655667

research-article2016
HRDXXX10.1177/1534484316655667Human Resource Development ReviewMehdiabadi and Li

Integrative Literature Review

Human Resource Development Review
2016, Vol. 15(3) 263­–294
Understanding Talent © The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Development and [Link]/[Link]
DOI: 10.1177/1534484316655667
Implications for Human [Link]

Resource Development:
An Integrative
Literature Review

Amir Hedayati Mehdiabadi1 and Jessica Li1

Abstract
As the topic of talent development (TD) gets more popularity in practice of
organizations and among human resource development (HRD) professionals, the
need for understanding the nature and the scope of TD activities increases. The aim
of this article is to help this understanding through an integrative review of literature.
As part of this article, the definitions of and the perspectives toward talent-related
activities in TD literature have been analyzed and a comprehensive definition for TD
is suggested. Moreover, four major themes within TD literature have been identified:
(a) issues related to career development, (b) the influence of contextual factors, (c)
the relationship between TD and attraction and retention of talents, and (d) issues of
diversity in the context of TD. Based on our findings, some of the gaps in the literature
are presented. The potential actions that HRD researchers and practitioners can take
to address these challenges will be suggested and discussed.

Keywords
talent, talent development, talent management, integrative literature review

Despite the popularity of using the term talent development (TD) in recent years, it is
an ambiguous term and its boundaries and scope is not clear. Similar to the term, talent
management (TM), TD suffers from the lack of clarity. Human resource development

1University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, USA

Corresponding Author:
Amir Hedayati Mehdiabadi, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 351 Education, 1310 S. 6th St.,
Champaign, IL 61820.
Email: hedayat2@[Link]
264 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

(HRD) scholars have started to use this term in recent years and some research has been
conducted on the topic, yet many researchers are not explicit about what TD means.
The literature on talent in organizations has been traditionally focused vastly on
TM. The use of term, the war for talent, by McKinsey & Company in 1997 (Michaels,
Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001) has made talent a popular term among business
leaders. Economic difficulties, globalization, demographic changes of the workforce,
and the need for continuous innovation had made TM a strategic issue (Cheese,
Gartside, & Smith, 2009). However, the research of TM has long been suffered from
lacking a precise definition (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Lewis & Heckman, 2006),
theoretical support and development (Collings & Mellahi, 2009), and measurement
frameworks for operationalization and identification (Nijs, Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries,
& Sels, 2014).
Talent is an ambiguous term: While

sometimes it refers to an aptitude or ability in a person . . . sometimes it refers to talented

performance by the person . . . [which is the] behavior that goes beyond the ordinary in
meeting some criterion of desirability. (McClelland, 1958, p. 1)

Nijs et al. (2014) introduced a working definition of talent:

Talent refers to systematically developed innate abilities of individual that are deployed
in activities they like, find important, and in which they want to invest energy. It enables
individuals to perform excellently in one or more domains of human functioning,
operationalized as performing better than other individuals of the same age or experience,
or as performing consistently at their personal best. (p. 3)

By reviewing the literature on TM, Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, and González-Cruz

(2013) introduced a framework to capture TM practices. They categorize the current
practices into two major approaches, object approach and subject approach. Object
approach has to do with talent as characteristics of individuals and considers talent as
natural ability, commitment, mastery, or fit. The subject approach focuses on individu-
als and includes inclusive or exclusive TM practices (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013).

Problem and Purpose Statement

TD has become a popular term in today’s practice. In 2014, American Society for
Training and Development (ASTD), the world’s largest association in the field of
developing human resources decided to change its name. As claimed in its web-
site, the association changed its name to the Association for Talent Development
(ATD) on May 6, 2014 to “better meet the needs and represent the work of this
dynamic profession” (“About Association for Talent Development,” 2014). TD
along with talent attraction and talent retention has been seen as the three domi-
nant strategies or practices within TM (Thunnissen, Boselie, & Fruytier, 2013).
However, TD has not received enough attention in the dialogue among manage-
ment scholars on the topic of talent. One exception is the “make or buy” debate
Mehdiabadi and Li 265

that is a long-lasting debate in the literature (Cappelli, 2008; Cappelli & Keller,
2014). Pfeffer (2001), as one of the supporters of “make” approach, warns that
mere attention to attract and retain but neglect the development of talented employ-
ees could harm the organization. Moreover, according to Garavan, Carbery, and
Rock (2012), focusing on acquiring talents from external sources is not a success-
ful long-term strategy; instead, organizations should pursue the strategy of devel-
oping talent from within, to ensure that employees possess the essential skills and
competencies to deploy business strategies. Despite this, external hiring is preva-
lent among today’s organizations and is highly supported by new institutions, spe-
cifically labor market intermediaries (Cappelli & Keller, 2014). As discussed by
Cappelli and Keller (2014), “. . . we know remarkably little about the new prac-
tices in talent management” (p. 323). We argue that this necessitates further scru-
tiny on the definition, scope, and status of TD as one of main practices of TM and
its potential and actual function. Such scrutiny would help practitioners in the
decisions on their talent needs.
As TD draws the attention of organizations and professionals in the field, research-
ers in academia have started to focus on talents from a developmental perspective
(e.g., Caplan, 2013; Cappelli, 2008; Garavan et al., 2012). Kim and McLean (2012)
argued the developmental focus of HRD as an important component of TM, which has
been increasingly emphasized in human resource management literature (e.g., Collings
& Mellahi, 2009).
While there are several literature review articles on TM and its different aspects as
listed by Gallardo-Gallardo, Nijs, Dries, and Gallo (2015) (i.e., Cappelli & Keller,
2014; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Dries, 2013; Lewis & Heckman, 2006; Tarique &
Schuler, 2010; Thunnissen et al., 2013), there is a lack for a literature review with
specific focus on TD. Knowing this, it is time to examine the research on TD to pro-
vide a better understanding of the status and the nature of TD. Knowing the status of
the field might guide future research and trigger further discussions on this important
topic. As one can see while processes such as attainment and retention can best be
discussed in management field, developing talent might be of particular interest to
HRD researchers and practitioners.
Therefore, this study seeks to critically analyze and review the literature of TD with
the purpose of identifying the existing perspectives toward talent and TD and also the
way TD has been specified and studied in the existing limited research. The argument
is that through a thorough analysis and scrutiny of the previous work on TD, along
with the opportunities that HRD as a field provides, we can move closer to a compre-
hensive understanding of TD to inform future research and practice.
The following research questions guide the current study:

Research Question 1: What are the specifications and characteristics of TD as it

has been defined in current TD literature?
Research Question 2: What are the antecedents and outcomes in quantitative stud-
ies and what are the main findings of qualitative studies within TD literature?
Research Question 3: What are the key themes in TD literature?
266 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

Method
This research follows the guidelines suggested by Torraco (2005) for integrative lit-
erature reviews. According to Torraco (2005), “integrative literature review is a form
of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic
in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are
generated” (p. 356).

Literature Search and Criteria for Inclusion

Using the databases ABI/INFORM complete from ProQuest and Business Complete
and Human Resources Abstracts from EBSCO, a literature search was conducted to
identify peer-reviewed articles related to TD. We did not limit our search to any spe-
cific time frame and searched the entire selected databases. The search was conducted
in December 2014 using the following combinations:

•• “Talent development” in the title

•• “Developing talent” in the title
•• “Talent” in the title and “talent development” in the abstract of the documents
•• “Talent” in the title and “developing talent” in the abstract of the documents
•• “Talent” in the title and “HRD” in the abstract of the documents
•• “Talent” in the title and “Human resource development” in the abstract of the
documents

Literature with the focus of generic development was not included in this study.
The word “Talent” must be in the title or the abstract. Also, we were specifically
interested in development of talents and therefore development concept must be
included in the title or abstract of the articles. As the literature on talent is tradition-
ally dominated by issues of talent retention and talent acquisition rather than devel-
opment, the number of articles with a significant interest in and focus on TD was
relatively small. The search resulted in a total of 243 articles. Then, a review of the
abstracts of these 243 articles was performed. During this process, if TD was not
one of the main focuses of the article or if the setting was not relevant to organiza-
tions (i.e., gifted education), the article was excluded. Finally, a total number of 57
articles were identified relevant and within the scope of the research and therefore
were downloaded for analysis.

Analysis Process
To analyze the literature, first, the abstracts of the identified studies were reviewed and
they were categorized under one of these categories: (a) conceptual, (b) data based
(empirical), and (c) normative. This categorization is based on the contributions
regarding TM as identified by Iles, Preece, and Chuai (2010). Conceptual articles are
articles that attempt to conceptualize TM on the basis of previous studies (Iles et al.,
Mehdiabadi and Li 267

2010). Normative articles are mainly individual experiences and self-report of practi-
tioners. Empirical studies are data driven research (Iles et al., 2010).
After this first level of analysis, 28 articles were identified as normative articles and
were excluded. The remaining 29 articles including 16 empirical studies and 13 con-
ceptual papers were completely read. As a result, the definitions of talent and perspec-
tives of authors toward talent were recorded.
For identifying the authors’ stances toward talent, we applied Gallardo-Gallardo
et al.’s (2013) framework to the definitions provided by the authors. If the definition
was not included in an article or the stance toward talent was not articulated explicitly
by the author(s), we judged it based on our interpretations on the way the talent was
approached in concept. For articles with critical views toward talent, we considered
“critical” as the stance. Finally, if the articles were not clear about the talent as a con-
cept, or it had reviewed different stances without any of them to be the dominant
stance, we considered them as “no particular stance.” Other important information
such as method, setting, and participants for the empirical research in the literature
was also extracted during the review process.
Finally, by using inductive content analysis and open coding approach, the main
themes in the literature were identified. We used qualitative content analysis to ana-
lyze the literature. Content analysis is a technique for systematic and replicable review
of a variety of data to reduce the phenomena or events into categories based on coding
rules (Harwood & Garry, 2003; Stemler, 2001). As discussed by Harwood and Garry
(2003), it “enables analysis of ‘open-ended’ data to be structured for purposes of diag-
nosis” (p. 479).

Results
As we mentioned previously, 29 articles met the presented criteria and, therefore, were
fully read and analyzed. Based on our review, 15 out of these 29 articles were pub-
lished in HRD journals. Human Resource Development International with seven arti-
cles on the topic is the journal with highest number of publications on the topic. To the
surprise of the authors, no article on talent or TD was found in Human Resource
Development Review and Human Resource Development Quarterly at the time this
research was conducted.

Definitions of Talent-Related Concepts and Perspectives Toward Talent

Table 1 summarizes the definitions of talent-related concepts (i.e., talent, TM, TD,
etc.) in reviewed conceptual articles. The definition of talent-related concepts in
empirical studies can be found in Table 2. In addition, the participants, settings, and
methods used in each article are listed in this table.
Among the reviewed articles, only four articles included the definition of the term,
talent development, explicitly (i.e., Benham, 1993; Chami-Malaeb & Garavan, 2013;
Garavan et al., 2012; Ibeh & Debrah, 2011) and the rest of publications have included
merely the definitions of talent or TM. Most of TM definitions are process-oriented
 Table 1. Definitions of Conceptual Articles in TD Literature.

268
Author(s) Definition Perspective
(year) Journal or descriptions toward talent

Benham SAM Advanced Talent development has been seen as “a comprehensive development framework Subjective-inclusive
(1993) Management [which] can sustain the progress that transforms people from factors of production
Journal into forces of contribution” (p. 34).
Conger Organizational The focus is on global leaders but no definition is provided. Subjective-exclusive
(2014) Dynamics
Devins and HRDI The authors propose the concept of Sustainable Training Management and Critical (considering
Gold Development, which is “grounded in the value of tacit and embedded development corporate social
(2014) processes undertaken to reflect a pluralist . . . approach to understanding of a skills responsibility and low-paid
ecosystem” rather than individualist managerial approach (p. 514). workers)
Downs and HRDI “Although people possess different qualities, skills and competences, some innate Critical-radical
Swailes and others acquired, talent must nonetheless be seen as a socially constructed
(2013) phenomenon that takes on different meanings in different contexts” (p. 268).
Garavan, European Journal “Talent development focuses on the planning, selection and implementation of development No particular stance-raising
Carbery, of Training and strategies for the entire talent pool to ensure that the organization has both the current questions of scope and
and Rock Development and future supply talent to meet strategic objectives and that development activities are nature of talent for TD
(2012) aligned with organizational talent management processes” (p. 6).
Iles, HRDI “. . . TM displays the features of a management fashion, as it appears both rational Critical (questioning the
Preece, and progressive—‘rational’ as an effective means to valued ends, and ‘progressive’ nature of TM and if it
and as new or improved in relation to older techniques. There is a lack of clarity and contributes meaningfully to
Chuai agreement in the TM literature as to its nature, definition and scope; such ambiguity the research and practice)
(2010) is a key feature of a management fashion” (p. 137).
Kim and Advances in The authors refer to Collings and Mellahi’s (2009) definition and define global TM “as Subjective-exclusive
McLean Developing Human an organization’s efforts to acquire, develop, and retain talent to meet organizational
(2012) Resources strategies on a global scale, given not only the differences between organizations but
also their global and cultural contexts” (p. 569).
Nilsson and European Journal The authors state that talent generally “refers to people who contribute to No particular stance
Ellström of Training and organizational performance or may refer to performance of such individual” (p. 35).
(2012) Development They also state that “Talent is closely related to an individual’s actual capabilities of
performing a job” (p. 33).

(continued)
 Table 1. (continued)
Author(s) Definition Perspective
(year) Journal or descriptions toward talent

Shen and Human Resource No definition provided No particular stance

Hall Management
(2009)
Siikaniemi European Journal According to the author, TM “creates a context for the rest of the management of the Objective
(2012) of Training and organization, not vice versa. Postmodern autonomous TM promotes gallant
Development discourse, which seeks new possibilities and solutions for unexpected situations”
(p. 49). The importance of predicting and planning for managing talent and competences
(competence foresight) in today’s dynamic contexts is the author’s main concern.
Thijssen Int. Journal of As suggested by the authors, giftedness and academic intelligence is emphasized in Objective
and Human Resource educational settings while capabilities and competences are main predictors of
van der Development and success in organizational setting. According to the author, “[a]t the career start high
Heijden Management potentials’ talent is often determined on the basis of several criteria that are not
(2003) only related to capability but also to giftedness, results of personality tests, displayed
behavior during assessments, etcetera” (p. 155).
Watson International Journal The author is mainly focused on management development and looks at talent Subjective-inclusive
(2008) of Contemporary management as “an integrated business strategy that enables the development of
Hospitality individuals to fulfil their potential” (p. 759).
Warg Journal of TM as “the identification, recruitment and development of suitable staff members, Subjective-exclusive
(2008) International Trade including facets like structured skills and competence analysis, search and recruiting,
Law and Policy development of TalentPools or successor management” (p. 180).
Yoon and Advances in No definition provided No particular stance
Lim Developing Human
(2010) Resources

Note. TD = talent development; HRDI = Human Resource Development International; TM = talent management.

269
 Table 2. Definitions, Methods, Settings, and Participants of Empirical Studies in TD Literature.

270
Author(s) View Methods, participants,
(year) Journal Definition(s) of talent and settings

Chami- International “Talent development focuses on developing employees labelled as Subjective- Quantitative, 238 employees labeled high
Malaeb and Journal of talented and those who hold linchpin positions in organizations” exclusive potential in nine firms in Lebanon
Garavan HRM (p. 4047; citing Boudreau & Ramstad 2005).
(2013)
Claussen, Journal of “Strategic talent management describes an organization’s Objective Quantitative, managers in global video-
Grohsjean, World identification of key positions and, subsequently, the gaming industry
Luger, and Business development of a talent pool to fill these positions” (p. 236)
Probst citing Collings & Mellahi (2009).
(2014)
Glastra and European “Talent is not a trait existing within an individual, but the Critical (talent Qualitative, 12 participants in
Meerman Journal of outcome of a specific system and history of interaction between as an outcome management development course
(2012) Training and employees and selective agents within the work organization” of the system Twenty-two functionaries involved in
Development (p. 107; citing Barab & Plucker,2002). and interaction the project (managers and workplace
of individuals coaches and also sponsors) in diversity
rather than initiative involving management
individual traits) development for a group of ethnic
minority and majority within the Dutch
National Tax Administration
Guerci and HRDI “Favor was shown to TM systems giving rise to segmented Critical (as a new Qualitative, one person from HR
Solari methods of managing people considered as talented” (p. 30). brand for HR) department directly in charge with TM
(2012) “The reason is the fact that there are many companies that system in four organizations from three
claim that they use a talent management system, but at the different sectors of industry: energy,
operational level it is in fact nothing but a different formulation banking, and automotive
of the activities usually carried out by the HR” (p. 30; citing
Lewis & Heckman, 2006)
Holland, HRDI No formal definition but by referring to the resource based view, Objective Quantitative, 1,372 human resources
Sheehan, the authors emphasize the need for “employment systems that professionals in Australia
and De prioritize HRD to enable competitive advantage” (p. 247).
Cieri
(2007)

(continued)
 Table 2. (continued)

Author(s) View Methods, participants,

(year) Journal Definition(s) of talent and settings

Hu (2008) European No definition or description Subjective- Quantitative, 243 talents from 36

Planning inclusive companies located in Northern Taiwan
Studies and 172 talents from 15 companies
located in Southern Taiwan
Ibeh and Journal of “Talent development . . . as integral part of talent management Subjective- Mixed methods, administrators and the
Debrah World . . . involves developing leaders via processes such as coaching, exclusive deans in business schools in Africa
(2011) Business feedback, training, mentoring and challenging employees” (p. 43; (leaders) (22 business schools in seven African
citing Evans, Pucik, & Barsoux, 2002). countries including South Africa,
Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania,
Uganda, and Botswana
Kim, Performance They focus on technical talent and define it as “professional Subjective- Qualitative, no detailed description of
Williams, Improvement workers who rely on professional judgment or specialized exclusive (in participants but through interviews in
Rothwell, Quarterly training to perform their work” (p. 96). theory) five best practice partner organizations
and They state that they see technical TM as “[t]he process that Objective (in
Penaloza focuses on attracting, developing, and retaining the most analysis)
(2014) talented technical and professional workers and transferring
their specialized knowledge to less proficient or less experience
workers” (p. 12).
Kucherov European No definition provided Subjective- Quantitative, 1,194 employees (289 from
and Journal of inclusive companies with employer brand and
Zavyalova Training and 905 from other companies) in Russia
(2012) Development
Lehmann HRDI “[Knowledge workers’] skills cannot simply be acquired on Objective Qualitative, 26 human resource managers
(2009) the market, as knowledge workers not only possess formal in Thai and Malaysian service firms
qualification obtained from education but also hold a set across industries such as banking, hotel,
of competencies, which are highly personal and difficult to tourism, telecommunication, and so
describe precisely” (p. 157). forth
McDonnell, Journal of Global talent management is the focus of the research and has Subjective- Quantitative, senior HR practitioners in
Lamare, World been defined by quoting Collings and Scullion (2007, p. 102): exclusive 423 multinational enterprises in Ireland
Gunnigle, Business “the strategic integration of resourcing and development at the
and Lavelle international level … [which] involves the proactive identification,
(2010) development, and strategic deployment of high performing and
high-potential strategic employees on a global scale” (p. 151).

271
(continued)
272
Table 2. (continued)
Author(s) View Methods, participants,
(year) Journal Definition(s) of talent and settings

Oehley Management “. . . the implementation of integrated strategies or systems Subjective- Quantitative, 123 employees who were
and Theron Dynamics designed to increase workplace productivity by developing exclusive identified as talented and were enrolled
(2010) improved processes for attracting, developing, retaining, and in 3 years leadership development
utili[s]ing people with the required skills and aptitude to meet program in a large telecommunications
current and future business needs” (SHRM’s definition as cited organization in South Africa
in Oehley and Theron, 2010 p. 6).
Rhodes, Educational Not defined explicitly but they discuss “the need to identify and Subjective- Mixed methods, heads, middle leaders,
Brundrett, Management develop a pool of talent able to meet present and future leadership exclusive and teachers in primary and secondary
and Nevill Administration requirements in school” as a trend in the United Kingdom and in (leaders) schools in the United Kingdom
(2008) and general they are interested in leadership development (p. 313).
Leadership
Sheehan European The author focuses on management development as defined Subjective- Quantitative, head of HR at head
(2012) Journal of by Management Development Council (2010): “Any form of exclusive quarters, two HR manager/specialist,
Training and training, formal or informal, accredited or non-accredited, (managers) and two line managers (a total of five
Development which enhances the ability of managers to provide direction, for each of 143 U.K.-owned MNCs
facilitate change, use resources, work with people, achieve
results, or manage self and personal skills” (p. 7).
Stewart Journal of “. . . talent consists of those individuals who can make a difference Subjective- Qualitative, six HR professionals
and Harte European to organizational performance, either through their immediate exclusive including four heads of HR, one HR
(2010) Industrial contribution or in the longer time by demonstrating the highest manager, and one HR officer in a large
Training levels of potential” (p. 511) as quoted from Tansley, Turner, and organization
Foster (2007).
Wang- HRDI “It appears that organizations have their own definitions. Iles, No particular Qualitative, 20 Chinese HR practitioners
Cowham Preece, and Chuai (2010) propose a four quadrant model of stance as talents in China
(2011) TM consisting of four perspectives: exclusive-people, exclusive
positions, inclusive-people, and social capital. The first three are
the most relevant to TD issues discussed in the paper” (p. 392).

Note. TD = talent development; HRM = human resource management; HRDI = Human Resource Development International; HRD = human resource development; TM = talent
management; HR = human resources; MNC = multinational corporation.
Mehdiabadi and Li 273

and refer to activities such as acquiring, development, and retaining of employees (e.g.,
Kim & McLean, 2012; Oehley & Theron, 2010). Attaining organizational goals such
as current and future business needs (e.g., Oehley & Theron, 2010) or organizational
strategies on global scale (e.g., Kim & McLean, 2012; McDonnell, Lamare, Gunnigle,
& Lavelle, 2010) are some of the determined goals for talent-related activities.
Based on the framework suggested by Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2013), the perspec-
tives of authors on talent were also identified (i.e., inclusive vs. exclusive and also
talent as an objective [characteristics] versus subjective [people as talents]). Moreover,
for those studies that had critical perspectives (relative to the mainstream of TM
research or practice), these stances are also provided in Tables 1 and 2.
Among 29 reviewed articles, 14 articles have taken subjective stance toward talent
(including 10 articles with exclusive and four with inclusive views). Five articles have
an objective view toward talent describing the characteristics of being a talent rather
than talented individuals. Capabilities (Thijssen & van der Heijden, 2003), competen-
cies (Lehmann, 2009; Siikaniemi, 2012; Thijssen & van der Heijden, 2003), and man-
agerial skills (Claussen, Grohsjean, Luger, & Probst, 2014) are some of main
characteristics stated in reviewed articles describing talents from an objective perspec-
tive. However, some of other definitions with subjective perspective have to do with
high-performing employees (McDonnell et al., 2010), high-potential employees
(McDonnell et al., 2010), individuals who can make a difference (Stewart & Harte,
2010), people who are able to meet current and future leadership requirements
(Rhodes, Brundrett, & Nevill, 2008), and managers in general (Sheehan, 2012). An
interesting finding is that subjective-exclusive stance, which has the highest frequency
among the empirical studies (seven out of 16), has been identified as the stance of only
three of conceptual pieces.
For the rest of articles, the particular stance of the authors is not revealed (five articles)
or the authors have taken a critical approach to the topic (five articles). As one would
expect, the critical views are either the stance of conceptual pieces (three articles) or quali-
tative empirical papers. These critical views are further discussed in the next section.

Critical views in TD literature. While most reviewed publications were pursuing the
mainstream research and practice in the field, there were studies with critical perspec-
tives from practical, humanistic, or ethical points of views. Iles et al. (2010) discuss
TM as a management fashion arguing the lack of clarity of the term and questioning
whether it can contribute distinctly to research and practice. On the same line, Guerci
and Solari (2012) argue that in most cases, TM is just a new brand for HR activities
with no significant change in real practice.
Devins and Gold (2014) point out the inequalities in terms of developmental oppor-
tunities and the existing dichotomy of high-skilled high-paid jobs in practice with vast
opportunities for training and development and low-skilled low-paid positions with
rare opportunities for training and development due to the disappearance of middle-
class jobs. Devins and Gold (2014) raise a very important question: “If those identified
as talented are the target for talent management, what about those not identified as the
talented?” (p. 515). As stated by Devins and Gold (2014),
274 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

For those not receiving training, a vicious circle arises where those who need the most
training to develop, receive the least training and subsequently lose their motivation to
learn as the pay and career gaps with their peer groups widen . . . and this lack of
sustainable development can be devastating for individuals, localities, employers, labour
markets and entire sectors of economy. (p. 522)

As argued in literature, managerialist and unitarist approaches to talent-related activi-

ties, based on the performance and financial goals, are prominent in both literature and
professional practices (Devins & Gold, 2014; Thunnissen et al., 2013). Moreover,
demotivating effects on those not identified as talented and also the responsibility of
organizations toward this group of employees are neglected.
Downs and Swailes (2013) took a radical approach in criticizing the current main-
stream of literature on TM, which is built upon scarcity of talent and talent wars.
According to them, this approach involves some inherent unethical practices including
looking at individuals as means to end rather than as ends (Kantian ethics) or emphasiz-
ing on human capital but not human being as the perception of person’s worth. They
argue that talent-related strategies are typically an exclusive process with the main
focus on a few percent of individuals in organizations known as key employees or stars;
despite the fact that “talent exists in all sectors of a workforce, organizational talent
programmes usually focus on management and leadership capabilities” (Downs &
Swailes, 2013, p. 269). To address this issue, Downs and Swailes (2013) suggested
using the capability approach introduced by Sen (1999). In capability approach, indi-
vidual freedom rather than resources is emphasized and, in contrast with utilitarian
ethics and the idea of greater good, it has to do with well-being of each and every indi-
vidual. However, it does not mean that the individual is a separate and self-interested
being but a human who “recognizes and acts in accordance … with other individuals”
(Downs & Swailes, 2013, p. 273). These authors still acknowledge “that only some
people will have the competence or the desire to make an above-the-norm contribution”
(p. 278). It seems that this approach, at least in theory, is able to address some of the
critiques related to talent not being inclusive (e.g., Devins & Gold, 2014) and at the
same time being distinct from human resource management in its traditional sense,
which has been raised in studies such as Dries (2013) and Collings and Mellahi (2009).
And finally, in a different level of argumentation, Glastra and Meerman (2012)
critique the field by emphasizing the importance of the systems rather than individuals
and argue that the attention to the interaction among the individuals is more crucial.

Main Findings and Outcomes of Empirical Studies in TD Literature

A detailed summary of antecedents and outcomes of the articles with quantitative
approach as well as the major questions/purposes and findings of articles with qualita-
tive and mixed methods approaches are provided in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
The independent and dependent variables of eight articles with a quantitative
approach can be seen in Table 3. In most studies, independent variables have to do
with TD practices (e.g., training and coaching, leadership development, etc.) and
 Table 3. Major Antecedents and Outcomes in Reviewed Quantitative Studies in TD Literature.
Author(s) (year) Independent variables Outcomes

Chami-Malaeb and Talent development practices, leadership development Affective commitment, intention to stay
Garavan (2013) practices
Claussen, Job experience, job expertise, network size, peers’ job Promotion odds
Grohsjean, Luger, experience, peers’ job expertise
and Probst (2014)
Hu (2008) Innovation performance within industrial clusters, interaction Formal and informal interactions among high-tech talent, high-tech
among high-tech talent, high-tech talent mobility talent mobility, innovation performance in different stages of science
park development
Ibeh and Debrah Female talent development practices including training and Female student presence in business school programs, female access to
(2011)a coaching, targeted initiatives, networking, and mentoring managerial roles
Kucherov and Employer brand Stage 1 including turnover rate (organization level), average HR cost in
Zavyalova (2012) total cost (organization level), proportion between the annual training
budget and annual labor compensation funds (organization level),
awareness of employees of organization’s future plans, existence
of long-term business plan, degree of importance of training goals
(growth of productivity), degree of importance of training goals
(improvement of goals and service quality), efficiency of managers
in field of HRM, efficiency of managers in field of HRD, frequency of
performance appraisal, degree of sharing organizational value.
Stage 2 including talent attraction to the company
McDonnell, Lamare, Country of origin, sector Global succession planning, global management development, global
Gunnigle, and Worldwide employment, product/service standardization, talent development
Lavelle (2010) global HR policy formation body
Oehley and Theron Talent management competency dimensions including Job satisfaction, affective commitment, intention to quit
(2010) the following: displays a talent management mind-set,
attracts and recruits talent, identifies and differentiates
talented employees, develops others, builds and maintains
relationships, provides meaningful and challenging work,
remunerates and rewards fairly, manages work–life balance
Sheehan (2012) Strategic role of HR, management development systems, Perceived subsidiary performance
management development ethos, perceived importance
of management development (line managers), provision of
management development (line managers)

Note. TD = talent development; HRD = human resource development; HR = human resources; HRM = human resource management.

275
aThis is a mixed methods study and the quantitative part is reported in this table.
276
Table 4. Summary of Research Questions/Purposes and Findings of Qualitative and Mixed Methods Studies in TD Literature.
Author(s) Major research Major
(year) questions/purpose of studies findings and discussions

Glastra and Understanding the conditions for the •• Both majority and minority participants showed satisfaction with the talent management
Meerman realization of diversity goals in talent program itself; however, the judgment of majority was based on the opportunities to explore
(2012) development practices and improve competencies while for minority, career advancement was the main concern.
•• The program for training and developing talents from diverse background did not contribute
greatly to the diversity due to the criteria of selection, which is mainly based on social fit.
Guerci and To identify the choices of a group •• Difference in sponsorship (who wanted the talent management system) led the companies to
Solari (2012) of companies in Italy in terms of create extremely different systems
designing and implementing the •• Talent management system led to a culture change and was all implemented at the event of a
talent management systems change in top management
•• Only in one case out of four, HR was not directly involved and only had a marginal supportive
role (the organization that the talent management system was initiated by top management).
•• Only in one case, formal career planning was linked to talent management system.
•• The authors found two contradictions with suggestions of literature: (a) the focus on the
development of individuals rather than teams or networks and (b) not declaring the list of
talents that as suggested by previous literature might be seen as stimulus for other employees.
The authors attributed this to the collective culture in Italy.
Holland, Are Australian organizations •• Marginalization of training and development in Australian context.
Sheehan, prioritizing resource allocation •• Training and development, and also participation and teamwork, in both rankings (areas
and De Cieri to human resource policies and of importance in previous and future 5 years), were in the lower quartiles. Training and
(2007)a practices to attract, develop, and development was the most outsourced function in previous 2 years.
retain human resource talent? •• In terms of the current HRM policy development, recruitment, performance appraisal,
selection, work–life balance, training, and values and ethics were among the top areas the
organizations were working on.
Ibeh and Are female talent development •• No evidence of emerging unique female talent development practices
Debrah practices in African business schools •• Adaption of approaches of practices developed in other countries
(2011) unique or have they been copied •• Both indigenous and multinational firms supported female talent development activities in
from other parts of the world? What African business schools through providing scholarships and other incentives to female MBA
roles do organizations play? students.

(continued)
 Table 4. (continued)
Author(s) Major research Major
(year) questions/purpose of studies findings and discussions

Y. Kim, Identifying and addressing “unique •• They identified the steps that the best practice partner organizations take for dealing with
Williams, problems in attracting, developing, managing their technical talent: (a) get commitment, (b) formulate a strategy, (c) recruit
Rothwell, and transferring of engineers, whose technical talent, (d) clarify the work/people competency model, (e) evaluate performance, (f)
and Penaloza abilities are critical in a knowledge or clarify future competency and career path, (g) identify potential, (h) build on strengths and close
(2014) innovation economy” (pp. 95-96). gaps, (i) reward and retain technical talent, (j) transfer knowledge, and (k) evaluate the program.
•• Major and detailed tasks for each step and a few examples from the studied organizations are
provided.
Lehmann (2009) What is the content and direction of •• Shortage of high quality staff as the most urgent concern among human resource managers
the talent development process on •• Attraction, retention, and development of talents as the most crucial human resource issues
the level of the firm in Thailand and •• Lack of available talent has to do with globalization, expansion and diversification of activities,
Malaysia? changing demography, and inadequate development of skills.
How do social, managerial, and •• In the last 10 years, the growth has been the main concern of organizations in this emergent
organizational practices affect this market climate and lack of enough attention to people development.
process? •• The change in recruitment process: looking for “the right personnel competencies in relation to
attitudes, values and behavior,” which indicates the candidate has leadership potential and great
ability to learn (p. 160).
•• From one interview with a Malaysian manager: “Once you come in, we train you on knowledge
and skills . . . But if you have high knowledge . . . very good skills, but not the right attitude, it is
very difficult to train this attitude” (p. 160).
•• The main focus is not on recruiting knowledge workers but rather developing and retaining
them.
•• Talent and performance management as a recent phenomenon in most companies (initiated 3
or 4 years ago) with the main focus on top-level employees or pilot groups.
•• Performance management served two main goals: (a) performance-based reward and
promotion and (b) identifying training needs. This is in contrast with the former seniority-based
practice
•• IT as the main mechanism of knowledge-sharing
•• Visions and corporate goals emphasizing learning, teamwork, and performance have been
considered in most companies in Malaysia and Thailand, however, seniority is still being
practiced prevalently and most organizations are struggling with a group of low performing
senior managers.

(continued)

277
 Table 4. (continued)

278
Author(s) Major research Major
(year) questions/purpose of studies findings and discussions

Rhodes, The objective is “to explore the •• Taking responsibility for one’s own leadership development and individual needs analysis as
Brundrett, current practices and potentialities requirement of leadership development were two major themes in focus groups. While heads
and Nevill with respect to talent identification were skeptical toward self-disclosure due to possibility of not being an actual talent, middle
(2008) in contextually different primary and managers thought of that as an essential piece to progress. Some of the classroom teachers
secondary schools in England” (p. were not comfortable with the idea of self-disclosure.
312). Moreover, this article aims “to •• Through focus groups, the researchers identified 20 characteristics of leaders.
establish characteristics indicative of •• Four out of these 20 characteristics were significantly rated differently among heads, middle
leadership talent so as to aid talent managers, and teachers: (a) being a competent teacher (more important to middle leaders), (b)
identification and development” and showing ambition (more important to classroom teachers), (c) showing enthusiasm (more important
also to explore the perspectives of to heads), and (d) accessing development courses (more important to classroom teachers).
heads, middle leader, and classroom •• The differences are important as they might be a sign of “the potential for wasted talent or false
teachers of the related development leadership identity claims” (p. 324).
issues (p. 312).
Stewart and To what extent and in what ways do •• Talent management and managing diversity were separated in practice based on interview data,
Harte (2010) HR professionals connect TM and which is in contrast with organization documents
MD in their practice and how does •• Learning and development was a central component for both talent management and managing
HRD practice help or hinder those diversity as achieving the objectives of both have to do with HRD.
connections?
Wang-Cowham The objectives of this research •• Five contributing aspects to the respondents’ HRM knowledge are (a) on-the-job learning, (b)
(2011) are “to explore the connections external-degree studies, (c) overseas training and exposure, (d) learning desire, and (e) social
between TD and knowledge-sharing networks.
mechanisms, and the extent and the •• Access to learning communities (internal and external CoPs) is as important as on-the-job
impact of these mechanisms on TD” learning and external-degree studies.
(p. 397). •• Social interactions benefit the talented employee by creating the opportunity to be selective in terms
of suitable and interested areas to learn and manage their own development (self-managed learning).
•• Studied companies prefered to promote internal talent rather than acquiring from outside.
•• Making the talents “aware of the knowledge-sharing socialization mechanisms helps them acquire
new knowledge, skills, and experiences, and supports the development of talents” (p. 403).
•• According to the author, knowledge-sharing mechanisms also can transfer the organizations from
the exclusive-position and exclusive-people to inclusive-people talent management and development.

Note. TD = talent development; IT = information technology; HR = human resources; HRM = human resource management; HRD = human resource development; TM = talent
management; MD = managing diversity.
aThis is a quantitative study but as it is purely descriptive and there is no correlation test, it has been placed here.
Mehdiabadi and Li 279

dependent variables are outcomes such as retention, performance, or commitment.

Organizational outcomes are assumed to be achieved by applying appropriate HR
practices through their influence on positive employees’ behaviors. An exception is
the study by McDonnell et al. (2010) who considered TD practices as dependent vari-
ables in an attempt to examine the possible influential variables on such practices in
organizations.
Understanding TD processes is the main focus of the qualitative and mixed meth-
ods studies (see Table 4). It is worth mentioning that the work by Holland, Sheehan,
and De Cieri (2007) that had a quantitative approach is also included in Table 4 as the
study is not testing any hypotheses and therefore there is no dependent or independent
variables to report.

Key Themes in TD Literature

Reviewing the literature, four main themes are identified: (a) issues related to career
development, (b) the influence of contextual factors, (c) the relationship between TD
and attraction and retention of talents, and (d) issues of diversity in the context of TD.
A summary of these themes is presented in Table 5.

Theme 1: Issue related to career development. Studies within this theme have focused
primarily or partially on the topic of career development. Employability, promotion
and succession planning, the relationship between formal career planning and talent-
related systems, and finally, individuals’ responsibility for their career planning are the
identified sub-themes that will be discussed in this section.

Sub-theme 1.1: Employability. In general, employability has to do with possessing

the capabilities for gaining and maintaining employment (Hillage & Pollard, 1998)
and has been framed by individuals who focus on supply aspect in labor market (Nils-
son & Ellström, 2012).
The findings and ideas of reviewed articles show some contradictions in terms of
employability criteria. For example, against what Lehmann (2009) suggests about the
criteria of selection and the importance of generic competencies over specific skills for
talents, Thijssen and Van der Heijden (2003) argue that the generic personal and
behavioral characteristics are not necessarily able to guarantee the success in terms of
employability in long run.
It seems that formal education and certain academic degrees have an important role
in TD and definitely contribute to employability of individuals. For example, as argued
by Ibeh and Debrah (2011), considering today’s individual-centered career planning
and boundaryless careers, business school is the entry for many managerial positions
and therefore MBA degrees and “[business] schools are at the center of the talent
development process” (p. 43).
Some other researchers discuss the importance of continuous development of
employees to maintain their competencies. As it has been stated by Thijssen and Van
Der Heijden (2003), “[t]he potential to grow and adapt flexibly, is most valuable in the
280 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

Table 5. Key Themes in TD Literature.

Themes Sub-themes
1. Issues related to career Employability
development Promotion and career planning
Individuals’ responsibility for their career planning
2. Influence of contextual factors The influence of culture on talent-related activities
Necessities of knowledge-based economies
Talent development in global settings
3. The relationship between TD and
attraction and retention of talents
4. Issues of diversity in the context
of talent development

Note. TD = talent development.

current labor market. The individuals who are best prepared for jobs nowadays are the
ones who continue studying and who adapt creatively to change” (p. 162). Lehmann
(2009) states that it is important to develop competencies of talents to help talented
employees to manage their own self-development. According to Thijssen and Van Der
Heijden (2003),

An employee who knows how to approach and master new situation is more cost effective
because time and other resources spent on training can be reduced. . . . [E]mployees who
have learned how to learn can greatly assist an employer in meeting strategic goals and
competitive challenges. (p. 164)

Sub-theme 1.2: Promotion and career planning. Promotion, discussing what it takes
to go up the organization ladder and how an organization can prepare individuals
for these moves, and the potential linkage between career planning and talent-related
systems was the focus of some of the reviewed articles. Claussen et al. (2014) focus
on career development of managers and type of skills that lead to promotion in both
middle and senior levels. Lehmann (2009) calls for more sophisticated succession
planning and promotion activities arguing the shortage of talent due to the changes in
environment and the needed skill sets. Promotion from within has been identified to
be more preferred by the organizations that participated in Wang-Cowham’s (2011)
study to retain the organizational knowledge. Rhodes et al. (2008) argue that assess-
ment of individual potential is at the center of succession planning and is necessary for
developing internal future leaders. In their study, Guerci and Solari (2012) showed that
in three out of four cases they studied, formal career planning was not linked to TM
system and no structured career steps were reserved for the talent.

Sub-theme 1.3: Individuals’ responsibility for their career planning. Individuals are
gradually taking responsibility for their career planning and they have been more self-
reliant when it comes to development and employability in recent years. As part of
Mehdiabadi and Li 281

their study, Rhodes et al. (2008) found that it is expected from talented employees
to be in charge of their own career development and to take responsibility for their
leadership development. However, the changing psychological contract might lead
to organizational resistance to invest in career development activities and therefore
organizations might not be willing to invest in training and development of employees
who might not stay (Holland et al., 2007). It can be argued that as suggested by Ibeh
and Debrah (2011), the shift from organization-centered to self-directed individual
centered careers by focusing on developing human capital skills and building net-
works might redefine the role of formal education and educational institutions outside
the organizations such as business schools.

Theme 2: The influence of contextual factors. The influence of organizational climate,

environment, and culture on talent-related activities was raised in a majority of the
reviewed articles and therefore it has been identified as one of the themes.

Sub-theme 2.1: The influence of culture on talent-related activities. New practices such
as TD in many organizations can be under a higher level of influence by the culture
of the organization. Lehmann (2009) refers to two main concerns in this regard: “how
to make employees adjust to new systems and how to change the attitude of the top
management towards human resource management” (p. 165). Glastra and Meerman
(2012) suggest that TD is not completely cognitive; it also involves social acceptance
and the fitness within social contexts. Glastra and Meerman (2012) argued that issues
such as strategic coherence, organizational culture, and alignment of relevant play-
ers are very important throughout the process of developing talents. Moreover, the
importance of culture has been emphasized in some of definitions of talent in reviewed
articles (e.g., Nilsson & Ellström, 2012).

Sub-theme 2.2: Necessities of knowledge-based economies. While financial and orga-

nizational capital is the most crucial resource in an industrial economy, human capital
is the most significant source in the knowledge-based economy. Most studies con-
ducted on TD, explicitly or implicitly, are rooted in resource-based view to the firm,
which has to do with the consideration of human as the unique source of competitive
advantage (e.g., Holland et al., 2007; Lehmann, 2009). According to Lehmann (2009),
in knowledge-based economy, “knowledge workers are key assets, talent is scarce and
people are more mobile” (Lehmann, 2009, p. 157). Knowledge workers are motivated
by self-expression, career expectations, and in general, fulfilling work content rather
than extrinsic motivations such as payment (Lehmann, 2009). Sheehan (2012) argues
that the link between the use of TD initiatives and national human capital has not been
explored in the literature. Sheehan (2012) empirically shows that the higher the level
of human capital of a country is, the higher the rate of return to management develop-
ment would be.
The traditional top-down structure of communication and command as discussed
by Lehmann (2009) is incompatible with participation, teamwork, and individual
thinking, which are necessities of knowledge-based economy.
282 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

Sub-theme 2.3: TD in global settings. The shortage of talent in global setting has been
viewed as a larger issue compared with national level and some attention to devel-
oping global talents among reviewed articles is evident (e.g., Conger, 2014; Kim &
McLean, 2012). Conger (2014) focuses on developing global leaders as talents who
are able “to lead across geographic and cultural boundaries” (p. 198). According to
the author, these positions demand a possession of a “broader variety of competen-
cies, skills, and abilities to succeed than their domestic counterparts” (p. 198). Three
categories of competencies are introduced by Conger (2014): (a) motivational, (b)
skills and knowledge, and (c) mind-set requirements. Among the reviewed articles,
researchers such as McDonnell et al. (2010) try to study the issue of succession plan-
ning in the global setting due to its unique aspects.

Theme 3:The relationship between TD and attraction and retention of talents. Identifying
and examining the relationship between TD and retention of employees is the focus
of several reviewed articles. In terms of quantitative studies, the relevant variables
such as affective commitment (Chami-Malaeb & Garavan, 2013; Oehley & Theron,
2010), intention to stay (Chami-Malaeb & Garavan, 2013), intention to quit (Oehley
& Theron, 2010), and turnover rate (Kucherov & Zavyalova, 2012) were among the
dependent variables. The study of retention in the context of TD research is of great
importance as organizations are unwilling to invest in employees’ development if
they cannot keep them for a reasonable time (Oehley & Theron, 2010). Chami-
Malaeb and Garavan (2013) found that TD practices affect the employees’ intention
to stay and their commitment. Turnover of talents not only creates costs for substitu-
tion of those who leave the company, but also as stated by Thijssen and Van Der
Heijden (2003), disrupts other important outcomes such as innovation through dam-
aging collaborations and culture of organization. Changing psychological contract
between employee and employer has been discussed in some of articles (e.g., Holland
et al., 2007). Lehmann (2009) argues that high rate of turnover among talents discourage
companies to invest in training for development, which is also known to influence
motivation of the talents. Seeking new challenges, career ambitions, and frustration
due to lack of promotion are the main findings of Wang-Cowham’s (2011) study as
reasons why HR managers left their previous companies. Interestingly, the pay is not
among the main reasons for leaving one’s job.
Employer brand, defined as “qualitative features of the employing company which are
attractive to a target audience” (Kucherov & Zavyalova, 2012, p. 88), is one of the related
topics to attraction and retention, which was raised in the literature. Employer brand can
help organizations to increase the loyalty of employees through providing developmental
opportunities. As stated by Kucherov and Zavyalova, “companies with employer brand
invest more in the knowledge and competencies of their employees to make them more
qualified and loyal and to enable competitive advantage for the company” (p. 102).

Theme 4: Issues of diversity in the context of TD. Diversity as described by Glastra and
Meerman (2012) is a term “to describe the appearance of new groups . . . [such as]
women and ethnic minorities . . . in the workforce in significant numbers” (p. 106).
Mehdiabadi and Li 283

Diversity was raised in a number of reviewed articles (i.e., Glastra & Meerman, 2012;
Holland et al., 2007; Ibeh & Debrah, 2011; Oehley & Theron, 2010; Stewart & Harte,
2010). Citing Murray and Syed (2005) and Orland (2000), the authors argue that lack
of attention to diversity in workforce would negatively influence creativity and also
the ability of satisfying the expectations of a diverse and highly competitive market
(Holland et al., 2007). Glastra and Meerman (2012) provide four main career disad-
vantages of minority employees: (a) being nominated for positions that are lower than
their qualifications, (b) lack of soft skills due to the lack of access to certain work
experiences, (c) experiencing difficulties in terms of building networks and mentoring
opportunities, and (d) the lack of confidence among minorities.
Citing the work of Cox (1993), Glastra and Meerman (2012) argue that although
recruiting minorities has been improved, recognizing minorities as talents and moving
them up to managerial levels is still in early stages. According to them, talent and career
development processes and rules are usually informal, implicit, and ambiguous.
The shortage of skilled labor supply from minority groups is another issue related
to diversity. In their study in the context of South Africa, Oehley and Theron (2010)
discuss the issue of diversity in relation to TD. According to Oehley and Theron
(2010), organizations have to employ high-performing employees to be successful and
at the same time they need to comply with the moral, political, economic, and legal
pressure of diversifying their human resources.
Arguing that formal managerial education has an important role in career develop-
ment of females in organizations, Ibeh and Debrah (2011) studied the female TD prac-
tices in business schools in seven African countries. The authors found that the amount
of female TD practices was low and not significantly different from the practice of
their international counterparts (Ibeh & Debrah, 2011).
The importance of connecting diversity programs and talent-related practices was
emphasized by Stewart and Harte (2010). In their case study, Stewart and Harte (2010),
found TM and managing diversity to be separated in practice while they believed that
conceptually the two have much in common. According to Stewart and Harte (2010),
learning and development is a central component for both as achieving the objectives
of both has to do with HRD.

Discussion
In previous sections, we introduced the perspectives of authors in regard to talent and
TD and discussed the main themes in current TD literature. In this section, first we
present the identified gaps and shortcomings of the reviewed literature. Second, we
characterize and suggest a definition for TD in HRD based on the reviewed literature
and our understanding of the field of HRD.

Gaps and Shortcomings of the Literature

Lack of enough attention to definition of talent in the reviewed literature. Insufficiencies
and inconsistencies in definition of and perspectives toward talent are evident in TD
284 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

literature. The lack of enough attention to the definition of talent and TD in the context
of empirical studies is a major challenge. It seems that a number of studies, by taking
a minimal approach, have simply named certain groups of employees as talents (e.g.,
leaders or managers) without discussing how these studies are distinct from studies on
leadership or management development. Moreover, there is a lack in communicating
the authors’ stances toward talent and articulation of the influence of these stances in
the process of inquiry. This makes it rather difficult to build theories and also general-
ize the findings of the research on topic. As Nilsson and Ellström (2012) discussed,
creating an operational definition for talent in field of HRD is necessary because “In
the absence of such a definition, HRD practices become ad hoc, and decisions may be
based on a weak foundation” (p. 35).

Lack of enough attention to contextual factors. With a few exceptions (e.g., Rhodes et al.,
2008; Siikaniemi, 2012), one main gap in the literature is the lack of clarity of the
researchers on the role of contextual factors in the specific situation of their study and
also the assumptions they made in this regard. Making these assumptions and contex-
tual factors known and well-articulated throughout the research (not just in sampling
and under methods section) and trying to make meaningful connections to the contexts
and organizations under study (e.g., Sheehan, 2012) would be a great step toward
diminishing the ambiguity and confusion that is currently evident in literature. Another
issue is the lack of attention to the contextual factors in citing the previous literature in
reviewed works. Even in cases where those sources have included the contextual fac-
tors with enough details, the authors are not paying much attention to those factors
while citing. For example, it can be argued that the tension in the conversation, which
was evident in the works of Nilsson and Ellström (2012), Theijsson and Heijden
(2003), and Lehmann (2009) on employability and selection criteria, comes from the
contextual factors rather than real differences in the mind-set of authors.

Lack of attention to organizational performance and evaluation of talent initiatives. Although

many definitions of talent are rooted in human capital theory and the relationship
between individual’s skills and knowledge and his or her performance and despite the
importance of performance as one of main components of many HRD definitions, only
a few of the reviewed articles focus on performance specifically (i.e., Sheehan, 2012).
Moreover, among the reviewed articles, there is no article discussing the evaluation of
TD activities. As Nilsson and Ellström (2012) discussed, the general critics against
lack of evaluative causal studies seems relevant to the area of TD as well.

Lack of sufficient attention to technology. Despite the importance and the vast use of
technology in organizations for knowledge management and other related topics to
TD, with one exception (i.e., Yoon & Lim, 2010), technology is not generally dis-
cussed in the reviewed articles. Yoon and Lim (2010) argue that technologies such as
system analytics and data queries can facilitate the TD processes (i.e., developing tal-
ent from within, personal career plans, succession planning of critical positions, active
performance management strategies) by “locating based on credentials, interests, or
Mehdiabadi and Li 285

content ownership, filtering active contributors to VCoP or KM systems, or examining

the concentration of interactions and information flow within networks.” (Yoon &
Lim, 2010, p. 723).

Limitations due to the data collection approach. The data collection approaches taken by
authors in reviewed articles are limited in some ways. The dominance of HR personnel
or program administrators as the mere source of information is an important limita-
tion. Data from individuals who are regarded as talented have been collected in a
number of studies (e.g., Claussen et al., 2014); however, considering data collection
from multiple sources can create better understanding of the issue knowing the com-
plexity of the topic of talent. Few studies among reviewed articles can be good exam-
ples of providing such in-depth understanding (e.g., Glastra & Meerman, 2012;
Rhodes et al., 2008).

Toward a Definition of TD From HRD Perspective

As mentioned earlier, only a few researchers explicitly defined TD. These definitions
and some of their limitations are listed in Table 6. As one can notice, while these defi-
nitions are all bounded in organizational settings, some of the studies we reviewed
discussed the topic at societal level. We believe that providing a comprehensive defini-
tion for TD is significant as it would help researchers and practitioners in the field to
have a common ground to discuss the topic.
To develop a definition for TD from HRD perspective, a review on HRD defini-
tions is necessary. HRD has been defined in many different ways. Hamlin and Stewart
(2011) reviewed the existing definitions of HRD. A glance at the list of the HRD defi-
nitions provided by them shows that there are some definitions that serve the concept
of talent and TD in its broader and inclusive meaning better than others (e.g., McLean
& McLean, 2001). For example, Harbison and Myers (1964) define HRD as “the pro-
cess of increasing the knowledge, the skills, and the capabilities of all people in a
society” (p. 2). However, some of other definitions of HRD can best fit the workplace
bounded definition of talent by focusing on performance and benefits for organiza-
tions. For example, Swanson and Arnold (1996), suggest that “the purpose of HRD is
improved performance… [and it] should strive directly to the organization’s goal”
(p. 13). Reviewing these definitions suggests a great opportunity for placement of tal-
ent in the field of HRD in ways that best suit the concept and also best contribute to
research and practice of talent (i.e., attention to future job demands (Rothwell &
Kazanas, 1994; Werner & Desimone, 2006), capacity and human potential (e.g.,
Harbison & Myers, 1964; Harrison & Kessels, 2004;), and performance improvement
(e.g., Swanson, 1995; Swanson & Arnold, 1996).
According to Hamlin and Stewart (2011), “HRD is . . . any process or activity that
helps or enables individuals, groups, organizations or host systems to learn, develop
and change behavior for the purpose of improving or enhancing their competence,
effectiveness, performance and growth” (p. 213). We believe that this definition can be
a good fit for studying TD in HRD as it considers different levels (i.e., individual,
286 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

Table 6. Current TD Definitions and Identified Limitations.

Author(s)
(year) Definition Limitation of definition
Benham Talent development is “a comprehensive development •• Use of general and
(1993) framework which can sustain the progress that ambiguous terms
transforms people from factors of production into such as “forces of
forces of contribution” (p. 34). contribution”
Garavan, “Talent development focuses on the planning, •• Limited to
Carbery, selection and implementation of development organizational
and Rock strategies for the entire talent pool to ensure setting
(2012) that the organization has both the current and
future supply talent to meet strategic objectives
and that development activities are aligned with
organizational talent management processes” (p. 6).
Chami- “Talent development focuses on developing •• Circular definition
Malaeb and employees labelled as talented and those who hold (contains both
Garavan linchpin positions in organizations” (p. 4047), citing terms talent and
(2013) Bourdeau and Ramstad (2005). development)
Ibeh and “Talent development . . . as integral part of talent •• Narrow (focuses
Debrah management . . . involves developing leaders via only on leaders)
(2011) processes such as coaching, feedback, training, •• Limited to
mentoring and challenging employees” (p. 43), citing organizational
Evans, Pucik, and Barsoux (2002). setting

Note. TD = talent development.

organizational, and societal) and also is not limited to any specific work-related inter-
ventions such as training.
Based on the reviewed articles and the short review on HRD definitions, 10 character-
istics and attributes have been identified which, in our belief, are the characteristics of a
comprehensive definition of TD from HRD perspective and should be considered in
defining the term. TD (a) should be seen as a comprehensive system (Glastra & Meerman,
2012), (b) is not only a set of activities and processes (Garavan et al., 2012) but also val-
ues and socially constructed meanings (Downs & Swailes, 2013), (c) is inclusive but
personalized (Devins & Gold, 2014; Guerci & Solari, 2012; Lehmann, 2009), (d) can be
discussed beyond organizations (Devins & Gold, 2014; Ibeh & Debrah, 2011), (e) has to
do with both interests and capabilities of employees (Nijs et al., 2014; Thijssen & van der
Heijden, 2003), (f) should consider the improvement of both individuals and systems
(Downs & Swailes, 2013), (g) has to do with both career development and learning
(Glastra & Meerman, 2012; Ibeh & Debrah, 2011), (h) should not and cannot be forced
on individuals who are not willing to be developed (Downs & Swailes, 2013), (i) is a
shared responsibility of individuals and the systems (Downs & Swailes, 2013; Glastra &
Meerman, 2012), and (j) is strongly related to and weaved in its context of practice (Kim
& McLean, 2012; Nilsson & Ellström, 2012; Siikaniemi, 2012; Stewart & Harte, 2010).
Having these 10 characteristics in mind, we define TD as
Mehdiabadi and Li 287

a comprehensive system that consists of a set of values, activities, and processes with the
aim of improving all willing and capable individuals for the mutual benefit of individuals,
host organizations, and society as a whole.

Implications for Practice in HRD

Very few articles are directly focused on the role of HRD in regard to talent-related
activities in organizations (e.g., Iles et al., 2010). However, Iles et al. (2010) raised a
number of important questions on the role of HRD professionals in TM. Maybe the
most critical question they raised is “What is the nature of HRD specialists and exter-
nal consultants’ involvement in TM adoption, and what is the quality and effect of
their involvement?” (p. 140)
Based on the reviewed articles, some implications for practice are presented.

Determining goals, scope, and focus of TD activities. Similar to what is suggested by

Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2015), we suggest that HRD professionals should decide on
their perspective to talent (i.e., objective/subjective and inclusive/exclusive) and their
focus (types of skills: specific technical skills, competencies, or behaviors) consider-
ing their specific situation and once decided, they should be consistent. Moreover,
there should be a shared understanding of what TD means among the stakeholders.
Based on the results of some of the reviewed articles, it is evident that people in dif-
ferent positions have different views of TM in practice of organizations. Rhodes et al.
(2008) showed that there was a difference among heads, managers, and classroom
teachers of talent characteristics and what it takes to promote to leader positions. As
stated by the authors, these differences are important as they might be a sign of “the
potential for wasted talent or false leadership identity claims” (Rhodes et al., 2008, p.
324). Moreover, identifying discrepancies in perception of head of HR, HR manag-
ers, and line managers of the TD practice, Sheehan (2012) argued that these differ-
ences among perceptions can negatively affect the organization.
It is important that the term talent should not be used by professionals merely
because it is fashionable, or has been adopted by high-reputation organizations, or to
gain a greater credibility for profession (Iles et al., 2010).

Balancing the long-term and short-term needs of organizations. Attention to long-term strategic
needs and also considerations of short-term productivity are two main drives for identifica-
tion and development of talent (Nilsson & Ellström, 2012). Enough attention to both goals
and maintaining a balance seems to be of great importance for success of organizations.
HRD by definition has traditionally been concerned about performance and/or per-
sonal development. While high levels of performance appraisals are being practiced in
organizations (Holland et al., 2007), current review suggest that the attention of orga-
nizations to processes for improving performance such as training and development is
not sufficient. As stated by Holland et al. (2007) the higher attention to performance
appraisals has to do with the monitoring of narrowly defined short-term performance
rather than improving the performance in the long term.
288 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

An important tension in the workplace is the importance of having enough specific

skills to do one’s job and at the same time knowing that today’s positions are not as
stable as they once were and therefore the importance of flexible employees who can
learn and develop new skills and expertise. HRD should find a way to reconcile the
two by finding a balance considering the contextual factors of the organizations. As
discussed by Thijssen and Van Der Heijden (2003), analysis of harm before transfer,
suitable mobility programs, and implementing proper career management activities
involving self-assessment can be a great help to deal with challenges such as employ-
ability and experience concentration.
And finally, through analyzing the reviewed articles, the tension between attention
to specific skills versus attention to behaviors and competencies is identified. Nilsson
and Ellström (2012) state that HRD should shift from a focus on short-term task-based
match to a long-term dynamic organizational fit and from a focus on technical skills to
behavioral traits and characteristics. Knowing that assessment of generic competences
and personal characteristics is a difficult task (Nilsson & Ellström, 2012), this creates
a great challenge for HRD professionals.

Creating a considerate and diverse talent culture. The literature on development of

minorities portrays a tension between HR as a positive force and HR as a tool for uni-
fying a uniform organizational culture (Glastra & Meerman, 2012). It seems reason-
able that HRD as a more human oriented field compared with business and management
should take the former position than the latter but the implications of this position is
not discussed vastly in the field. Oehley and Theron (2010) suggested that well-inte-
grated and comprehensive organization development interventions should be in place
to deal with the complex issue of disadvantaged and underrepresented groups in orga-
nizations. Moreover, some attention to the idea of capability approach introduced by
Downs and Swailes (2013) as an alternative or modified approach to talent and TD
might be beneficial to research and practice of the field in this regard. Finally, as stated
by Stewart and Harte (2010), “conceptually, there is potential for HRD to provide the
linking mechanism for TM and managing diversity since it is clear from the literature
that development is at the centre of both sets of practices” (p. 515). As described by
Stewart and Harte (2010), while inclusion and exclusion is a big debate in TM, same-
ness and difference is the area of debate in managing diversity, and according to them
these paradoxes needs to be reconciled in professional practice.

Attending to the strategic role of HRD. TD can be seen as an opportunity to improve the
commitment of top managers in HRD as the role of management is fundamental for
the success of training and development practices in organizations (Guerci & Solari,
2012). Moving from an undifferentiated approach to HRD toward a segmented
approach to the workforce is also suggested by Guerci and Solari (2012). It seems that
HRD can be best involved in improving the organization as an employer brand through
the functional and psychological attributes of employer brand. Reducing HR costs,
improving labor relations, employees’ retention, and improving organizational culture
are some of the outcomes of companies with employer brand.
Mehdiabadi and Li 289

Future Research and Limitations

A major challenge in literature is the lack of sufficient attention to the definition of TD
and also unclarified or inconsistent stances toward talent. This makes it rather difficult
to build theory and also generalize the findings of the research on topic. We believe
that having in mind and articulating what talent and TD in a context means is an
important step toward solid and good research and practice on the topic. We suggest
that future research should be more attentive to concept of talent in TD and we hope
this study would help the researchers in this regard.
Considering the lack of sufficient empirical studies on TD, more data based and context-
sensitive research using both quantitative (with the objective of showing the big picture and
commonalities) and qualitative (with the aim of showing underlying reasons and processes)
approaches are needed. This need was explicitly suggested by some of the authors in the
reviewed articles (e.g., Lehmann, 2009; McDonnell et al., 2010; Yoon & Lim, 2010).
Moreover, the use of mixed methods design might improve our understanding of TD.
Another important gap in the literature is the deficiency of studies which take into
account the data collection from multiple sources in the same study rather than solely
focusing on data from talented employees or HR professionals. Considering the com-
plexity and ambiguity of talent, this might lead to a better contribution to research and
practice of the field.
Another general suggestion for future research is the consideration of context as an
important component of research on the topic to create better understanding of TD in
different situations and scopes and prevent over-generalization. For example, Conger
(2014) states that usually the assumption exists that a talented employee is able to
learn and quickly address contextual challenges. Examining such assumptions in dif-
ferent contexts is a possible venue to pursue by future researchers.
And finally, there are some new ideas introduced in the TD literature (e.g., capabil-
ity approach by Downs & Swailes, 2013 or TD in the context of non-traditional talent
groups by Devins & Gold, 2014). We believe that investigating these ideas further
through empirical studies would help theory building on the topic and also support
evident-based practice in the field.
The current study is limited in at least three ways. First, this study is a document
analysis. In document analysis, the researcher “filters the data through an interpretive
lens” (Bowen, 2009, p. 36) and this might lead to less objectivity. Moreover, it is con-
strained by the availability and quality of the previous research (Bowen, 2009). Second
limitation has to do with the scope of the study. One of the main limitations of the
research is the limited focus of the study by selecting peer-reviewed scholarly journal
articles and leaving out manuscripts such as conference proceedings, which have not
been the focus of this review. Third, the inclusion criteria are narrowly focused on the
articles that have a significant interest on TD. There might be other articles that have
some emphasis on the topic but as development or talent is not the major attention of
those publications they are not included in the article. Although this has been deliber-
ately chosen based on the goals and interests of the authors, it definitely has limited the
findings of this research.
290 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

Conclusion
Considering talent as a mixture of innate and developed abilities, the role of HRD
professionals is to help individuals identify their innate talents as well as devel-
oping their knowledge and skills based on the identified needs and their
interests.
The literature is limited in terms of focus on TD despite its recognition as a main
component of TM (Garavan et al., 2012). According to Garavan et al. (2012), there
is a debate whether TD is distinct from learning and development. However, as they
argued, “there is a scope in talent development,” which is evident in our review as
well (p. 14). There are many important questions to be discussed about TD and
Garavan et al. (2012) listed some of these concerns under the following dimen-
sions: (a) defining talent for TD, (b) focus on technical or generic competencies or
both, (c) whose TD needs and whose responsibility, (d) accelerated or traditionally
paced development, and (e) the architecture of TD. There is a need for answering
these questions and this study is a step toward such aim. The hope is that this article
provides a good foundation for studying TD in HRD to call for more involvement
of HRD in the process of TD and TM.
We argue that the approach to development in TD is different from other develop-
mental approaches (e.g., employee development) in ways such as including careful
attention to the personalized development of individuals based on their abilities, inter-
ests, needs, and motivations. Here, obviously, some of views toward HRD and also
some of subcategories of HRD are closer to TD (e.g., national HRD, critical HRD,
learning rather than performance as the main focus, etc.). Identifying the individuals’
abilities, interests, potentials, and goals and planning for their development based on
these factors is of great importance. TD requires a close connection with overall human
capital strategies of host organizations.
Based on the ideas discussed by Kuchinke (2010), HRD can be seen as an alterna-
tive value-oriented field to business. Therefore, it might be a safe home for critical
discussions toward talent-related activities and the ethical aspects of talent manage-
ment and development. The kind of TD for being discussed in HRD should be in line
with values of HRD and the attempt of this article was to approach the topic of talent
in such frame. We hope that this article would bring new insight to the research and
practice of TD and related topics such as TM and therefore uniquely contribute to the
larger academic and professional discussion on the topic.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Mehdiabadi and Li 291

References
About Association for Talent Development. (2014, December 21). Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/About/
Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and
talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational
Psychologist, 37, 165-182.
Benham, P. O., Jr. (1993). Developing organizational talent: The key to performance and pro-
ductivity. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 58(1), 34-39.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainabil-
ity: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource
Management, 44(2), 129-136.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Caplan, J. (2013). Strategic talent development: Develop and engage all your people for busi-
ness success. London, England: Kogan Page.
Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent management for the twenty-first century. Harvard Business Review,
86(3), 74-81.
Cappelli, P., & Keller, J. R. (2014). Talent management: Conceptual approaches and practical
challenges. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1,
305-331.
Chami-Malaeb, R., & Garavan, T. (2013). Talent and leadership development practices as driv-
ers of intention to stay in Lebanese organizations: The mediating role of affective commit-
ment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 4046-4062.
Cheese, P., Gartside, D., & Smith, D. (2009). Managing talent in uncertain times: Talent
Management actions that help companies navigate a difficult economy. Retrieved from
[Link]
Claussen, J., Grohsjean, T., Luger, & Probst, G. (2014). Talent management and career develop-
ment: What it takes to get promoted. Journal of World Business, 49, 236-244.
Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and research
agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 304-313.
Collings, D. G., & Scullion, H. (2007). Resourcing international assignees. In C. Brewster, P.
Sparrow & M. Dickman (Eds.), International human resource management: Contemporary
issues in Europe (pp. 87-106). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Conger, J. A. (2014). Addressing the organizational barriers to developing global leadership
talent. Organizational Dynamics, 43(3), 198-204.
Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco,
CA: Berret-Koehler.
Devins, D., & Gold, J. (2014). Re-conceptualising talent management and development within
the context of the low paid. Human Resource Development International, 17, 514-528.
Downs, Y., & Swailes, S. (2013). A capability approach to organizational talent management.
Human Resource Development International, 16, 267-281.
Dries, N. (2013). The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda. Human
Resource Management Review, 23, 272-285.
Evans, P., Pucik, V., & Barsoux, J. L. (2002). The global challenge: Frameworks for interna-
tional human resource management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & González-Cruz, T. F. (2013). What is the meaning of “tal-
ent” in the world of work? Human Resource Management Review, 23, 290-300.
292 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Nijs, S., Dries, N., & Gallo, P. (2015). Towards an understanding of
talent management as a phenomenon-driven field using bibliometric and content analysis.
Human Resource Management Review, 25, 264-279.
Garavan, T. N., Carbery, R., & Rock, A. (2012). Mapping talent development: Definition, scope
and architecture. European Journal of Training and Development, 36, 5-24.
Glastra, F. J., & Meerman, M. (2012). Developing ethnic talent in the Dutch national tax admin-
istration: A case study. European Journal of Training and Development, 36, 105-124.
Guerci, M., & Solari, L. (2012). Talent management practices in Italy–implications for human
resource development. Human Resource Development International, 15, 25-41.
Hamlin, B., & Stewart, J. (2011). What is HRD? A definitional review and synthesis of the HRD
domain. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35, 199-220.
Harbison, F. H., & Myers, C. A. (1964). Education, manpower, and economic growth: Strategies
of human resource development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Harrison, R., & Kessels, J. W. (2004). Human resource development in a knowledge economy:
An organisational view. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harwood, T. G., & Garry, T. (2003). An overview of content analysis. The Marketing Review,
3, 479-498.
Hillage, J., & Pollard, E. (1998). Employability: developing a framework for policy analysis.
Research Brief 85. London, UK: Department for Education and Employment.
Holland, P., Sheehan, C., & De Cieri, H. (2007). Attracting and retaining talent: Exploring
human resources development trends in Australia. Human Resource Development
International, 10, 247-262.
Hu, T. S. (2008). Interaction among high-tech talent and its impact on innovation performance:
A comparison of Taiwanese science parks at different stages of development. European
Planning Studies, 16, 163-187.
Ibeh, K., & Debrah, Y. A. (2011). Female talent development and African business schools.
Journal of World Business, 46, 42-49.
Iles, P., Preece, D., & Chuai, X. (2010). Talent management as a management fashion in HRD:
Towards a research agenda. Human Resource Development International, 13, 125-145.
Kim, S., & McLean, G. N. (2012). Global talent management necessity, challenges, and the
roles of HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(4), 566-585.
Kim, Y., Williams, R., Rothwell, W. J., & Penaloza, P. (2014). A strategic model for technical
talent management: A model based on a qualitative case study. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 26(4), 93-121.
Kucherov, D., & Zavyalova, E. (2012). HRD practices and talent management in the companies
with the employer brand. European Journal of Training and Development, 36, 86-104.
Kuchinke, K. P. (2010). Human development as a central goal for human resource development.
Human Resource Development International, 13, 575-585.
Lehmann, S. (2009). Motivating talents in Thai and Malaysian service firms. Human Resource
Development International, 12, 155-169.
Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human Resource
Management Review, 16, 139-154.
Management Development Council. (2010). Management development in Ireland: The report
of the Management Development Council. Dublin, Ireland: Author.
McClelland, D. C. (1958). Issues in the identification of talent. In D. C. McClelland, A. L.
Baldwin, U. Bronfenbrenner & F. R. Strodtbeck (Eds.), Talent and Society: New perspec-
tives in the identification of talent (pp. 1-28). Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand.
Mehdiabadi and Li 293

McDonnell, A., Lamare, R., Gunnigle, P., & Lavelle, J. (2010). Developing tomorrow’s leaders—
Evidence of global talent management in multinational enterprises. Journal of World Business,
45, 150-160.
McLean, G. N., & McLean, L. (2001). If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can we define
it in an international context? Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 313-326.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Press.
Murray, P., & Syed, J. (2005). Succession management: Trends and current practice, Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 43(2), 210-224.
Nadler, L., Wiggs, G. D., & Smith, S. (1988). Managing human resource development. R&D
Management, 18, 289.
Nijs, S., Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & Sels, L. (2014). A multidisciplinary review into
the definition, operationalization, and measurement of talent. Journal of World Business,
49, 180-191.
Nilsson, S., & Ellström, P. E. (2012). Employability and talent management: Challenges for
HRD practices. European Journal of Training and Development, 36, 26-45.
Oehley, A. M., & Theron, C. C. (2010). The development and evaluation of a partial talent
management structural model. Management Dynamics, 19(3), 2-28. Retrieved from https://
[Link]/templatestools/glossaries/hrterms/pages/[Link]
Orland, R. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy and firm performance: A resource-based
view, Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 164-177.
Pfeffer, J. (2001). Fighting the war for talent is hazardous to your organization’s health.
Organizational Dynamics, 29, 248-259.
Rhodes, C., Brundrett, M., & Nevill, A. (2008). Leadership talent identification and develop-
ment: Perceptions of heads, middle leaders and classroom teachers in 70 contextually dif-
ferent primary and secondary schools in England. Educational Management Administration
& Leadership, 36, 311-335.
Rothwell, W. J., & Kazanas, H. C. (1994). Human resource development: A strategic approach.
Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxfor University Press.
Sheehan, M. (2012). Developing managerial talent: Exploring the link between management tal-
ent and perceived performance in Multinational Corporations (MNCs). European Journal
of Training and Development, 36, 66-85.
Shen, Y., & Hall, D. T. T. (2009). When expatriates explore other options: Retaining tal-
ent through greater job embeddedness and repatriation adjustment. Human Resource
Management, 48, 793-816.
Siikaniemi, L. (2012). Information pathways for the competence foresight mechanism in talent
management framework. European Journal of Training and Development, 36, 46-65.
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment Research &
Evaluation, 7(17), 137-146.
Stewart, J., & Harte, V. (2010). The implications of talent management for diversity training:
An exploratory study. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34, 506-518.
Swanson, R. A. (1995). Human resource development: Performance is the key. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 6, 207-213.
Swanson, R. A., & Arnold, D. E. (1996). The purpose of human resource development is to
improve organizational performance. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,
72, 13-19.
294 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

Tansley, C., Turner, P., & Foster, C. (2007). Talent: Strategy, Management and Measurement,
CIPD, London.
Tarique, I., & Schuler, R. S. (2010). Global talent management: Literature review, integrative
framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of World Business, 45, 122-133.
Thijssen, J. G. L., & van der Heijden, B. D. (2003). Evaporated talent? Problems with talent
development during the career. International Journal of Human Resources Development
and Management, 3, 154-170.
Thunnissen, M., Boselie, P., & Fruytier, B. (2013). A review of talent management: Infancy or
adolescence? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 1744-1761.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human
resource development review, 4(3), 356-367.
Wang-Cowham, C. (2011). Developing talent with an integrated knowledge-sharing mecha-
nism: An exploratory investigation from the Chinese human resource managers’ perspec-
tive. Human Resource Development International, 14, 391-407.
Warg, M. (2008). A geometrical approach to the modelling of talent markets: With special
account to talent and organization development. Journal of International Trade Law and
Policy, 7, 171-185.
Watson, S. (2008). Where are we now? A review of management development issues in the
hospitality and tourism sector: Implications for talent management. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20, 758-780.
Werner, J. M., & DeSimone, R. L. (2006). Human Resource Development (4th ed.). Mason,
OH: Thomson South-Western.
Yoon, S. W., & Lim, D. H. (2010). Systemizing virtual learning and technologies by managing
organizational competency and talents. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12,
715-727.

Author Biographies
Amir Hedayati Mehdiabadi is a fourth-year PhD student in HRD at College of Education at
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. His research is mainly focused on talent develop-
ment, professional and organizational ethics, evaluation, and research methodology. He has
presented his research in past years in multiple conferences including American Evaluation
Association, International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, and Academy of Human Resource
Development.
Jessica Li is an associate professor at University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign where she
also serves as the dean’s fellow of faculty development and diversity initiatives at the College
of Education. Her research interests include work ethic, international HRD, and emerging tech-
nological applications for learning in the workplace, corporate universities, and talent manage-
ment. Prior to becoming a professor, she also worked as a business executive for corporations
like Motorola, Raytheon, and Nokia for 10 years. She also taught at University of North Texas,
Texas A&M University, and North China University and Technologies. She is board member
for Academy of Human Resource Development, associate editor for Human Resource
Development International, and regional editor for the Journal of Chinese Human Resource
Management. Her PhD is from the Pennsylvania State University.