t easily be translated into quantitative measures
HR ef* Analyzing
ficiency metrics
only, while failing to
address the impact
of talent management on business
performance
Leadership. The success of almost any initiative
depends on its leaders, and talent analytics is no exception. In fact, at the organizations we’ve researched
and worked with, leaders’ commitment to this approach is the single most important factor in whether
it succeeds. Because the data pertain to human behavior, executives may be skeptical. Comcast’s senior vice
president of compensation and benefits, Bill Strahan,
recalls, “It was crucial for manager adoption that we
present the analytics business case in the language of
our company, focusing on competitive pressures and
the people component of our change.”
Leaders who believe that human-capital insights
should be used to solve business problems must
constantly press for decisions and analyses based on
facts and data rather than on tradition, hearsay, or
supposition. And they should foster a culture that
allows for experimentation and mistakes—which are
often unacceptable in HR functions today.
Targets. Organizations that use talent analytics
have already made people the focus of analytical
activity. But should they concentrate on hiring, assignments to projects and tasks, or retention? Which
types of employees need the most analytical attention? Which of the six kinds of talent analytics should
be employed when? When Google was adding 100
employees a week, from 2005 into 2008, hiring the
right people was its primary focus. When hiring
slowed in 2008 and 2009, the company turned to
gaining insights into employee attrition and effective
management approaches.
Analysts. Analytical theory must be converted
into practice. This requires experts not only in quantitative analysis but also in psychometrics, human
resource management systems and processes, and
employment law. Industrial-organizational psychologists are especially helpful in creating analytical initiatives and ongoing programs. Google, P&G,
Royal Bank of Scotland, Intel, and Tesco have all established HR analytics groups to get deeper insights
into their people practices.
The best analysts can persuade managers to adopt
analytical decision making. In late 2009 Harrah’s began recruiting an external sales force and used organizational psychologists to create a predictive assessment for the job. But during the interview process
managers became emotionally attached to some of
the candidates with low probabilities of success. The
analysts were prepared: They used randomized testing to prove that analytics was the superior method,
and relied on their interpersonal skills to sway decisions when necessary. One management team at a
troubled Harrah’s location was astounded by the
high call volume and conversion rates the new hires
achieved, which helped reverse a decline in sales.
No organization we’ve worked with has embraced
an analytics-only method of managing, motivating,
and retaining employees. But early adopters have
created tangible value for themselves by applying
the right data and tools to people processes. The best
organizations see their people not only as individuals
but also as a rich source of collective data that managers can use to make better decisions about talent.
Future organizational performance is inextricably
linked to the capabilities and motivations of a company’s people. Organizations that have used data to
gain human-capital insights already have a hard-toreplicate competitive advantage. Others, too, can
draw on these new techniques to improve their business results.
HBR Reprint R1010B
Thomas H. Davenport (tdavenport@babson.edu) is
the President’s Distinguished Professor of Information Technology and Management at Babson College and
the author, coauthor, or editor of 13 books. Jeanne Harris
(jeanne.g.harris@accenture.com) is an executive research
fellow and a senior executive at Accenture’s Institute for
High Performance. She and Davenport are the coauthors of
Analytics at Work (Harvard Business Review Press, 2010).
Jeremy Shapiro (jeremy.shapiro@morganstanley.com) is
an executive director in human resources at Morgan Stanley
and a coauthor of Ultimate Performance (Wiley, 2007).
58 Harvard Business Review October 2010
1390 Oct10 Davenport.indd 58
9/2/10 7:48:14 AM
Harvard Business Review Notice of Use Restrictions, May 2009
Harvard Business Review and Harvard Business Publishing Newsletter content on EBSCOhost is licensed for
the private individual use of authorized EBSCOhost users. It is not intended for use as assigned course material
in academic institutions nor as corporate learning or training materials in businesses. Academic licensees may
not use this content in electronic reserves, electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi or by any
other means of incorporating the content into course resources. Business licensees may not host this content on
learning management systems or use persistent linking or other means to incorporate the content into learning
management systems. Harvard Business Publishing will be pleased to grant permission to make this content
available through such means. For rates and permission, contact permissions@harvardbusiness.org.
Journal of World Business 45 (2010) 122–133
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of World Business
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwb
Review
Global talent management: Literature review, integrative framework, and
suggestions for further research
Ibraiz Tarique a,*, Randall S. Schuler b,1
a
b
Pace University, Lubin School Business, One Pace Plaza, New York, NY 10038, USA
Rutgers University and GSBA Zurich, HRM Department, 202 Levin Bldg., 94 Rockafeller Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Talent management
War for talent
High potentials
Globalization
The environment for most organizations today is global, complex, dynamic, highly competitive, and
extremely volatile, and is likely to remain so for years to come. In addition to these external conditions,
most organizations are also facing several global challenges including those related to: talent flow; the
managing of two generations of employees, viz., older or mature workers and younger workers; and a
shortage of needed competencies. One major result of these challenges for organizations is that they
have to be global and that they have to be systematic in managing their human capital if they wish to
have any hope of gaining and sustaining a competitive advantage in the years ahead. Many human
resource practitioners and consultants (HR professionals) are now recognizing this, especially those that
operate globally, the multinational enterprises. Academics are also showing a strong interest as
evidenced by their work in the new area referred to as ‘‘global talent management’’. In this article we
review that academic work and attempt to organize that literature by creating an integrative framework
for understanding and advancing further research in global talent management. To guide this research
our framework highlights several selected challenges in global talent management, and several drivers
of those challenges. It also highlights the potential role of IHRM activities in addressing those selected
challenges. A discussion of possible criteria of global talent management effectiveness completes the
framework. Hopefully this integrative framework may guide further academic research on global talent
management and might also inform the work of HR professionals.
ß 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GTM challenges in the context of international human resource
2.1.
Defining GTM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Differences between GTM and IHRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Literature review – global talent management . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.
Broad findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Framework of global talent management (GTM) in MNEs . . . . .
4.1.
Exogenous drivers of GTM challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.1.
Globalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.2.
Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.3.
Demand–Supply Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.
Endogenous drivers of GTM challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1.
Regiocentrism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2.
International Strategic Alliances . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.3.
Required Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.
IHRM activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.1.
Attracting talent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............
management .
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 212 618 6583.
E-mail addresses: itarique@pace.edu (I. Tarique), schuler@rci.rutgers.edu (R.S. Schuler).
1
Tel.: +1 732 445 5827.
1090-9516/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.019
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
123
123
124
124
124
125
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
127
127
127
I. Tarique, R.S. Schuler / Journal of World Business 45 (2010) 122–133
5.
6.
4.3.2.
Developing talent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.3.
Retaining talent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.
GTM effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.1.
Improve HRs impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.2.
Competitive advantage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.3.
Talent positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Further research, challenges for GTM researchers, and concluding thoughts .
5.1.
Theory building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.
GTM systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.
Exogenous/endogenous drivers and challenges and GTM systems. . . .
5.4.
GTM effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.
GTM as a bridge field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6.
Other areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7.
Managerial relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction
Today’s global economy has created a more complex and
dynamic environment in which most firms must learn to compete
effectively to achieve sustainable growth. Workforces around the
world have become larger, increasingly diverse, more educated, and
more mobile (Briscoe, Schuler, & Claus, 2009; Friedman, 2005). This
global environment has not only changed the way business is
conducted, it has also created the need for organizations to manage
their workforces in a global context. As a consequence, the notion of
a ‘‘global workforce’’ has received extensive discussion recently
(Briscoe et al., 2009; Collings, Scullion, & Dowling, 2009; Scullion &
Collings, 2006). One of the major topics of this discussion has been
around talent management. Most of the research in the area of talent
management so far has been premised on the idea of talent
shortages, reflecting the robust economic conditions from 2000 to
2008 (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). In the past year or two, however,
there have been numerous examples of organizations downsizing
operations and reducing their workforces as a result of global
economic and financial conditions. Thus for many organizations
there now seems to be a talent surplus with unemployment
increasing across many countries and too many qualified people
chasing too few jobs. Regardless of economic and workforce
conditions, however, organizations large and small, public and
private, have come to the realization that in order to gain and sustain
a global competitive advantage they must manage their workforces
effectively. And to do so they must confront the reality of global
talent management (GTM) and its many challenges and develop
human resource management activities to meet those challenges
(Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Collings & Mellahi, 2009).
There is considerable evidence that organizations worldwide
face formidable talent challenges. The ability to attract, develop,
and retain a needed supply of critical talent is a challenge facing all
organizations (e.g., Coy and Ewing, 2007). In a 2008 Deloitte
Research Study, Athey (2008, p. 1) noted that
Despite millions of unemployed workers, there is an acute
shortage of talent: science educators to teach the next
generation of chemists, health care professionals of all stripes,
design engineers with deep technical and interpersonal skills,
and seasoned marketers who understand the Chinese marketplace. Resumes abound, yet companies still feverishly search for
the people who make the difference between 10 percent and 20
percent annual growth, or between profit and loss. Critical
talent is scarce. . .
Similar trends and HR challenges are reported in survey based
studies conducted by other consulting and professional research
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
123
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
127
128
128
128
128
128
128
129
129
129
130
130
130
131
131
131
131
groups, such as the Boston Consulting Group, World Federation of
People Management Associations, Manpower Inc, Economist
Intelligence Unit, and The Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development (CIPD). The academic literature (e.g., Boudreau &
Ramstad, 2007, 2005; Cappelli, 2008a, 2008b; Collings & Mellahi,
2009; Lewis & Heckman, 2006) also suggests that organizations
face greater competition for talent worldwide and face challenging
times in attracting, retaining, and developing people they need. So
even though there is currently a global economic slowdown, there
are major structural conditions in place to ensure that competition
for talent worldwide will continue to be a significant challenge.
More specifically, organizations are and will continue to be
searching for individuals who can effectively manage through the
complex, challenging, changing, and often ambiguous global
environment. In other words, most companies worldwide,
regardless of size, are confronting and/or will soon confront many
GTM challenges, if left unmet, will impact their global business
strategies, both in the near term and longer term.
2. GTM challenges in the context of international human
resource management
GTM and its many potential challenges can be examined in the
context of international human resource management (IHRM), a
field that has witnessed tremendous advancements in the research
and practice during the last two decades (see Schuler & Tarique,
2007; Sparrow & Brewster, 2006). During this time, several
challenges have emerged in IHRM with the introduction of
increased world wide economic development, extensive global
communication, rapid transfer of new technology, growing trade,
and emigration of large numbers of people (see De Cieri, Wolfram
Cox, & Fenwick, 2007; Schuler & Tarique, 2007 for a review of
IHRM).
A major topic that has emerged in IHRM in recent years is the
importance of maximizing the talent of individual employees as a
unique source of competitive advantage (Scullion & Collings, 2006)
– managing global talent effectively has become an important area
for future research (cf., Budhwar, Schuler, & Sparrow, 2009; Stahl
et al., 2007). For example, Roberts, Kossek, and Ozeki (1998)
identified major GTM challenges in the context of IHRM as: (1)
easily getting the right skills in the right numbers to where they are
needed; (2) spreading up-to-date knowledge and practices
throughout the MNE regardless of where they originate; and (3)
identifying and developing talent on a global basis. Similarly,
Scullion and Collings (2006) noted that multinational enterprises
(MNEs) are facing severe challenges in attracting, retaining, and
developing the necessary managerial talent for their global
I. Tarique, R.S. Schuler / Journal of World Business 45 (2010) 122–133
124
operations. Several others (e.g., Stephenson & Pandit, 2008) have
suggested that having the right number of people at the right place
at the right time with the right skill sets and levels of motivation
are fundamental to talent management.
This is just a sampling of challenges in GTM that have been
identified thus far. In the context of IHRM, research is still needed
to examine if the same patterns exist in the GTM literature: much
has been written on GTM but, to date, no thorough review of the
literature has been done. The goal of this paper is to remedy this
deficiency by developing an integrative framework which categorizes the major body of GTM research published between 2000
and 2009 in a manner that identifies key drivers of selected GTM
challenges, selected GTM challenges, and IHRM activities used by
organizations to manage these challenges.
2.1. Defining GTM
Although there seems to be a growing consensus as to the
meaning of ‘‘talent management’’ (e.g., Collings & Mellahi, 2009;
Lewis & Heckman, 2006), there is no consensus regarding the exact
meaning of the GTM – it varies depending on the context it appears
in (e.g., Brewster, Sparrow, & Harris, 2005; Scullion & Collings,
2006; Stahl et al., 2007), and has even been used interchangeably
with IHRM. This can provide contradictory advice and fragmented
theories. The recent trend in domestic talent management
literature may provide some clarity to defining global talent
management. In their review of the domestic talent management
literature, Lewis and Heckman (2006) found that the literature can
best be described in terms of three research streams: (1) talent
management is conceptualized in terms of typical human resource
department practices and functions; (2) talent management is
defined in terms of HR planning and projecting employee/staffing
needs; and (3) talent management is treated as a generic entity and
either focuses on high performing and high potential talent or on
talent in general. Because this third stream, is the most
encompassing, we build on Lewis and Heckman (2006) third
stream and use the strategic human resource management
literature (e.g., Schuler and Jackson, 2007; Becker & Huselid,
2006) to argue that ‘‘talent management’’ in the context of IHRM
should emphasize the management of people-embodied2 human
capital (generally defined as the combination of knowledge, skills,
abilities, and personality characteristics) as crucial to the attainment of strategic goals. Defined most broadly, global talent
management is about systematically utilizing IHRM activities
(complementary HRM policies and policies) to attract, develop, and
retain individuals with high levels of human capital (e.g., competency,
personality, motivation) consistent with the strategic directions of the
multinational enterprise in a dynamic, highly competitive, and global
environment.
2.2. Differences between GTM and IHRM
While academics and practitioners may differ on the meaning
of GTM, we suggest there are three significant differences between
GTM and IHRM. First, IHRM includes more stakeholders. The field
of IHRM is broad in its inclusion for the concerns of wide variety of
stakeholders (Briscoe et al., 2009). The stakeholders can include
customers, investors, suppliers, employees, society and the
organization itself. While it might be argued that in so far as
effective GTM can improve the effectiveness of the MNE, it can also
impact the same variety of stakeholders, the most immediate and
significant impact of GTM is on the employees and the organization
itself. Second, IHRM addresses broader concerns and criteria. As a
consequence of more stakeholders, IHRM has broader concerns
2
Our use of the term ‘‘talent’’ is based on Florida (2002).
than those of attracting, developing, and retaining employees from
the MNE. While these are certainly important, these concerns of
GTM reflect concerns mainly of the employees and organization as
stakeholders. Correspondingly, the criteria against which HR
actions for GTM would be evaluated relate more specifically to
the employees and the organization such as employee morale and
engagement and organizational productivity and innovation.
Third, IHRM encompasses more HR policies and practices. In the
field of IHRM, there are several HR policies and practices including
planning, staffing, compensating, training and developing, appraising, labor relations and safety and health (Briscoe et al., 2009;
Dowling, Festing, & Engle, 2008). Within each of these policy and
practice activities, there are many more topics and choices that
researchers and professionals can select and utilize. This is in
contrast to the situation with GTM that needs to focus only on a
sub-set of topics in each activity. Indeed, GTM may find itself
focusing primarily on the HR policy and practice activities of
planning, staffing, appraising, compensating and training (Collings
& Mellahi, 2009). In addition to these three major differences, GTM
is a much more focused, topic, or issue, similar to diversity
management or knowledge management (Briscoe et al., 2009;
Lengnick-Hall & Andrade, 2008; Scullion & Collings, 2006).
Additionally, GTM researchers can investigate the field without
a significant concern for the multiple set of stakeholders and
broader set of concerns traditionally associated with IHRM. In this
manner, GTM can be examined in the context of IHRM. Viewing GTM
in the IHRM context enables future researchers to build on work
already undertaken in IHRM and apply some of those theories and
models to GTM. Indeed, we use this perspective in this article.
3. Literature review – global talent management
The articles selected for inclusion in this review were initially
restricted to those published in leading academic journals
(between 2000 and 2009) specializing in general management,
organization sciences, human resource management, international
human resource management, international management, and
international business. To identify top academic journals, we
reviewed the journals selected by Budhwar et al. (2009) in their
recent review, and identified earlier by Caligiuri (1999), which
ranked top journals in terms of international human resource
research. This list includes top journals in mainstream management (e.g., Academy of Management Review and Administrative
Science Quarterly), in international management (e.g., Journal of
International Business Studies and Journal of World Business), and in
human resource management (International Journal of Human
Resource Management and Human Resource Management). Because
the number of articles identified by reviewing these above journals
was relatively very small, we supplemented the list with academic
and trade and popular articles from outside these journals that
were identified through the ABI/INFORM article database by
searching using the subject headings ‘‘global talent management’’,
and ‘‘international global talent management’’. All the articles
were examined for GTM content and an article was selected if its
focus was on any aspect of GTM. In addition, we reviewed selected
articles on each of the challenges and IHRM activities. The list,
along with the number of GTM articles published in each journal
from 2000 to 2009, is reported in Table 1. The articles were then
grouped into four categories: (1) exogenous or coercive isomorphic
drivers of GTM challenges; (2) endogenous or mimetic isomorphic
drivers of GTM challenges; (3) IHRM activities (policies and
practices) to meet those challenges; and (4) GTM effectiveness.
These four categories were created post hoc, based on institutional
theory and our integrative framework. Because no formal content
coding method was used, these categories should be treated as an
organizing tool rather than a definitive classification of the body of
I. Tarique, R.S. Schuler / Journal of World Business 45 (2010) 122–133
Table 1
Journal lista and the number of GTM articles (2000–2009).
1. International Journal of Human Resource Management (9)
2. Journal of International Business Studies (6)
3. Academy of Management Journal (0)
4. Academy of Management Review (0)
5. Management International Review (5)
6. Human Resource Management (13)
7. Journal of Applied Psychology (1)
8. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources (5)
9. Journal of World Business (6)
10. Journal of International Management (1)
11. Human Resource Management Journal (4)
12. International Business Review (1)
13. Administrative Science Quarterly (0)
14. Journal of International Compensation (0)
15. Academy of Management Executive (7)
16. International Labor Review (1)
17. Journal of Management (0)
18. International Journal of Intercultural Relations (3)
19. European Management Journal (3)
20. International Journal of Selection and Assessment (0)
21. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology (3)
22. Others (50)a
a
Others include Applied Psychology, An International Perspective, Asian Survey,
Australian Journal of Management, Career Development International, Chinese
Management Studies, Far Eastern Economic Review, Global Business & Organizational Excellence, Harvard Business Review, Human Resource Management Review,
Human Resource Development International, International HRD, International
Journal of Management Reviews, International Journal of Training and Development, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of
Organizational Excellence, New Zealand Journal of Psychology, Personnel Review,
S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, SOJOURN, Strategic HR Review, The
Leadership Quarterly, Total Quality Management, Training & Development. Reports
and articles and reports from The McKinsey Quarterly, Towers Perrin, Deloitte
Boston Consulting Group, A.T. Kearney, World Federation of People Management
Associations, Manpower Inc., Economist Intelligence Unit, the ILO, The Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), MIT Sloan Management Review,
Strategy + Business (complete list of articles is available from the first author).
125
research. This approach to categorize, however, follows that
applied broadly to the field of IHRM (Schuler, Dowling, & DeCieri,
1993).
To help provide researchers with a way of understanding and
researching these categories and their relationships, we propose the
use of institutional theory (see DiMaggio and Powell, 1991, 1983).
This theory has been widely used to study the adoption and diffusion
of organizational forms and HRM activities (e.g., Björkman, 2006).
According to institutional theory, organizations are under social
influence and pressure to adopt practices including HRM, and to
adapt to and be consistent with their institutional environment.
Organizations attempt to acquire legitimacy and recognition by
adopting structures and practices viewed as appropriate in their
environment. According to DiMaggio and Powell (1983) there are
three types of ‘isomorphisms’ that can affect organizations: coercive
isomorphism (e.g., a constituency such as the government imposes
certain patterns, restrictions, or boundaries on the organization),
mimetic isomorphism (e.g., organizations adopt the pattern and
behaviors exhibited by successful organizations in their environment); and normative isomorphism (e.g., organizations act as the
disseminators of appropriate organizational patterns, which are
then adopted by other organizations).
The isomorphic processes explained by institutional theory can be
used to identify and highlight the complex and dynamic relationship
between factors both endogenous and exogenous to a MNE. In
addition, the isomorphic processes enables us to establish the basis
for linking GTM with IHRM and to efficiently organize the GTM
literature into four categories described above and depicted in Fig. 1.
3.1. Broad findings
Based on our narrative review of articles, there are several
broad observations regarding the state of the field at that time: (a)
Fig. 1. Integrative framework of global talent management (GTM) in MNEs and suggestions for further research.
126
I. Tarique, R.S. Schuler / Journal of World Business 45 (2010) 122–133
most of the research examined specific aspects of managing talent,
but the research usually did not focus on ‘‘human resource
management issues’’ (e.g., Koh, 2003); (b) a few studies
conceptualized ‘‘talent’’ in very broad or generic terms (e.g., Faust,
2008); (c) most of the existing research was limited to descriptive
essays, based on the author’s consulting experience (e.g., Chaisson
& Schweyer, 2004); (d) the majority of the empirical studies used
descriptive statistics (frequencies and means) to analyze data and
evaluate talent issues in several countries (e.g., Dietz, Orr, & Xing,
2008); and (e) a small number of studies used qualitative
methodology; a handful of studies surveyed managers of
organizations, a few studies analyzed case studies, and others
used scenarios to describe issues related to talent management
(e.g., Stahl et al., 2007).
Overall, the evidence would suggest that the GTM field is in its
infancy compared to IHRM but it is an important component of
IHRM (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). We used relevant concepts and
ideas from the IHRM literature to discuss selected GTM challenges
in detail so as to provide a framework for further research and
practice in each ‘‘challenge’’ area. For space reasons, not all
challenges identified in the literature and reviewed above are
discussed here, rather only those discussed most frequently. It is
important to point out that our approach in examining the GTM
literature depicts just one of many ways the field can be organized.
Others may focus on different drivers and/or identify different
selected challenges.
4. Framework of global talent management (GTM) in MNEs
4.1. Exogenous drivers of GTM challenges
In the context of institutional theory, exogenous drivers are
based on coercive isomorphism. These refer to forces or drivers
external to the firm that are largely beyond management’s control
but can create challenges that can affect an organization’s IHRM
system (cf., Schuler et al., 1993). These exogenous drivers can
include national culture, economic conditions, political system,
legal environment, and workforce characteristics (Schuler et al.,
1993). In reviewing and analyzing the recent research in GTM,
three major drivers emerged in this category: Globalization,
Demographics, and the Demand–Supply Gap.
4.1.1. Globalization
Majority of studies in this area discussed the challenges
associated with talent flow which refers to the migration of
talented individuals between countries for a variety of reasons
such as to undertake advanced studies abroad and/or acquire
foreign work experience, and then subsequently return to their
country of origin to take advantage of economic opportunities and
development (Carra, Inkson, & Thorn, 2005; Tung, 2008). A few
studies have compared talent flow to the notion of ‘brain drain’ and
suggested that the later is too restrictive and does not focus on the
psychology of migration as well as the economic, political, cultural,
family, and career forces motivating it (e.g., Carra et al., 2005).
Studies have considered the effects of government type and as well
as the effects of government regulations on talent flow (e.g., Koh,
2003). A few studies have examined talent flow issues in Singapore
(Koh, 2003), New Zealand (e.g., Jackson et al., 2005), China (Zweig,
2006) and Tawian (Leng, 2002).
4.1.2. Demographics
Research in this category has examined the challenges associated
with the changing workforce demographics. Current trends show
that while the size of populations of much of the developed
economies is projected to remain relatively stable (but get older),
and in some cases even shrink, the populations of the developing
economies and those just emerging economies are expanding and
getting younger (Strack, Baier, & Fahlander, 2008). Research along
these lines has attempted to examine how organizations attract,
select, develop, and retain two generations of employees: older or
mature workers and younger workers (also referred to as ‘‘Generation Y’’ born between 1980 and 1995) both of which have many high
talent individuals (cf., Faust, 2008). The research on older workers
has focused on the stereotypical beliefs toward older workers and
found that the relationship between employers’ policies, practices
and attitudes towards workers over 50 is complex with both positive
and negative biases towards older workers (e.g., Loretto & White,
2006). In addition to examining the negative biases, several studies
have identified important differences between the aging and
younger workers (e.g., Broadbridge, Maxwell, & Ogden, 2007; Faust,
2008; Marjorie, 2008; Terjesen, Vinnicombe, & Freeman, 2007).
4.1.3. Demand–Supply Gap
Studies in this category have found that a majority of employers
worldwide are having difficulty filling positions due to the lack of
suitable talent available in their markets (Strack et al., 2008).
Several studies have attempted to describe the shortages in
emerging economies (Stahl et al., 2007; Wooldridge, 2007; Dietz
et al., 2008) such as China and India. Others have identified
shortages in developed economies such as the United States (Adult
Literacy, 2008). Other studies have focused on the causes of the
shortages such as the changes in the employment relationship
(e.g., Cappelli, 2005), and a misfit or mismatch between the
training adequacy and employment structure (McGuinness &
Bennett, 2006). A few studies have provided strategies to manage
staff shortages (e.g., Henkens, Remery, & Schippers, 2008) such as
increasing the labor supply of existing workers (through overtime,
encouraging part-timers to work extra hours, etc., outsourcing
work, and substituting technology/capital for labor).
4.2. Endogenous drivers of GTM challenges
In the context of institutional theory, endogenous drivers are
based on mimetic isomorphism and refer to forces or drivers that
are internal to the firm including competitive or strategic position,
headquarter’s international orientation, organizational structure,
and workforce capability (cf., Schuler et al., 1993). In reviewing and
analyzing the recent research in GTM, three major drivers emerged
in this category: Regiocentroism, International Strategic Alliances,
and Required Competencies.
4.2.1. Regiocentrism
Research in this area suggests that many of GTM challenges are
region and industry specific (e.g., Rugman, 2003). Organizations
are seeing the importance of strategically focusing on specific
geographic regions, such as the European Union (EU), North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), as one market and customize
IHRM activities to best serve the needs of a particular region (e.g.,
Tarique, Schuler, & Gong, 2006). An important challenge for MNEs
is to consider a regional workforce with an appropriate regional
talent strategy. Studies have examined specific countries such as
China (Tung, 2007). Other studies have examined challenges can be
industry specific (Weng, 2008), that is certain industries provide
more favorable environments to retain talent than others. It is
important to note that the current global economic conditions may
have any impact on how MNEs struggle with availability of talent
in specific regions.
4.2.2. International Strategic Alliances
Retention of top level talent (e.g., CEOs, executives, vice
presidents) during the merger or acquisition process is an
I. Tarique, R.S. Schuler / Journal of World Business 45 (2010) 122–133
important challenge for MNEs. A few studies have examined the
notion of ‘talent raiding’ (Gardner, 2002), which refers to an
aggressive attempt by an organization that is, to attract or hire
employees from a competing organizations. A few studies have
examined antecedents of talent retention such as executives’
perceptions of the merger announcement, interactions with the
acquiring firm’s top managers, and long-term effects of the merger
(Krug & Hegarty, 2001). Several studies have examined how
retention affects post-acquisition performance. Current evidence
shows that there is a positive relationship between postacquisition performance of the acquired firm and degree of
retention of the top management team of the acquired firm
(Kiessling & Harvey, 2006). Other studies in this category have
examined challenges in international joint ventures (IJVs) such as
the selection and development of managers in complex IJVs (3 or
more parent firms) (see Adobor, 2004 for more details), and
managing at least six groups of employees each having somewhat
different cross-cultural competency requirements. The different
IJV employee groups highlight the complexity of developing
staffing systems that can effectively select the right mix of talent
for the various stakeholders in an IJV system.
4.2.3. Required Competencies
This area includes studies on general business competencies,
cross-cultural competencies, and knowledge workers. Studies
looking at general business competencies have focused on
competencies needed in most managerial jobs. These competencies include basic education, communication skills, ability to use
sophisticated technology, to interact with demanding customers,
to perform under changing conditions, and motivation to adapt to
new conditions as needed (see Adult Literacy, 2008). It appears
that these increased requirements (competencies) are being
associated with almost all jobs traditionally performed in multinational firms around the world today (Price & Turnbull, 2007).
Studies on cross-cultural competencies (e.g., Johnson, Lenartowicz,
& Apud, 2006) have attempted to conceptualize cross-cultural
competencies into stable and dynamic competencies (e.g., Johnson
et al., 2006; Shaffer, Harrison, Gregersen, Black, & Ferzandi, 2006).
Stable competencies (e.g., personality) are characteristics and
abilities that are consistent over time, relatively fixed, enduring
patterns of how individuals feel, think, and behave. In contrast,
dynamic competencies (e.g., knowledge and skills about cultural
differences) tend to be malleable over time and can be acquired
through learning experiences, e.g., training and international travel
(cf., Peters et al., 1997). Several other studies in this category have
examined antecedents and outcomes of cross-cultural competencies. Finally, studies in this category have proposed the creation of
knowledge workers. While all workers today could be regarded as
requiring more knowledge than ever before to do their jobs well,
‘‘knowledge workers’’ appear to be defined by having special skills
developed through extensive education and training and capable
of having a significant impact on the success of the company
(Jackson, Hitt, & DeNisi, 2003).
4.3. IHRM activities
Schuler et al. (1993) define IHRM activities as both formal
policies of the organization and the actual daily practices that
employees experience. Due in part to the existence of many drivers
of the selected challenges for GTM, there are many possible IHRM
activities that MNEs can consider as actions or tools to address the
many challenges. Matching the possible action with an accurate
diagnosis of an MNEs talent management situation is a first step in
gaining and sustaining a global competitive advantage that may
result from the successful implementation of the correct action.
Our review of the recent GTM research suggests that three major
127
sets of IHRM activities that have been studied and also used by
multinational firms facing their talent management challenges:
Attracting (includes reputation management, recruitment, and
selection), Retaining (includes performance management and
compensation activities), and Developing (includes training and
career development activities). These three major IHRM activities
are a hallmark of a GTM system. The strategic HRM literature (e.g.,
Schuler and Jackson, 2005) suggests that by adopting a systems
perspective, a large number of IHRM activities that are considered
as distinct activities in the IHRM literature can all be considered
part of a GTM system (cf., Schuler and Jackson, 2005). Furthermore,
a systems perspective allows us to examine how the three IHRM
activities fit together.
4.3.1. Attracting talent
This area includes three major IHRM activities: developing HR
reputation; attracting individuals with interest in international
work; and, recruiting vis-a-vis positions. Studies on HR reputation,
which refers to a shared evaluation by stakeholders of an
organization’s HR philosophies, policies, and practices (Hannon &
Milkovich, 1996), have examined why an organization’s HR
reputation has become an increasingly significant aspect of building
organizational capabilities (Holland, Sheenan, & De Cieri, 2007). A
few studies have focused on how organizations develop a compelling
recruitment brand or HR reputation necessary for attracting talent
from diverse populations (e.g., Ferris et al., 2007; see also earlier
studies including Hannon & Milkovich, 1996; Koys, 1997).
In addition to HR reputation, research in this category has
looked at a similar concept of organizational attractiveness and
how this concept has become an important action for most
organizations with respect to attracting talent (e.g., Chapman,
Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005). Several studies have
focused on identifying and examining factors at the organizational
(e.g., size) and individual (e.g., personality) levels that influence
potential applicants’ attraction to multinational enterprises
(MNEs) (Lievens, Decaesteker, Coetsier, & Geirnaert, 2001).
Another possible IHRM policy for MNEs is to attract individuals
interested in international work as well as those interested in
permanent international careers (Tarique and Schuler, 2008).
Scholars in the area of international careers (e.g., Tharenou, 2003,
2002; Wang & Bu, 2004) as well as in global staffing (e.g., Collings
et al., 2009) have identified antecedents, covariates, and consequences of attractiveness to international work/careers such as
self-efficacy, martial status, and family attachment (e.g., Konopaske & Werner, 2005; Konopaske, Robie, & Ivancevich, 2005).
Finally, research in this category has examined how organizations use a talent pool strategy: the company recruits the best
people and then selects them for positions rather than trying to
select specific people for specific positions. Following the talent pool
strategy MNEs remain committed to being very selective in hiring
(Seigel, 2008).
4.3.2. Developing talent
The majority of research in this category has examined IHRM
activities related to developing executives for global leadership
responsibilities. A few studies have described trends and crosscountry differences in executive talent development (e.g., Dickson,
Hartog, & Mitchelson, 2003). Others have identified competencies
needed to work effectively in a global environment (e.g., Bartlett &
Ghoshal, 2003), and competency models for developing competencies (e.g., Caligiuri & Di Santo, 2001Caligiuri et al., 2001; Stahl
et al., 2007). A few studies have examined the processes involved in
designing, delivering, and evaluating developmental experiences
or activities, such as long term and short term global assignments,
participation in global teams, and cross-cultural training (Morrison, 2000). Some studies have challenged the general assumption
128
I. Tarique, R.S. Schuler / Journal of World Business 45 (2010) 122–133
that everyone benefits equally from developmental activities (e.g.,
Caligiuri and Tarique, 2009). These studies have argued that it is
important to understand who will benefit the most from certain
type of developmental activities (Caligiuri, 2006). Organizations
should identify those individuals with the requisite individual
characteristics (e.g., personality), and then offer developmental
experiences or activities to those identified. Developmental
activities may only be effective when learners are predisposed
to success in the first place (Caligiuri, 2000). Finally, there has been
evidence that organizations that excel in talent management make
leadership development an integral part of their culture and
actively involve their senior leaders in the process (see Novicevic &
Harvey, 2004; Seigel, 2008).
common mistakes encountered by managers in identifying,
monitoring and implementing important or right talent metrics
for their organizations. Other studies have examined specific talent
metrics including talent brand mapping, employee-recruit gap
analysis, strategic readiness of individual talent, employee
satisfaction, work motivation, employee commitment, and
extra-role behaviors (see Becker et al., 2009; Collings & Mellahi,
2009; Lawler, Levenson, & Boudreau, 2004). The remaining studies
have attempted to develop talent based scorecards that focus on
becoming employer of choice (e.g., Branham, 2005), sustaining
employee engagement and developing a high-performance culture
(e.g., Rampersad, 2008).
4.4. GTM effectiveness
4.4.2. Competitive advantage
Research in this category suggests that because the scope of this
challenge for GTM for MNEs is so large and the major drivers of the
challenges so significant and complex, MNEs have an opportunity
to gain and sustain a global competitive advantage if they can
create IHRM activities to meet the challenges (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2002; Stephenson & Pandit, 2008). And ‘‘those that get the
solution ‘‘right’’ configuration HRM activities will create a real
source of competitive advantage’’ (Lane & Pollner, 2008).
As shown in Fig. 1 there are several potential results from
successfully developing actions to address the drivers of GTM
challenges. One result is that it is difficult to do well and for others
to copy. But for those organizations that are successful, it is
possible to gain global competitive advantage, and develop IHRM
activities to enable them to sustain this advantage. An important
point here is to realize that sustainability of short and long-term
competitive advantage is not ensured (Daniels, Radebaugh, &
Sullivan, 2007). But the development of IHRM activities to initially
develop the appropriate talent is likely to facilitate the development of more appropriate IHRM activities going forward. The
development of these activities is in turn likely to also result in
stronger management leadership and HR leadership. These
strengths are likely to be further enhanced by programs and
actions specifically designed to train and develop the firms’ leaders
and HR managers (Caye & Marten, 2008; Guthridge, Komm, &
Lawson, 2008).
In framing the topic of effectiveness for international human
resource management, Schuler et al. (1993) defined MNE
effectiveness in terms of utilizing and integrating appropriate
HRM practices and policies that enhance overall performance of
the MNE on several criteria, both short term and long term
oriented. This category had the least number of studies and
because GTM is an important sub-set of IHRM, the focus on GTM
effectiveness is also a sub-set of the effectiveness of IHRM. As
shown in Fig. 1, there are three criteria that called for inclusion in
our framework: improve HRs impact, competitive advantage, and
talent positioning. While others could be included, these seem to
be the most relevant and the most discussed in the literature.
4.4.3. Talent positioning
Another result from successfully addressing the challenges of
GTM is the firms having the right talent at the right place at the right
time with the needed competencies and motivation at all levels and
all locations of the firms (Guthridge et al., 2008; Lane & Pollner,
2008). We refer to this as talent positioning. A shown in Fig. 1, and
important challenge is to develop a bench strength in all of its
positions within the company, both anticipated and unanticipated,
in all current and future locations around the world (Rawlinson et al.,
2008). The result of this is that the organization has the needed
employees at the right place at the right time. In addition, it also
ensures loyalty, thus aiding retention (Seigel, 2008).
4.4.1. Improve HRs impact
Studies in this category have examined three specific challenges: need for alignment, developing talent management
matrices, and building talent management scorecards. Research
on alignment has shown that although HR professionals spend a
great deal of their time on formulating and managing the
traditional HR activities such as recruiting, selecting, training,
performance appraisal and compensation, systemically linking
HRM activities with the firm’s strategies and directions is lacking.
‘‘HR underperforms in companies where its capabilities, competencies, and focus are not tightly aligned with the critical business
priorities’’ (Rawlinson, McFarland, & Post, 2008). Research on
talent metrics (e.g., Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007) have identified
5. Further research, challenges for GTM researchers, and
concluding thoughts
4.3.3. Retaining talent
Articles in this category have focused on two major IHRM
policies: reducing repatriate turnover, and increasing employee
engagement. Several studies have examined how global assignments have become an integral part of individuals’ careers and, for
most companies, an indispensable tool for attracting, developing
and retaining talent – the issue of repatriate turn-over continues to
be an important concern for many MNEs (e.g., Lazarova & Caligiuri
2001; Lazarova & Cerdin, 2007; Yan, Zhu, & Hall, 2002). Other
studies in this area have focused on identifying factors that can
facilitate the retention of individuals when they return back. These
factors can include satisfaction of repatriates with the repatriation
process (Vidal et al., 2008), perception of justice (Siers, 2007), and
availability of repatriation practices perceived important for
successful repatriation (Lazarova & Caligiuri 2001). Finally,
research on employee engagement has examined how and why
increased levels of engagement in global firms promotes retention
of talent, fosters customer loyalty and improves organizational
performance and stakeholder value (Lockwood, 2007). Furthermore, studies have looked at universal practices to effectively
promote engagement such as the need to be aware of country,
regional and cultural differences when designing employee
engagement and commitment initiatives (Lockwood, 2007).
Our proposed integrative framework illustrates the influences
and interrelations of the factors in a MNEs external and internal
environment that may help shape its GTM system. Although the
GTM research is in the early stages of development, and is a
relatively new multi-disciplinary field of enquiry that draws on a
range of academic and applied perspectives, our framework
identifies critical environmental contingencies, discusses the
linkages between MNEs external and internal environment and
the GTM system serves as a basis for future theory building,
teaching, and practice.
I. Tarique, R.S. Schuler / Journal of World Business 45 (2010) 122–133
Table 2
Summary of major GTM challenges and major IHRM activities.
129
The challenges and IHRM activities identified in Table 2 are
purely exploratory, and further research is needed to develop and
understand them. Space limitations prevent us from developing
these challenges and IHRM activities as fully as they need, but we
feel that by identifying and briefly discussing each challenge and
IHRM activity might suggest several opportunities for further
research in this area, and much more work could be done on
essentially every aspect of in GTM.
three streams of IHRM research identified by Dowling, Welch, &
Schuler (1999): Comparative IHRM, HRM in Multinational
Companies (MNCs), and cross-cultural HRM. Scholars in the area
of Comparative IHRM attempt to describe, to compare and to
analyze HRM issues, policies, and practices in different countries
(e.g., Brewster, 1999). Researchers exploring aspects of HRM in
MNCs attempt to study HRM issues, policies, and practices related
to the process of internationalization of firms (e.g., Briscoe et al.,
2009).
Finally, cross-cultural HRM researchers attempt to analyze the
impact of multiple cultures on HRM issues, practices, and policies
(e.g., Adler, 2008). Our review revealed a disproportionate
emphasis on GTM in Multinational Companies. While studies on
GTM in Multinational Companies are extremely important, more
studies in the other two streams would also add significantly to the
literature. Finally, similar to Werner (2002) review of the
international management literature, our review suggests that
levels of analysis in GTM research include countries, states,
industry clusters, industries, firms, strategic business units,
subsidiaries, teams, and individuals. Our review suggests that
most GTM research has been at the macro rather than micro level.
Specifically, the firm appears to be the dominant level of analysis,
while only a small minority of studies is at the individual level or
HRM system level. Numerous micro and cross-level IHRM topics
appear to be potential research areas not currently addressed in
top management journals.
5.1. Theory building
5.2. GTM systems
Our literature review suggests that most of existing research on
GTM is based on anecdotal or limited information and has a
number of theoretical deficiencies. The first step in theory building
here would be to further examine the challenges we have
identified and to further explore the relationships within and
between the elements in our framework. In order to do so,
researchers may choose to develop specific research propositions
or hypotheses that operationalize their particular research focus.
Second, is to select an appropriate theoretical framework to
expand upon the framework presented in this paper. We propose
to do by using institutional theory and human capital theory.
Although we used institutional theory as a foundation to organize
the literature on GTM, this theory can further explain how the
challenges identified in this paper influence the configuration of
IHRM activities. Using institutional theory, IHRM researchers can
view the challenges as legitimate forces that need balancing to gain
access to and control needed resources to develop appropriate
IHRM activities (see Björkman, 2006 for more on institutional
theory). Human capital theory, in contrast can be used to explain
the choices the MNE makes in managing IHRM activities to meet
the GTM challenges. Using this theory, researchers can view global
talent in terms of capital and thus make decisions about
investments in talent just as they make decisions about investing
in other types of capital. Costs related to attracting, retaining, and
developing talent can be viewed as investments in the human
capital of the firm. Furthermore, efforts to develop HR metrics that
establish the value of investments in talent practices can be
grounded in the logic of human capital theory.
Third, we suggest that because the field of GTM is relatively
young, more qualitative methodologies may be used to facilitate
grounded theory building including participant observation,
interviews, and content analysis of archival documentation. Such
qualitative methods might be employed, or paired with nonqualitative methods (e.g., surveys).
Fourth, to aid in our understanding of how the GTM literature
maps onto the overall IHRM literature and to assist in identifying
literature gaps for future research, we classified each paper into the
We recommend that in further research scholars take a closer
look at some of the complexities surrounding the formation of GTM
systems, as well as the relationship among IHRM activities.
Researchers could develop and examine a range of possible
configurations or bundles of IHRM activities that include three key
activities of attraction, development, and retention. One possibility
is to derive a taxonomy of GTM system configurations by cluster
analyzing firms on the basis of the configuration of IHRM activities.
Future research is also needed to examine how IHRM activities of
attraction, development, and retention operate together to
confront the exogenous/endogenous challenges identified in this
paper. The strategic HRM literature suggests that IHRM activities
may supplement, substitute, or interact in positive or negative
ways with each other (cf., Delery, 1998). Given the potential
relationships among IHRM activities, researchers can examine not
only which GTM systems are most important for which challenges,
but which configuration of IHRM activities might best be used to
realize objectives (see Lepak & Shaw, 2008). For example, further
research can examine how GTM systems will differ for different
employee groups (older workers vs. generation Y). As mentioned
earlier, each of the two employee group will differ from the other –
each group contributes in different ways to organizations, and as a
result, each group needs to be managed differently with its own
unique employee value proposition. A related issue of investigation here is to examine if competitive advantage will be created
when the GTM system is aligned with the needs of different
employee groups including older workers and generation Y. This
occurs because the alignment of employees with GTM system is
difficult to copy or imitate by competitors, and hence, becomes a
source of value creation (Barney, 1991; Becker & Huselid, 2006).
Major GTM challenges
Talent flow
Two generations of employees: older or mature workers and younger
workers
Shortage of needed competencies
Changes in the employment relationship
Regional workforces
Talent retention in international strategic alliances
General business competencies and cross-cultural competencies
Major IHRM activities in GTM systems
Developing HR reputation
Attracting individuals with interest in international work
Recruiting based on positions
Developing global leaders
Reducing repatriate turnover
Increasing employee engagement
5.3. Exogenous/endogenous drivers and challenges and GTM systems
Strategic HRM research suggests that the design of a GTM
system may be influenced by the characteristics of the challenges
within the exogenous/endogenous environments. Research is
needed to examine the constraints the exogenous/endogenous
130
I. Tarique, R.S. Schuler / Journal of World Business 45 (2010) 122–133
challenges place on the ability to design a GTM system. For
instance, because of globalization, if organizations need to be
sensitive to regional conditions, they need to design GTM systems
for the entire organization and also adapt their IHRM activities to
multiple regions and industries, each with their own special and
unique needs. Future researchers can examine the ways organizations can be most effective in making generic (i.e., can be
implemented across cultures) GTM systems, and then tailoring
IHRM activities in order to be sensitive to regional and industrial
conditions in efficient ways. Further research is also needed to
examine the extent to which there are country and cultural
differences in the extent to which organizations tailor their GTM
systems to regional and industrial conditions.
5.4. GTM effectiveness
Among the various areas discussed in this paper, limited
research exists in which authors have examined assessments of the
‘‘effectiveness’’ of an organization’s GTM system. Strategic HRM
research suggests that effectiveness of a HRM system can be
measured along a continuum ranging from HR outcomes to
organizational outcomes to financial outcomes to market based
outcomes. Further research is needed to examine why a particular
GTM system is associated with a specific outcome (cf., Lepak &
Shaw, 2008). Future theory-driven research is also needed to
examine the causal chain that explains how attraction, development, and retention influence HR outcomes (e.g., motivation,
productivity, turnover) and how those outcomes, in turn, are
related to specific indicators of financial and market performance
or other indicators of organizational effectiveness. An intriguing
area for further research might involve how organizations develop
GTM scorecards using the logic of balanced scorecards and strategy
maps (Kaplan and Norton, 2004), or develop sophisticated models
of how IHRM activities directly influence internal operations as
well as customer satisfaction.
5.5. GTM as a bridge field
Based on our review, one can categorize GTM as a ‘‘bridge field’’.
Future researchers can address the reverse academic-practice gap
(cf., Rynes, Gyluk, & Brown, 2007), that is to examine ‘‘whether the
issues of the greatest importance to practitioners receive
commensurate coverage by researchers’’ (Rynes et al., 2007:
1004). The literature suggests that issues, problems, and ideas
discussed by HR managers and professionals are occasionally
examined by the academic IHRM community. Rynes (2007)
provides important suggestions for communicating effectively
with practitioners (p. 1047): change language or simplify academic
jargon (e.g., academic terms such as theory, research), examine
research questions based on practical needs or puzzling empirical
phenomena, focus on ‘‘real’’ organizational life and current events,
use a variety of methodologies (e.g., grounded theory, case
analyses, or ethnography) (see Rynes, 2007 for more suggestions).
Future research is also needed to facilitate the transfer of
knowledge from academics to practitioners. One possibility is to
use Action Research (Rynes & Trank, 1999), which is based on the
implementation of new practices in real organizational settings,
and is designed to address pressing problems that have been
identified by organizational members (Rynes & Trank, 1999). In
addition future research can focus on using complementary
sources: academic literature, trade studies, and consultancy
reports. The are several advantages of using such an approach
such as increased collaboration between academics and practitioners, improved quality of papers and findings, greater publicity,
and better holistic solutions (see Rynes & Trank, 1999 for more
information). Academics, however, should be careful not to
compromise on theory building or testing at the expense of
seeking managerial relevance and pragmatic solutions.
5.6. Other areas
Future research could examine several other issues that can be
organized along two levels: organizational level and individual/
group level.
At the organizational level there are two potential areas of
further research: Global Talent Challenges (GTCs) and Extent of
Coverage.
To explicitly include the economic realities of good time and
bad times in discussions of GTM, it might be helpful to utilize a
broader umbrella concept such at Global Talent Challenges (GTCs).
Global talent challenges include managing a firm to ensure just the
right amount of talent, at the right place, at the right price, and at
the right time when at times there may be shortages of talent and
at other times surpluses of talent. These are all for the purposes of
balancing the workforce with the needs of the firm in the short
term, and positioning the firm to have the workforce needed in the
longer term (Schuler et al., in press). Use of the GTCs framework
greatly expands the treatment of GTM beyond the traditional base
of ‘‘managing the global talent shortage.’’
MNEs have a choice in the extent of those employees to be
covered in their global talent management programs. This can
range from the top 10% to the virtually all employees, 100%.
Reflecting programs to include a select few might incorporate the
terminology of ‘‘Type A players’’, and ‘‘Type A positions’’ (Collings &
Mellahi, 2009; Huselid, Beatty, & Becker, 2009). These scholars
argue that while all employees and all positions help the
organization succeed, a few contribute substantially more to its
success, and, therefore, warrant more resources and development.
Those that include all employees and all positions suggest that all
employees contribute to the success of the organization, and that
all need to be continually developed (cf., Guthridge & Komm,
2008). Further research might explore the impact of varying
degrees of inclusiveness.
At the individual/group level there are two potential areas for
future research: Career Management and Global Teams. Although
MNEs recognize the value of and need for retaining employees they
appear to be encouraging a contradictory policy. This is the policy
that encourages employees to be responsible for their own careers
and success within organizations. Put simply, it is a policy of ‘‘Me,
Inc.’’ that conceptualizes individual learning and mobility as
positive and necessary. The result of this policy may be employees
leaving an organization and moving to another one, even though
the present employer is wholly acceptable, just because the
individual is led to think about mobility in very positive career
terms. MNEs conceive of IHRM and GTM policies and practices that
might facilitate becoming an ‘‘employer of global choice’’, they
may need to assess the potential contradictory effects of other
IHRM and GTM policies and practices that are actually harmful to
the organization. Of course, during times of global economic and
financial recession, the talent shortage turns to talent surplus, then
what? Career development programs in a scenario of surplus might
be reduced to the top 10% of workforce, rather than the entire
100%. How employees might react to a GTM program that has
varying degrees of inclusiveness might be an interesting topic of
inquiry (Schuler et al., in press).
As MNEs globalize themselves, and thus need to coordinate
themselves more closer than ever, MNEs may increasingly rely on
global team rather than individuals (Brewster et al., 2005; Nayman,
2003). This area appears to offer an important opportunity for
IHRM and GTM researchers. More knowledge on how MNEs can
develop cross-cultural teamwork competencies could be very
helpful. It appears that IHRM practices should contribute greatly to
I. Tarique, R.S. Schuler / Journal of World Business 45 (2010) 122–133
this competency buildup, but more research could offer helpful
details on exactly how organizations can design IHRM systems that
support and facilitate the utilization of knowledge-intensive
teamwork (KITwork) to develop and sustain a competitive
advantage (see Jackson et al., 2006). This said, however, the
question is what is the role of GTM? Does GTM shift from an
individual-based IHRM issue to a team-based IHRM issue? Then
are all IHRM policies and practices for GTM really designed around
teams rather than individuals?
5.7. Managerial relevance
This review suggests that most organizations are facing several
global challenges. The potential role of IHRM activities in
addressing those selected challenges has clear implications for
managing talent or individuals with high levels of human capital.
The prevailing logic, thus far, has largely assumed that as MNEs
first began expanding their international operations, they often
assumed that IHRM activities of the parent country could and
would be adopted worldwide. Consistent with this perspective,
they staffed key management positions in their foreign operations
with talent from the parent country. Increasingly, however, the
efforts of most IHRM staff now have been redirected toward
managing talent on a global basis, recognizing that it is critical for
managers to examine how IHRM activities of attraction, development, and retention operate together to confront the exogenous/
endogenous challenges identified in this paper. Managers and
IHRM professionals need to design GTM systems that fit the
contours of the present context – a context that is more complex
and multifaceted – while also anticipating the future concerns of
varied stakeholders. For instance, managers and IHRM professionals will need to design their GTM systems so that certain
‘‘configurations’’ of IHRM activities are better than others with
respect to attracting, developing, and retaining talent. Utilizing
GTM systems as a long-term global talent management strategy in
concert with the laws, culture, society, politics, economy, and
general environment of a particular location are key to managing
the global challenges for many MNEs.
6. Conclusion
Many of the most pressing global challenges facing global firms
today are directly related to human capital challenges. Many
human resource practitioners and HR consultants (HR professionals) are now recognizing this, especially those that operate
globally, the multinational enterprises. Academics are also
showing a strong interest as evidenced by their work in the
new area referred to as ‘‘global talent management’’. In this article,
we attempted to review that academic work on GTM and to
organize that literature by creating an integrative framework for
understanding and advancing further research in global talent
management. To guide this research our framework highlights
several selected challenges in GTM, and several drivers of those
challenges. It also highlights the potential role of IHRM activities in
addressing those selected challenges. Our proposed integrative
framework illustrates the influences and interrelations of the
factors in a MNEs external and internal environment that may help
shape its GTM system.
Our review suggests that GTM research can categorized as a
‘‘bridge field’’, is in the early stages of development, and is a
relatively new multi-disciplinary field of enquiry that draws on a
range of academic and applied perspectives – much more work
could be done on essentially every aspect of GTM. Accordingly,
there is a strong need for theory building, for micro and cross-level
IHRM topics, for understanding the complexities surrounding the
formation of GTM systems, as well as the relationship among IHRM
131
activities for examining the causal chain that explains how
attraction, development, and retention influence HR outcomes
(e.g., motivation, productivity, turnover), and for transferring
knowledge from academics to HR professionals (and vice-versa).
We have pointed out where future studies can make incremental
advances in those areas as well as in those that have been largely
overlooked in the past.
Finally, we hope that our article and our framework adds value
to the existing work in GTM on a number of ways: (1) in particular,
we hope that our framework provides clarity, promotes dialogue,
and encourages new directions in practice and research that begin
to examine critical challenges faced by HR professionals and
academics with respect to managing global talent such as
incorporating concerns about the need for firms to implement
IHRM activities related to employee reductions; (2) as presented,
we also hope that our proposed framework illustrates the
influences and interrelations of the factors in a MNEs environment
such as a global economic recession that may help shape its GTM
actions; and (3) finally, we hope that our framework proposes
critical environmental contingencies, discusses the linkages
between an MNEs environment and GTM, and describes the many
challenges for GTM (that are described throughout the article) that
could be the focus for further research.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their thanks to the invaluable
comments of the reviewers and the helpful guidance and
encouragement provided by Hugh Scullion, Dave Collings, Wes
Harry, Susan Jackson, Mark Huselid, Dave Lepak, Paul Sparrow,
Mark Saxer and Rosalie Tung.
References
Adler, N. (2008). International dimensions of organizational behavior (5th ed.). Cincinnati,
OH: South-Western.
Adobor, H. (2004). Selecting management talent for joint ventures: A suggested
framework. Human Resource Management Review, 15: 161–178.
Adult Literacy. (2008). Reach Higher America: Overcoming crisis in the U.S. workforce.
Washington, DC: National Commission on Adult Literacy. Retrieved November 17,
2008, from http://www.nationalcommissiononadultliteracy.org.
Athey, R. (2008). It’s 2008: Do you know where your talent is? Why acquisition and
retention strategies don’t work. A Deloitte Research Study, Deloitte Development
LLC.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17: 99–120.
Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (2003, August). What is a global manager? Harvard Business
Review .
Becker, B., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic human resource management: Where do
we go from here? Journal of Management, 32: 898–925.
Beechler, S., & Woodward, I. C. (2009). The global war for talent. Journal of International
Management, 15: 273–285.
Björkman, I. (2006). International human resource management research and institutional theory. In G. K. Stahl & I. Björkman (Eds.), Handbook of research in international human resource management (pp. 463–474). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Becker, B., Huselid, M., & Beatty, R. (2009). The differentiated workforce: transforming
talent into strategic impact. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Boudreau, J., & Ramstad, P. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability:
A new HR decision Science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource
Management, 42: 129–136.
Boudreau, J., & Ramstad, P. (2007). Beyond HR: The new science of human capital. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Branham, L. (2005). Planning to become an employer of choice. Journal of Organizational
Excellence, 24: 57–68.
Brewster, C. (1999). Different paradigms in human resource management: Questions
raised by comparative research. In P. M. Wright, L. D. Dyer, J. W. Boudreau, & G. T.
Milkovich (Eds.), Strategic human resource management in the twenty-first century
(pp. 213–238). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Brewster, C., Sparrow, P., & Harris, H. (2005). Toward a new model of globalizing HRM.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16: 949–970.
Briscoe, D., Schuler, R., & Claus, E. (2009). International human resource management 3e.
London: Routledge.
Broadbridge, Maxwell, & Ogden, (2007). Experiences, perceptions and expectations
of retail employment for Generation Y. Career Development International, 12:
523–544.
132
I. Tarique, R.S. Schuler / Journal of World Business 45 (2010) 122–133
Budhwar, P., Schuler, R., & Sparrow, P. (2009). International human resource management four-volume set. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Caligiuri, P. (1999). The ranking of scholarly journals in international human resource
management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10: 515–
519.
Caligiuri, P. (2000). The big five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate
success. Personnel Psychology, 53: 67–88.
Caligiuri, P. (2006). Developing global leaders. Human Resource Management Review,
16: 219–228.
Caligiuri, P., & Di Santo, V. (2001). Global competence: What is it, and can it be
developed through global assignments? Human Resource Planning, 3: 27–38.
Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2009). Predicting effectiveness in global leadership activities.
Journal of World Business, 44: 336–346.
Cappelli, P. (2005). Will there be a labor shortage? Human Resource Management, 44:
143–149.
Cappelli, P. (2008a). Talent on demand. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Cappelli, P. (2008b). Talent management for the twenty-first century. Harvard Business
Review, March: 74–81.
Carra, S., Inkson, K., & Thorn, K. (2005). From global careers to talent flow: Reinterpreting ‘brain drain’. Journal of World Business, 40: 386–398.
Caye, J.-M., & Marten, I. (2008). Talent management. Boston: The Boston Consulting
Group.
Chaisson, J., & Schw...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment