8. The neglected role of talent proactivity : Integrating proactive behavior into talent-management

 

As per McKinsey, (2018).  Effective talent management is considered a key driver of an organization's ability to outstrip competitors Talent management has been broadly defined as a specific bundle of human resource (HR) practices to attract, select, develop, and retain high performing or high-potential employees in pivotal organizational positions (Collings, Mellahi, & Cascio, 2018; Silzer & Dowell, 2010). Scholars assume that talent management affects organizational performance by producing positive attitudes, cognitions, and behaviors among the organization's most high potential and high performing employees. In other words, employee reactions to talent management (i.e., changes in their attitudes, cognitions, and behaviors) are assumed to be a important arbitrating mechanism in the relationship between talent management and organizational-level talent-management outcomes, such as increased innovativeness and firm performance (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; De Boeck, Meyers, & Dries, 2018).

In line with this assumption, the available literature has mainly focused on exploring how employees react to talent management, operationalized as being identified as talent (i.e., having a talent status) or having access to talent-management practices (De Boeck et al., 2018; Gelens, Hofmans, Dries, & Pepermans, 2014; King, 2016). While this available work has led to valuable insights, it has treated talented employees as mere passive recipients who react to organizational initiatives (e.g., De Boeck et al., 2018; Gelens et al., 2014; King, 2016). Hardly any publication has addressed the (pro-)active role that talented employees may play in gaining access to and capitalizing on organizational talent-management initiatives (Thunnissen, Boselie, & Fruytier, 2013). Exceptions are the work of Cappelli and Keller (2014) on the role of proactive job design in talent retention, and the work of Dries and Pepermans (2008) on the role of proactive behavior in high potential identification.

I observe a lack of publications on talent proactive behavior, defined as self-initiated behavior that aims to improve or transform one's circumstances (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Parker & Collins, 2010), as a major gap in the talent-management literature. This perception is grounded in predictions about the future of the field, directing out that effective talent management needs more than passive employees who react to organizational triggers ̶ even if these employees are high potentials or high performers. Al Ariss, Cascio, and Paauwe (2014) anticipate that the continuous technological progress will increase the occurrence of virtual work, enabling organizations to tap more diverse, yet remote talent pools (cf. Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012). Instead of investing into long-term employment relationships with talented employees, organizations will start to use more short-term, project-based employment contracts for talented individuals. This allows organizations to gain the talent they need at a particular location at a particular point in time (Al Ariss et al., 2014). Subsequently, intensive investments in talent will be less attractive for organizations because such investments will only yield a healthy return if employees work on a constant basis for the same organization. Subsequently, organizations will have to rely on employees to proactively develop their knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), plan their career progression, and seize opportunities to contribute and to innovate. This implies that it is high-time for talent-management scholars to learn from related academic fields, such as careers (Bell & Staw, 1989) and leadership (Crant & Bateman, 2000), that have long embraced proactive behavior as a core concept in their respective field.

The present paper signifies a first step in this direction, directing to integrate the concept proactive behavior into talent-management conceiving. More explicitly, this paper explores three possible relationships between talent proactive behavior and talent management to expand talent-management theorizing. First, building on the idea that employees are not only products, but also producers of work systems (cf. reciprocal determinism; Bandura, 1997; Frese, Garst, & Fay, 2007), I suggest that employees are likely to secure their inclusion in a talent pool and/or access to talent-management practices by showing initiative and effort (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001; Thunnissen, 2016). Second, drawing on the Ability Motivation Opportunity (AMO) model (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000) and Self Determination Theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan, 2000, Deci and Ryan, 2008), I suggest that proactive behavior functions as a mediator between talent management and employee reactions (attitudes, cognitions, and behavior). Third, in line with theories on person-environment interactions (cf. Griffin, Colella, & Goparaju, 2000), I suggest that talent proactive behavior can act as a moderator in the relationship between talent-management practices and employee reactions. Based on these three possible relationships, I develop a new conceptual model of the relationship between talent-management and employee reactions that outlines relevant avenues for future research in the talent-management domain.

Section snippets

The common talent-management paradigm: talented employees as passive recipients of talent-management practices

The academic discourse on the interface between talent management and individual employees predominantly focusses on how employees react to the talent-management practices provided by their employing organization (e.g., Björkman, Ehrnrooth, Mäkelä, Smale, & Sumelius, 2013; Gelens et al., 2014; Swailes & Blackburn, 2016). Talent-management practices form a subset of human resource (HR) practices (Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014) that is exclusively accessible for a small group of high performing and

Integrating proactive behavior into the common talent-management paradigm

To integrate research on proactive behavior into the talent-management literature, I propose to expand the common conjectural model that informs talent-management research (Fig. 1) by including the concept proactive behavior in three potential roles: as a analyst, mediator, and moderator (see Fig. 2). I will theoretically explain all three roles and derive propositions after defining proactive behavior.

Discussion

Proactive behavior of talented employees is a topic that has hardly captured the attention of talent-management scholars (Thunnissen et al., 2013). It emphasizes that proactive behavior merits this attention because it is not only likely to influence who gets access to talent-management practices, but also how these practices relate to employee attitudes, cognitions, and behaviors. Today's organizations increasingly expect employees to assume responsibility and to show personal

Practical implications

The present paper has several implications for talent-management practice. Scholars and practitioners alike often discuss talent management and, in particular, talent development, as if it was the responsibility of the organization alone. However, implementing talent management in a top-down manner may not be flexible enough and may not generate enough momentum any more to keep up with the fast developments in today's dynamic labor market (Al Ariss et al., 2014; Major et al., 2006).

Conclusions

In the present paper, I reason that it is high-time to integrate the notion of talent proactive behavior into the talent-management discourse. For talent-management research, it is pivotal to explore the role that proactive behavior among talented employees plays in achieving valued talent-management outcomes. This includes an exploration of how employee initiative influences access to talent-management practices, how access to talent management can induce proactive behaviors, and how talent