Topic 5 - Outcomes Flashcards
What are the organizational level aims of TM?
Strategically important outcomes: achieve outcomes that are perceived to have strategic importance (depend on strategy).
Strategically important outcomes: achieve outcomes that are perceived to havestrategic importance (depend on strategy).
Relevantoutcomes:
Proximal outcomes: directly affected by TM systems. Human capital:aggregate of employees KSAs.
Distal outcomes: indirectly affected by TM systems.So, by investing in human capital, this affects: Turnover rates:voluntary exit rates Operational outcomes: higher productivity, quality/service/innovation. Financial outcomes: financial liability of a company. Their returns. Return on assets,return on equity, market return, sales growth.
Getting sustainable competitive advantage: Todo so need to: Distinguish from the competition.+ Provide positive economic benefits.+ Not easily to duplicate by others.
Examples: Patents (e.g., for technology). Market share lead (economies ofscale => harder for others to join the market) Superior brand name Etc.
What theories does exclusive TM base their impact on organizational-level outcomes?
Human capital theory: people are resources, in which you should invest to increase their human capital (KSA) => positive outcomes. Human capital as the key source of competitive advantage.
RBV:sustained competitive advantage needs to be gained through firm-specific resources (HR) that are valuable, rare and hard to imitate.
Underlying assumption: not all human resources are equally valuable, rare and difficult to imitate. Should invest more in ones than in others.
What are the steps from TM to organizational-level outcomes?
- Organizationalinvestment in TM/talented employees: strategic, selective investments based onexpected ROI
- Increases Human capital (that is valuable rare and hard to imitate)
- Leadsto organizational outcomes: like competitive advantage (organizational level)
What does the research evidence state about organizational level outcomes of ETM?
Organizational level outcomes
Corporate strategy and development talent show a overall positive effects on financial,organizational and human resources outcomes.
But attention: common source bias (when all outcomes are rated by the same people there can be a higher relationship between the variables)
What do Son et al. (2018) state about the effect of TM?
Double-edged effect of talent management: Talent management increase innovation (as rated by managers) + increases voluntary turnover (objective).
Moderating effect of HRM investments (how much money invested in HR): increases the effect.
Why depends on who is leaving:
Talented employees are leaving: more investment in them => can search for better options
Untalented are leaving higher discrepancy between talented pool and rest of the employees=> higher perceived injustice => leave. · Also, low turnover can be explained if companies use inclusive talent management (they can still score low on TM practices since it captures exclusive TM)
See interaction effects: golden combination is low TM practices and high HRM investment.
When TM practices are high, voluntary turnover is the same for Low and high HRM investments
What are some critical remarks on Human capital theory and RBV?
Hard to predict value/relevance of sources of Human capital.
Social capital is also important:
To grow human capital, need to know where/with whom to gain knowledge
It’s the beginning point: first need social capital to gain human capital (Network ties/configurations Trust, norms, obligations) Especially valuable for the uncertain future to create a an environment of teamwork
Social capital => combination and exchange of intellectual capital => creation of new intellectual capital.
What is the micro-level perspective of Inclusive TM outcomes?
Less researched.
More positive psychology: aims to directly benefit the employee (individual-level)and only indirectly increases organizational positive outcomes.
Primarily driven by the goal to enhance human well-being, to facilitate scenarios where people can be and do what they value and to allow individuals to find meaning in their work.
Applied positive psychology and strengths-based approaches (main areas of inclusive talent management) focus mainly on individual level. But effects are more pronounced at higher levels.
What is the collective strengths use?
Collective strengths use: combination of
Strengths awareness: shared awareness of the individual strengths in a team
Strengths credibility: mutual trust in team members strengths
Strengths coordination: allocation of task in line with team member’s strengths.
What are the findings on collective sthrengts use?
Research findings at team level:
Perception of collective strengths =+=> individual performance(individual level) and team performance (team level)
Relation with individual performance increases with strengths diversity (different type of strengths => more important to have collective strength use)
Are the outcome levels completely separate?
No, they are intertwined:
What are the models that support non-separate outcome levels?
Process Model:
1. Organizational level: Intended HR practices => actual HR practices =>
2. Individual level: perceived HR practices => employee reaction =>
3. Organizational level: Organizational performance
Bathtub-models: Starton organizational level with high performance work practices => Affects employee level outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction and employee engagement) => increase organizational level outcomes (organizational performance, like staff absenteeism, patent satisfaction.
Black box debate: Link between HRM initiatives and HRM outcomes at the organizational level can only be explained via individual-level processes. Same for talent management.
Model of strategic Talent management (Collings & Mellahi, 2009)
Organizational level: differentiated HR architecture (the internal and external labour market create a talent pool that is used to fill pivotal positions)
Outcomes: increase in work motivation, organizational commitment and extra-role behaviours(individual level) which leads to an increase in firm performance (organizational level again)
So Differentiated HRM (organizational level) => individual level outcomes (work motivation, commitment + extra role behaviour) => firm performance (organizational level again)
What are some individual level theories of TM outcomes?
Social exchange theory (SET): invest => employee reciprocates (social exchange: Ido something for you, you do something for me)
AMO framework: to ensure good performance, employees must have ability (human capital theory), motivation, and opportunity (empowerment theory) to perform.Need TM systems that encompass all.
Expectancytheory: individual motivation is a function of three factors.
Expectancy: if effort =>performance.
Instrumentality: how likely I thinkI will be rewarded if I do something better. If performance => reward.
Valence: is the reward valuable?
Self-determination theory (SDT): autonomy (choose task/how you do it) + competence + relatedness(meaningful connection)=> intrinsic motivation. These needs (autonomy, competence,relatedness) are called the basic needs of this theory
What is De Boeck’s (2018) contribution to TM outcomes?
They discussed Individual-level outcomes of exclusive TM. Main goal of their systematic review was to test two assumptions:
o People in a talent pool have positive employee outcomes.
o People outside of the talent people, react with negative employee outcomes.
What are are the findings of De Boeck et al. (2009)?
TM practices & talent status (you are considered to be talented) for the people in the talent pool:
Positive effect on Commitment and satisfaction + more Performance and effort+ Decreased turnover.
But also increased: Stress of insecurity + identity struggles (harder to engage with people outside of the talent pool)+ Chances of violating the talent’s psychological contract: talented people where not always happy to reciprocate (I’m already seen as talented)
TM practices & talent status for the people outside of the talentpool
Little evidence for extremely negative effects among non-talent
They do score relatively lower than talents but not necessarily low in absolute terms.
Driving mechanism: social exchange theory (expect positive reactions form higher investment)
What are the effects of Individual level strengths use (in ITM)?
Systematic review: individual strengths => positive individual outcomes (in-role performance, extra-role performance, and counter-productive work behaviour(negative relation). ·
Empirical study: if people feel they can use their strengths it increases their basic needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness) => increases task performance,goal attainment and OCB
Do people find exclusive talent management less fair than inclusive talent management?
It depends on:
Talent status (self-interest): are you seen as talent or not. Talented employees find ETM fairer than those with no talent status.
Allocation norm (principles): do you prefer equality or merit-based allocation. The stronger the preference for merit-based allocation the fairer ETM is perceived as.
Define strengths-based climates?
Strength-based climate: perception of the formal and informal policies, practices and procedures in their organization concerning identification, development, use and appreciation of their talents and strengths.
What are the effects of Strengths-based climates?
Strength-based climate => positive emotions => performance, innovativeness and OCB
Works as a moderator decreases the positive effect of workload on sickness and absenteeism.
Works as a moderators in decreasing the positive effect of emotional demands in sickness and absenteeism.
Effects (interactions)
Whenworkload or emotional demands are high, having strength-based climate as abigger impact on sick leave then when they are low.
