practices Staffan Nilsson Centre for Policy Studies in Higher Education and Training, Department of Educational Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and HELIX VINN Excellence Centre, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linko ping University, Linko ping, Sweden, and Per-Erik Ellstrom HELIX VINN Excellence Centre, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linko ping University, Linko ping, Sweden Abstract Purpose The purpose of this conceptual paper is to illuminate the problems that are associated with dening and identifying talent and to discuss the development of talent as a contributor to employability. Design/methodology/approach The world of work is characterised by new and rapidly changing demands. Talent management has recently been the target of increasing interest and is considered to be a method by which organisations can meet the demands that are associated with increased complexity. Previous studies have often focused on the management of talent, but the issue of what exactly should be managed has generally been neglected. In this paper, the authors focus on discussing the substance of talent and the problems associated with identifying talent by using the following closely related concepts: employability, knowledge, and competence. Findings Employability is central to employee performance and organisational success. Individual employability includes general meta-competence and context-bound competence that is related to a specic profession and organisation. The concept of employability is wider than that of talent, but the possession of talent is critical to being employable. In this paper, the authors suggest a model in which talent includes individual, institutional, and organisational-social dimensions. Practical implications The illumination of different meanings of talent management and the substance of talent is crucial to the practical implication of central human resource development practices, such as training and development. Originality/value The paper shows that clarication of the conceptual boundaries and the presentation of a typology that is relevant to the understanding of talent are central to the creation of valid talent management systems that aim to dene and develop talent. Keywords Competences, Human resource development, Employability, Employees development, Talent, Talent management, Training and development Paper type Conceptual paper The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-9012.htm This paper is written within the framework of a research project that was funded by the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS). EJTD 36,1 26 Received 14 May 2011 Revised 15 August 2011 Accepted 16 September 2011 European Journal of Training and Development Vol. 36 No. 1, 2012 pp. 26-45 qEmerald Group Publishing Limited 2046-9012 DOI 10.1108/03090591211192610 Introduction The world of work has undergone changes in both the nature of work and the emergence of new forms of work, which result from innovation, the development of new knowledge, increased competition, and other factors (Brown et al., 2003; Sennett, 2006). Today, work life is characterised by complexity, unpredictability, and insecurity. There has been a shift from a commodity-based economy to a knowledge-based economy, in which an increasing proportion of organisational assets are intangible. This knowledge-based economy is generating new structures and new and continuously changing demands and challenges in the world of work (Barnett, 2000; Brown et al., 2003; Sennett, 2006). Today, a principal challenge is to remain current with changes and adapt to the evolving needs of organisations. Learning is no longer solely associated with education and is no longer viewed as a pre-career affair. There has been a shift fromjob security and lifelong employment to lifelong learning, employability, and talent management. The formalised career structures in the collective paternalistic paradigm of the 1950s and 1960s, in which employees could rely on other individuals for career development matters, no longer exist. Career paths have become less predictable and more uid. There is an increased focus on self-reliance and individual agency; ambitious, hardworking, and fast-tracking knowledge workers seek constant challenges and personal development in virtually boundary-free careers (Brown and Hesketh, 2004; Dellippi and Arthur, 1994). The labour market is characterised by outsourcing, increasing mobility, and declining job security and organisational commitment. From an organisational perspective, these characteristics lead to new challenges in securing the long-term provision of labour. General organisational success is increasingly associated with identifying, recruiting, managing, and retaining high performers or talented individuals to meet the present and future demands of an organisation. The demand and competition for highly skilled labour is intensifying on a global level (Florida, 2005; Frank and Taylor, 2004). It has become clear that the most important organisational asset, especially in knowledge-intensive organisations, is the people; the future competitiveness and prosperity of an organisation depend on its employees. Therefore, the human resource department has assumed a central role and is increasingly becoming a strategic business partner in organisations (Alvesson and Karreman, 2007; Barney and Wright, 1998; Ulrich, 1998). Human resource management (HRM) and human resource development (HRD) practices, such as the recruitment, training, and development of employees, are considered to be increasingly important for the success of organisations (Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Horwitz et al., 2003; Spence and Petrick, 2000). Consequently, HRM/HRDprofessionals are searching for conceptual frameworks to improve the effectiveness of their practices. Talent management has recently been the target of increasing interest in the world of work and has appeared more frequently in the academic literature. For example, the consulting agency PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) recently published their 14th Annual Global CEO Survey, which states that a majority of CEOs (66 per cent) are fearful that a shortage of talent may impede the growth of their companies. Talent management meets the demands that are associated with increased complexity and uncertainty. To achieve sustainable success, an organisation should align these processes with its business strategies. However, talent management is often ill-dened, and the substance of talent has generally not been identied or discussed signicantly in previous research (Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Lewis and Heckman, 2006). In the previous literature, considerable effort has been devoted to discussing the management of talent, but the topic of what exactly should be managed or what Employability and talent management 27 constitutes talent has generally been neglected (Brown and Tannock, 2009). The management of talent necessitates the denition and identication of the talent that is sought. This clarication is crucial in the practical application of central HRD practices, such as training and development. Therefore, the purpose of this conceptual paper is to illuminate the problems that are associated with dening and identifying talent and to discuss the development of talent as a contributor to employability. Specically, the intention of this paper is to illuminate the conceptual boundaries of talent management and to develop a typology that can assist practitioners in creating practices that aim to dene, identify, recruit, and develop talent. This paper explores the central concepts of talent management, employability, knowledge, competence, and talent. The concept on talent management Talent management has become a central component of corporate human resource strategies and has recently gained increasing interest in the area of HRM/HRD research (Berger and Berger, 2003; Burbach and Royle, 2010; Capelli, 2008). Talent management is not a new concept (see, e.g. Patton, 1967), but talent management research is scarce (Burbach and Royle, 2010, Collings and Mellahi, 2009). The increasing focus on talent has spread from knowledge-intensive organisations to wider segments in the labour market. Since 1997, when the consultancy rm McKinsey suggested that the global war for talent is becoming a critical driving force in corporate competitiveness and performance, the notion of talent management has become increasingly popular (Axelrod et al., 2002; Michaels et al., 2001). However, there is no consensus regarding the denition of talent, and there are no clear conceptual boundaries of talent management (Collings and Mellahi, 2009). In the literature, the concept of talent management is generally ill-dened or is dened inconsistently in terms of outcomes, processes, or decision alternatives. The concept of talent management appears to vary widely in the world of work, but this concept is still not a well-dened area of practice that is constructed on the basis of a set of core principles (Lewis and Heckman, 2006). Generally, the notion of talent management appears to be closely related to concepts that include human resource planning, strategic human resource management, and employability (Brown and Hesketh, 2004; Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Lewis and Heckman, 2006). Perspectives on talent management In a review of the practitioner-oriented literature pertaining to talent management, Lewis and Heckman (2006) identied three types of conceptualisations of talent management: (1) a collection of typical human resource department practices or functions; (2) talent pools or ows of employees into jobs in an organisation; or (3) a generic perspective on talent that focuses on either high-performing and high-potential employees or talent in general. According to the rst perspective, talent management is associated with a set of typical HRM/HRD practices or functions, such as recruitment, training, and development (Heinen and ONeill, 2004). For instance, Creelman (2004) has dened talent management as the process of attracting, recruiting, and retaining talented employees. This EJTD 36,1 28 understanding of talent management is closely related to traditional denitions of HRM/HRD. For example, Cascio (1998) has dened HRM as attracting, selecting, retaining, developing, and using human resources to achieve individual and organisational objectives. However, talent management continues to be perceived as substantially different from traditional HRM and does not merely consist of assigning new labels to old ideas. Talent management is associated with activities that include incorporating newknowledge and doing things more quickly and efciently (Chuai et al., 2008). From this perspective, talent management has also been associated with a shift from the department-specic focus of HRM activities to an organisation-wide engagement at all levels in terms of recruiting, retaining, and developing talent. The HR department, line managers, and senior management team of an organisation are all engaged in talent management processes. Talent management is also considered to be a way by which HR professionals can achieve credibility and recognition or enhance their legitimacy and status both within and outside of an organisation. Talent management is considered to be an important way of ensuring that HRM becomes a central component of a businesss strategy and is integrated into the everyday processes throughout an organisation, from the practices of the HR department and line managers to those of senior management (Chuai et al., 2008; Lewis and Heckman, 2006). The second perspective on talent management, which Lewis and Heckman (2006) derived from the previous literature, is associated with a focus on talent pools and processes that are designed to secure the supply of employees in different parts of an organisation in relation to specic jobs and tasks. This perspective is related to human resource planning or workforce planning and development ( Jackson and Schuler, 1990; Rothwell, 2010). The focus of this notion of talent management is on the anticipation of future organisational employee or stafng needs, career advancement, and internal workforce matters (Schweyer, 2004). From this perspective, it is important to identify the specic needs in an organisation by, for example, constructing needs assessments and conducting detailed job and talent gap analyses as foundations for training and development. According to the third perspective, talent management is regarded generically and is not associated with specic positions or organisations (e.g. Becker and Huselid, 2006; Tarique and Schuler, 2010). Two different views of talent management are encompassed by this perspective. First, talent is primarily associated with individuals who demonstrate high potential or high performance and are sought, recruited, and differentially rewarded without regard to their specic roles in an organisation. From this perspective, talent management is associated with differentiation and a focus on elitism rather than egalitarianism. The process of securing, developing, and managing the most talented employees is generally associated with gaining a competitive advantage (Brown and Tannock, 2009). Organisational success is increasingly attributed to the outstanding performance of a few select employees, and the differential value created by the most talented employees is considered to be signicant (Axelrod et al., 2002; Cheese et al., 2008; Heinen and ONeill, 2004; Michaels et al., 2001). Talent is regarded as being contextually independent and as a resource, and employees are classied and rewarded according to their general performance levels rather than according to specic jobs. Second, generic talent can be viewed as an undifferentiated good and can be regarded as the potential of all employees, who are to be managed and guided to achieve high performance levels by the human resource function in an organisation. Talent management is regarded as a mind-set or a way of thinking that is Employability and talent management 29 associated with ensuring that all employees perform to the best of their potential (Buckingham and Vosburgh, 2001; Walker and Larocco, 2002). Some authors have attempted to take a broader approach, which incorporates various aspects of the perspectives described above. Collings and Mellahi (2009) have suggested a fourth perspective, in which talent management is associated with identifying key positions in an organisation rather than the notion in which individuals are central to an organisations sustainable competitive advantage (Boudreau and Ramstad, 2005; Huselid et al., 2005). It is not considered to be desirable but rather is considered to be an over-investment if all of the positions in an organisation are held by high performers. Even if this perspective entails a shift in focus, the key positions that have been identied should be lled from a talent pool of individuals with high potential and high performing potential. Nevertheless, it is not clear what constitutes the potential for high performance or how this characteristic should be recognised. The question of how to dene, identify, develop, and manage talent remains unanswered (Brown and Tannock, 2009). Problems in developing a denition of talent management Neither of these perspectives on talent management yields much new insight into what talent is or how it should be strategically and effectively managed; thus, the practical usefulness of talent management is limited. The previous literature on talent management has done little to advance such theories or practices in the eld of HRM/HRD (Lewis and Heckman, 2006). In fact, it is difcult to nd an agreed-upon denition or delimitation of talent management. Nevertheless, the concept of talent management is often used to emphasise the strategic importance of strong human resource practices in organisations. Most of the literature on talent management contains the central notion that talent management is associated with different human resource department practices, such as the strategic recruitment, retention, development, and training of talented high-performing or high-potential employees. The allocation of the appropriately selected person to the appropriate position and the development and training of the relevant competence based on strategic business objectives is associated with higher productivity and a competitive advantage and is regarded as crucial to an organisations success (Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Lewis and Heckman, 2006; Tarique and Schuler, 2010). Human resource practices have been linked to organisational performance (Becker and Huselid, 2006; Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995). However, it is not clear whether the value of strong HR practices is outcome-related or related to process issues or whether these practices are primarily symbolic in nature (Wright et al., 2005). For example, the outcomes of many HRD processes are seldom formally evaluated as a result of problems related to measurement and evaluation. Previous research has primarily utilised cross-sectional designs, and causal relationships have not been satisfactorily illuminated. It is unclear whether HRM/HRD practices contribute to organisational outcomes or whether organisational success leads to increased investments in strengthening HRM/HRD practices (Gerhart, 2005). The meaning of talent is generally assumed but not explicitly dened. Frequently, talent is used synonymously with people (Lewis and Heckman, 2006) or assets, such as individual knowledge, skills, attitudes, or competence. However, to discuss the concept of talent in greater detail, researchers must establish a typology that can assist in explicating the concept of talent with substantive content. EJTD 36,1 30 To determine the focal point of talent management, it is important to discuss the meaning of talent. For example, it is unclear whether and to what extent talent should be considered to be linked to individuals, the requirements of specic jobs and organisations, or processes that are related to the relationship between these components. Talent can be associated with varying degrees of value and difculty in terms of replacement in a specic organisation (Stewart, 1997). Talent may be associated with inherited predispositions, or talent may be acquired and developed through learning and educational activities. Talent may be specic and context-bound (i.e. linked to the specic context of an organisation or a job). Talent may be relative, and what is considered talent in one context, job or organisation may not be considered to be talent in another setting. Strategies, practices, and methods that add value in one organisation may not contribute value in other organisations (Heinen and ONeill, 2004). Talent may also be generic or universal; that is, it may be relevant in a wide array of situations and contexts (Lewis and Heckman, 2006). Although talent is increasingly being addressed in the literature, further research must be based on a solid foundation to advance the discussion on talent management. It is important to attempt to nalise the basic concepts to establish an accepted denition of talent and its conceptual boundaries (Lewis and Heckman, 2006). Organisations seek talented and employable workers. In training and development activities, the individual talent of employees is enhanced, and their employability is increased. Talent and employability are overlapping concepts. Talented individuals are generally employable individuals. However, employability does not merely involve talent. Being talented may be necessary for being employable, but talent is not sufcient. Employability is associated with other aspects in addition to talent; thus, this factor complicates an organisations search for and development and training of talented employees. On the meaning of employability Closely related to the notion of talent, employability is a concept that has become increasingly prominent in both national and international policy debates and has appeared more frequently in various disciplines in the scientic literature during the last 20 years (McQuaid and Lindsay, 2005). The notion of employability has become a foundation of labour market policies and higher education and employment strategies in Europe and North America (e.g. see the European Commission, 2010; ILO, 2000; OECD, 1998). Governments and companies are pursuing and supporting the development of employability in the workforce in several countries, including Sweden (SNAHE, 2004) and Canada (CBOC, 2000). The concept of employability has largely been framed by the perspective of policy makers and employers, who focus on the supply aspect of competence in the labour market (McQuaid and Lindsay, 2005). The earliest denitions of employability tended to be dichotomous. People were considered to be either employable or unemployable. Therefore, a person who was able and willing to work in a regular manner was considered to be employable. From these early days of the twentieth century, different denitions of employability can be traced to the present and reect changes in the market and the demands of the workforce (Knight and Yorke, 2004; McQuaid and Lindsay, 2005). From the initially narrow understandings of employability, the denitions of this concept have expanded over time. Employability has often been regarded as a set of competences and characteristics that are identied as important for meeting shifting Employability and talent management 31 demands in a rapidly changing and dynamic competitive market (Forrier and Sels, 2003; Knight and Yorke, 2004). This conceptualisation is also closely associated with the ways in which talent is often portrayed (Collings and Mellahi, 2009). Today, employability is commonly considered to incorporate both factors that relate to an individuals preparation for work and his or her ability to successfully manage a job and factors that relate to the potential for mobility between different social practices and an individuals capability of transitioning from education or unemployment to a job or from one job to another (McQuaid and Lindsay, 2005). It is possible to distinguish between factors that relate to preparation for work and the capability of successfully managing a job and factors that are relevant to becoming employed and re-employed and to advancing within a career. First, employability includes an individuals assets in terms of, for example, competence (including knowledge, skills, attitudes and personal characteristics), which can be associated with human capital and talent. Second, employability also entails social capital and formal qualications and the way in which an individuals resources are marketed to employers and may not necessarily be associated with talent (Hillage and Pollard, 1998; Knight and Yorke, 2004; McQuaid and Lindsay, 2005). A central aspect of being employable is the ability to obtain a job. One aspect of this ability is an individuals formal and actual capabilities of successfully performing the tasks of a job. However, another central aspect of employability, especially in areas with erce competition for jobs, is an individuals formal credentials and ability to negotiate, to market oneself, and to accentuate the appropriate forms of competence to a recruiter. An employee essentially sells himself or herself to an employer. In this situation, the employer becomes the customer, and an employees potential to complete the necessary work is the product (Knight and Yorke, 2004). The notion of employability entails more than an individuals ability and does not simply involve the process of matching an individuals assets to the demands of an employer. Employability is a complex, relational, and multidimensional concept (Clarke, 2008; Clarke and Patrickson, 2008; Moreau and Leathwood, 2006). Employability depends on context and is likely to vary between different professions and organisations. Employability cannot be understood only in terms of the competence or talent of individuals. Employability is also related to occupational structures and the demand and supply of skilled workers in the labour market (Brown and Hesketh, 2004). However, formal credentials and degrees are generally considered to be central to individual employability. In addition, an individuals social networks, references and previous work experience have been shown to be increasingly important for the hiring decisions of employers and labour market outcomes (Marsden and Gorman, 2001; Mencken and Wineld, 1998). Employability and formal learning The principal means of developing or rening talent to secure a supply of highly skilled labour in a knowledge-driven economy has often been considered to be through formal learning and education. There is commonly assumed to be a linear relationship between education and productivity or between learning and earning. The dominant discourse is characterised by a relatively narrow and market-based concept of education, competence, employability, and talent (Brown and Tannock, 2009; Moreau and Leathwood, 2006; Tannock, 2009). Organisational HRM/HRD practices and labour market and education policies are characterised by a functionalistic perspective based on the concept of human capital (Becker, 1964; Schultz, 1961). From this instrumental, EJTD 36,1 32 technical, and rational view, education is primarily regarded as an investment in individual employability that is assumed to proportionally increase the productive capacity and income of individuals. However, based on this perspective, little emphasis is given to the substance of learning. A formal degree is often regarded as a proxy for an individuals knowledge and skills or for his or her productive capability. In the literature, there have been numerous studies critiquing human capital theory over the last half century, and some studies have shown that the assumed benets of investments in education are limited or questionable from a productivity perspective and that such benets rather lead to the reproduction of inequalities in society. More recently, advocates for the market-based view have also increasingly questioned the human capital hypothesis (Arrow, 1973; Collins, 1979; Harvey, 2005; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Tannock, 2009; Gaskell and Rubenson, 2004; Hesketh, 2000; Murphy, 1993). The demand for talent appears to be related to the supply of talent. The educational level of individuals is constantly increasing, but this trend is not considered to be sufcient to alleviate the scarcity of top talent. As the competence of higher education graduates increases, the demands for talent increase proportionally (Heidrick & Struggles, 2007). The relationship between the content that is learned in formal education and the demands of the world of work is complex. Investments in formal learning increase the employability of graduates, but it is unclear as to whether such investments actually increase the productive capabilities and competence of graduates. Formal learning may not always be capable of directly preparing students for work ( Jrgensen, 2004; Nilsson, 2010a). Talent is closely related to an individuals actual capabilities of performing a job (i.e. an individuals competence). Therefore, to further discuss the substance of talent, it is important to consider the meaning of the concepts of learning, knowledge, skills, and competence. On the meaning of learning and knowledge Different aspects of knowledge and competence are at least implicitly central to most conceptualisations of employability and talent and are fundamental for central HRD activities, such as training and development. Discussions pertaining to the substance of talent may be aided by the development of a typology of knowledge and competence. The ways in which these concepts are dened and used are closely related to the ways in which learning is understood. Principally, learning is often understood from either a cognitive perspective or a contextual perspective (Anderson et al., 2000; Illeris, 2007). From a cognitive perspective of learning, knowledge is internalised by an individual and can thereafter be transferred and applied in another context. Consequently, learning is primarily associated with formal education and instruction. From a contextual perspective, learning is associated with the social and cultural context in which the knowledge is embedded. Learning is an informal social process that is experience-based and associated with active engagement in a community. However, both of these perspectives are limited and should not necessarily be viewed as mutually exclusive; rather, these perspectives should be viewed as complementary. Theoretical knowledge is not always easily transferred into practice, and situated experiential learning may be context-bound and may have limited relevance in other contexts (Anderson et al., 2000; Illeris, 2007). The substantive content of knowledge, the what aspect, is often neglected. In many studies, knowledge has become an empty, positively normative concept that is devoid of substance or a voice (Young, 2009), especially in discussions of talent management and Employability and talent management 33 in the technical rational perspective that dominates the employability debate and labour market and educational policies in Europe and North America. There is often a call for increased learning and formal education and training, but less emphasis is generally placed on howand what knowledge is actually learned in different contexts and howthis knowledge is related to the demands of the labour market. Knowledge has a theoretical component and a practical component. The theoretical component can also be referred to as declarative, propositional or codied knowledge (i.e. explicit book knowledge that can be taught in an educational program) (Eraut, 2004). This involves knowledge about an object that is separate from the subject and is referred to as knowing that. In contrast, practical knowledge or know-how is associated with experience, is implicit or expressed only in practice, and is thus inseparable from actions (Ryle, 1963). This type of knowledge cannot be codied, explicitly formalised, managed, communicated or taught in a traditional formal education setting (Eraut, 2004). The development and management of knowledge in an organisation involves more than the simple storage and transfer of information. Some knowledge, including factual information and explicit knowledge, can be transferred relatively easily to other people through, for example, formal education or by codifying and recording the information into databases or knowledge repositories that are accessible to other employees in an organisation (Haesli and Boxall, 2005). However, some of the critical knowledge in an organisation can be implicit and personal. Turnover becomes costly if knowledge is linked with certain employees or is embedded in an organisational culture through routines and ways of doing things. A denition of competence In this paper, competence is regarded as a central aspect of employability and talent and is used as a wide concept that transcends practical and theoretical knowledge. Competence entails both cognitive and non-cognitive aspects, including knowledge, functional competence, values, motivational factors, personality traits, and behavioural competence and includes an affective component (Cheetham and Chivers, 1996; 1998; Ellstrom, 1997). Some forms of competence are easily mastered, whereas other types of competence are more complex or tacit. Competence can be general and transferable, or it can be specic and context-bound (e.g. related to a specic workplace). The competence concept includes both conceptual competence, such as knowledge, understanding, and transcending meta-competence (e.g. learning to learn), and operational competence, such as functional applied skills and social competence (e.g. behaviours and attitudes) (Delamare Le Deist and Winterton, 2005). In this paper, competence is dened as an individuals actual capacity that is used in practice in relation to a certain task, whereas formal competence (i.e. credentials or qualications) is regarded as an inexact proxy of an individuals actual competence (Ellstrom, 1997). We propose that competence has three separate but related analytical dimensions: the individual, institutional, and organisational-social dimensions. The individual dimension is related to the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that an individual can be considered to possess. However, the degree to which an individual is considered to be competent in relation to a certain task (or class of tasks) is contextually dened. Specically, this degree of competence is dened in terms of different demands, expectations or rules (criteria) that dictate what should be considered to be acceptable, skilled, or excellent ways of handling an assignment or a task. These criteria are rooted at the institutional level and/or at the organisational-social level. The EJTD 36,1 34 organisational-social dimension includes demands related to organisational and technical requirements and social norms within communities of practice. An individual is assumed to acquire these criteria (with varying degrees of success) through processes of learning, such as formal schooling, informal processes of socialisation in the workplace and processes in society (e.g. through media or other people). On the meaning of talent Talent is generally used as a euphemism for people and is often narrowly dened in economic terms, such as human capital, assets, or market value, which are related to formal credentials (Brown and Tannock, 2009). Researchers and practitioners of talent management sometimes refer to talent in a wider sense. Nevertheless, although there is no consensus on the meaning of talent, the term generally refers to people who contribute to organisational performance or may refer to the performance of such individuals (Tansley et al., 2007; Lewis and Heckman, 2006). However, the substance of talent is generally absent in the models that describe talent management. Nevertheless, the management of people involves managing individual competences, and recruiting talented people involves recruiting people with a certain degree or type of competence. It is important to consider the substance of talent to provide tools that are useful for the construction of methods that are central to the practical implementation of talent management strategies. Talent can be associated with high performers in a general sense or linked to an individual or how well an individual can potentially perform or actually performs in general or in relation to a specic job. Talent can be regarded as being exclusive to a few high-performing individuals or can be viewed as a quality that all employees possess to some extent and that can be developed and managed through general strategies (Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Lewis and Heckman, 2006). Some talent may be dynamic or related to generic meta-competence, such as managerial or interpersonal competence. Other talent may be related to hard technical or operational competence that is associated with a specic job, organisation, or type of industry or associated with the nature of the work (Tansley et al., 2007). An individual may be regarded as being talented or as a high performer in relation to one task but not in relation to another task. There are those who argue that some aspects of talent elude description (Michaels et al., 2001). However, for HRD and talent management, it is necessary to create an operational denition to be able to identify what should be sought. In the absence of such a denition, HRD practices become ad hoc, and decisions may be based on a weak foundation and may not benet the strategic interest of an organisation. The establishment of a delimitation of the conceptual boundaries of talent is also relevant to reforms in labour market and education policies (Brown and Tannock, 2009). However, specifying and dening talent is not sufcient. It is important to ensure that the systems and practices that are constructed to attract and develop talent are valid in reaching their aims. Identifying, developing, and training high-performing, competent, employable, and talented employees are complex processes, in which the HRD practices in an organisation are central. Demands of the labour market Numerous studies have examined the demands of the market and the types of talent that are needed in the workplace according to both employers and employees (de la Employability and talent management 35 Harpe et al., 2000; Hesketh, 2000; Knight and Yorke, 2004; Pool and Sewell, 2007; Williams, 2005). Employer demands vary across different sectors, branches and types of business and for different types of positions or jobs within an organisation (Harvey, 2005). Although there is no xed, universal common set of competences or talent, some employer demands have been repeatedly noted in previous studies (see, e.g. de la Harpe et al., 2000). Many organisations have downsized and outsourced functions. Organisational structures have attened with the adaptation of process-oriented project and network management. Work life has become more complex and dynamic and less secure as careers are increasingly viewed as a series of projects. Developments in the workplace that are driven by, for example, technological change have led to changes in the nature of the demands of work and changes in what is regarded as talent. Today, workers must develop and be ready to deploy a wider range of competence than was required in the past (Tomlinson, 2008). The changing work environment has also led to changing organisational demands. There has been a shift from a focus on strong technical commercial skills towards a focus on generic meta-competence or a shift from know-how to learn-how (Eraut, 2004). In general, highly specialised technical competence often becomes outdated rapidly and is therefore deemed to be less relevant. Rather, jobs are learned in the workplace, and employees must continuously invest in learning and development activities ( Jrgensen, 2004; Nilsson, 2010b). Today, specialised skills are not sufcient, and being employable is often associated with being a generally knowledgeable or educated person who can easily learn the specics that are needed when they are needed. With increasing demands of productivity and protability, the margins for error have decreased. Risk taking is discouraged, and mistakes are not tolerated. Employers seek self-reliant, exible, adaptable and mobile entrepreneurs who are also creative and innovative. However, employees are increasingly required to rely on other people as they work, and it is important that employees are capable of collaborating and working in teams and that they possess leadership and negotiating skills (de la Harpe et al., 2000; Harvey, 2005). Moreover, employers expect their employees to be hard-working, dedicated and loyal. Good performance entails handling the tasks of a job and is associated with a moral dimension, which includes adherence to regulations and norms that are necessary to t into an organisation, including culture and values and the ability to decode different contexts. Increased access to information and the rapid development of new knowledge have led to the increased importance of information-handling competence (i.e. the ability to learn, collect, and sort information) (Nilsson, 2010a; 2010b). There are repeated transitions from novice to expert and from expert to novice as professionals launch into new projects and must become oriented with new areas and learn new skills. It is also important to possess vision and planning skills and to be able to establish overviews, and knowledge workers must possess a basic understanding of a wider array of functions and tasks in an organisation and be able to engage in multi-disciplinary approaches. Therefore, the focus on sought-after talent seems to have shifted from specialist competence to general competence (Hesketh, 2000; Hiltrop, 1998; Nilsson, 2010a; b). Employers seek self-reliant, independent, creative, and innovative entrepreneurs with strong interpersonal skills and the ability to work with others. In addition, employees are expected to be exible and capable of rapidly orienting themselves to new contexts and to learn what is needed when it is needed (de la Harpe et al., 2000; EJTD 36,1 36 Harvey, 2005). However, such highly skilled and talented employees are also highly mobile free agents. Therefore, their sense of identity may become more closely linked to a profession or function rather than to specic organisations; thus, such employees frequently change jobs (Hiltrop, 1998; Nilsson, 2010a). Increased organisational investments in individual employability and in rening talent have been considered to be tools with which an organisation can increase its competitive advantage; however, these investments are associated with a decrease in organisational commitment and an increased risk of turnover. This situation has been referred to as the management paradox (De Cuyper and De Witte, 2011; Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden, 2006). Challenges for HRD Constantly new and changing demands in the world of work create problems for HRD professionals attempting to identify and develop relevant talent. In a knowledge-intensive labour market, it is increasingly difcult to assess the competence of individuals in relation to the requirements of specic jobs. The process of developing and training individuals to secure a long-term competence supply in an organisation is complex. The identication and development of talent are generally based on a technical rational perspective that is derived from labour economics, which commonly include concepts such as predictive accuracy, validity, and reliability. HRD practices are developed and applied with the aim of objectively identifying organisational needs by detailing taxonomies of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are necessary for each job (Lockyer and Scholarios, 2007; Soderquist et al., 2010). However, individuals are not static bearers of competence as proposed in the traditional task-based human capital approach (Soderquist et al., 2010). Moreover, the competence that is actually required by a job is often difcult to identify, dene, and match to the competence of the appropriate individual. Jobs are constructed for, adapted to, and shaped by employees (Baker, 2009). Two main perspectives that are represented in the literature describe how HRD practices should be congured and implemented (Collings and Mellahi, 2009). The best-practice approach is associated with a set of universal HR practices that, if employed correctly, will ensure organisational competitiveness regardless of the organisational context (Pfeffer, 1998). In the best-t approach, the internal and external contexts of an organisation in which the HR practices operate are considered. Organisations are encouraged to align their HR processes with their overall strategies and consider contextual factors when designing and implementing their HRD practices (Boxall and Purcell, 2008; Wood, 1999). Traditionally, HRD has focused on dening organisations on the basis of job structures and identifying and securing the competence that is required for successful performance in each specic position. Consequently, human resource departments organise their work around the tasks of identifying, assessing, and analysing sets of job-related tasks and the demands that are required to perform these tasks. However, competitive advantages are increasingly associated with exibility and change rather than predened task-related sets of competences, as was common in traditional HRD approaches (Soderquist et al., 2010). Therefore, there has been a transition from a task-based approach to HRD to a competence-based approach, which is described as a shift from a focus on jobs to a focus on individuals and their competence. Central components of the new HRD models include a focus on a long-term dynamic organisational t rather than a short-term task-based match and a focus on personal Employability and talent management 37 characteristics and behavioural traits rather than technical skills alone (Clardy, 2007). When attempting to achieve a long-term organisational t, HRD departments must consider contextual factors in addition to individual factors. The effectiveness of organisational HRD practices in nding, training, and managing talent is unclear. In general, the process of developing and training relevant talent is becoming more complicated. Generic competences, personal characteristics, and individual attributes are more difcult to objectively dene, assess, and improve in the context of organisational demands than hard technical competences, which are usually measured through formal credentials that are assumed to predict future job performance (Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden, 2006). HRD processes also constitute ways to organise, change, and control structures and roles within an organisation (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Scott, 1992). A workforce is constructed and shaped through the processes that create and distribute shared meanings of an organisational culture and its identity, needs, and values. What employees are supposed to know, how they are expected to act, and how others in the organisation are expected to act towards them are dened and strengthened through HRD processes (Alvesson and Karreman, 2007). HRD practices occur within an organisational context of intra- and inter-departmental conicts regarding resources and power within the corporate hierarchy. Previous research has also found that HRD processes can be unsystematic, ad hoc, and used as symbolic way to legitimise recruitment, career management, training, and development decisions (Alvesson and Karreman, 2007). From an institutional or symbolic perspective, HRD processes are used as a method for creating an image of rationality as a foundation for legitimacy and status (Alvesson and Karreman, 2007; Iles et al., 2010). Organisations encounter considerable challenges in identifying and developing the actual talent of an individual relevant to the actual demands of the work. The ofcially demanded requirements of a job are often linked to the formal credentials of an individual or their qualications. However, the actual requirements and needs of an organisation may be loosely linked to formal requirements and to the competence and qualications of the employees. In other words, there may be a discrepancy between theory and practice (Nilsson, 2010a). It is inconsequential if a model or practice is formally outlined, described, and validated if it is not fully adopted and implemented in the process of identifying and developing talent (Lockyer and Scholarios, 2007). Individual, institutional, and organisational-social dimensions of talent There has been a shift in focus in the central components of successful employee performance, from formal technical vocational competence towards dening employability in terms of the potential of individuals to deploy broader behavioural and performative competence, personality, personal characteristics, and soft competence (Brown and Hesketh, 2004, Nilsson, 2010b; Tomlinson, 2008). The concept of employability is wider than that of talent, but talent is a central component of employability. Today, talent is associated with general and contextually relevant competence as a foundation for successful employee performance and organisational competitiveness (Brown and Tannock, 2009). Talent includes knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Talent can refer to generic meta-competence, such as the ability to learn and the potential for development, or context-bound specialist competence, which is related to a specic profession or organisation (Tansley et al., 2007). Hence, an employee can be more talented or less talented in relation to a task. Moreover, an employee may be EJTD 36,1 38 considered to be talented in relation to one task but not necessarily in relation to another task. We suggest that talent essentially includes the competence that is central to individual employability. Consistent with our denition of competence as presented above, we propose a denition of talent that has three distinctly different dimensions: an individual dimension, an institutional dimension, and an organisational-social dimension (Figure 1). An individual can possess talent. However, the extent to which an individual is considered to be talented in a certain context or in relation to a specic task or organisation is contextually dened. Talent is related to factors that include the different demands, expectations, rules, or standards in an organisation that determine the appropriate ways of handling a task or solving a problem. The criteria that dene what is considered central to talent in an organisation are dened at the institutional level and/or at the organisational-social level, which is related to organisational and technical requirements and social norms within different communities of practice. In addition, a central requirement of being talented is the ability to learn and adapt to these criteria through formal schooling, professional training and development, informal learning at work, or socialisation processes in the workplace and in society at large. However, contradictions or inconsistencies between different criteria may exist, for example, between institutional and organisational criteria or between organisational and more informal social criteria. In general terms, institutional criteria are likely to emerge as a result of long-term processes of professionalisation in a certain eld or interaction with the formal educational system, whereas organisational and social criteria are more closely linked to changing conditions and demands in the production system or in the social relations, culture, or climate of a workplace. Although these three dimensions are closely related both conceptually and empirically, it is important to separate themin research on competence and human resource development and with respect to practical implications for HRD practices, such as training and development. Conclusions and practical implications The process of identifying, securing, developing, and managing relevant talent is important in meeting the long-term strategic needs of an organisation and for short-term productivity. An increased understanding of how to adapt and develop valid training and development practices is highly relevant in creating a foundation for organisational success, as inappropriate decisions may have severe consequences and Figure 1. Three dimensions of talent: an individual dimension, an organisational-social dimension, and an institutional dimension Employability and talent management 39 may be associated with considerable strategic and nancial costs. Hence, organisations should design individual HRD strategy programmes of talent management with regard to the talent of their employees and the specic prognosticated future demands of the jobs and their organisations. Training and developing talent includes career management practices in which individual and organisational needs are strategically aligned, including dening performance targets, supporting learning initiatives, and ensuring feedback from line management. Moreover, an organisation must promote enabling learning environments that are supported by policies and the ways in which work is organised (Kock and Ellstrom, 2011). Organisations must develop systems and practices that promote the type of talent that is increasingly demanded. This development requires analyses of the existing supply and demand of talent in an organisation. The three dimensions of talent that are proposed in this paper could provide some direction regarding such analyses of training and development needs. Human resource departments have an important task as strategic partners in nding, managing, and developing talent and in ensuring that individual and organisational objectives are aligned. Talent seems to be associated with employability competence, such as generic behavioural meta-competence and personal characteristics that are more difcult to identify than hard technical qualications. This conceptualisation has contributed to a shifting focus in HRD practices towards, for example, behavioural questions in recruitment and performance interviews (rather than hypothetical questions), internship programmes, trainee positions, and the establishment of appropriate communication with professionals and line managers. Moreover, the increased individualisation of responsibility for career planning and self-reliance in terms of development and employability investments seems to have led HRDsystems to focus on on-the-job training and development programs and promoting workplace learning and individual graduate development (e.g. career planning, coaching, mentoring, and job-related learning). References Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. (2007), Unraveling HRM: identity, ceremony, and control in a management consulting rm, Organization Science, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 711-23. Anderson, J.R., Greeno, J.G., Reder, L.M. and Simon, H.A. (2000), Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity, Educational Researcher, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 11-13. Arrow, K.J. (1973), Higher education as a lter, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 193-216. Axelrod, B., Handeld-Jones, H. and Michaels, E. (2002), A new game plan for C players, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 80-8. Baker, D.P. (2009), The educational transformation of work: towards a new synthesis, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 163-91. Barnett, R. (2000), Supercomplexity and the curriculum, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 255-65. Barney, J.B. and Wright, P.M. (1998), On becoming a strategic partner: the role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 31-46. Becker, B.E. and Huselid, M.A. (2006), Strategic human resource management: where do we go from here?, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 898-925. EJTD 36,1 40 Becker, G.S. (1964), Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, Columbia University Press, New York, NY. Berger, L.A. and Berger, D.R. (2003), The Talent Management Handbook: Creating Organizational Excellence by Identifying, Developing and Promoting Your Best People, McGraw-Hill Professional, New York, NY. Boudreau, J.W. and Ramstad, P.M. (2005), Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: a new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy denition, Human Resource Management, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 129-36. Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2008), Strategy and Human Resource Management, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Brown, P. and Hesketh, A. (2004), The Mismanagement of Talent: Employability and Jobs in the Knowledge Economy, Oxford University Press, Kings Lynn. Brown, P. and Tannock, S. (2009), Education, meritocracy and the global war for talent, Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 377-92. Brown, P., Hesketh, A. and Williams, S. (2003), Employability in a knowledge-driven economy, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 107-26. Buckingham, M. and Vosburgh, R.M. (2001), The 21st century human resources function: its the talent, stupid!, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 17-23. Burbach, R. and Royle, T. (2010), Talent on demand? Talent management in the German and Irish subsidiaries of a US multinational corporation, Personnel Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 414-31. Capelli, P. (2008), Talent on Demand: Managing Talent in an Age of Uncertainty, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA. Cascio, W. (1998), Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management, Prentice Hall, New York, NY. CBOC (Conference Board of Canada) (2000), Employability Skills 2000, Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa. Cheese, P., Thomas, R.J. and Craig, E. (2008), The Talent Power Organization: Strategies for Globalization, Talent Management and High Performance, Kogan Page, Philadelphia, PA. Cheetham, G. and Chivers, G. (1996), Towards a holistic model of professional competence, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 20-30. Cheetham, G. and Chivers, G. (1998), The reective (and competent) practitioner: a model of professional competence which seeks to harmonise the reective practitioner and competence-based approaches, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 267-76. Chuai, X., Preece, D. and Iles, P. (2008), Is talent management just old wine in new bottles? The case of multinational companies in Beijing, Management Research News, Vol. 31 No. 12, pp. 901-11. Clardy, A. (2007), Strategy, core competencies and human resource development, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 339-49. Clarke, M. (2008), Understanding and managing employability in changing career contexts, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 258-84. Clarke, M.A. and Patrickson, M.G. (2008), The new covenant of employability, Employee Relations, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 121-41. Collins, R. (1979), The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratication, Academic Press, New York, NY. Employability and talent management 41 Collings, D.G. and Mellahi, K. (2009), Strategic talent management: a review and research agenda, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 304-13. Creelman, D. (2004), Return on Investment in Talent Management: Measures You Can Put to Work Right Now, Human Capital Institute, Washington, DC. De Cuyper, N. and De Witte, H. (2011), The management paradox: self-rated employability and organizational commitment and performance, Personnel Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 152-72. de la Harpe, B., Radloff, A. and Wyber, J. (2000), Quality and generic (professional) skills, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 231-43. Dellippi, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1994), The boundaryless career: a competency-based perspective, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 307-24. Delamare Le Deist, F. and Winterton, J. (2005), What is competence?, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 27-46. Ellstrom, P.E. (1997), The many meanings of occupational competence and qualication, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 21 Nos 6/7, pp. 266-73. Eraut, M. (2004), Transfer of knowledge between education and workplace settings, in Rainbird, H., Fuller, A. and Munro, A. (Eds), Workplace Learning in Context, Routledge, London, pp. 201-21. European Commission (2010), Employment in Europe 2010, Publications Ofce of the European Union, Luxembourg. Florida, R. (2005), The Flight of the Creative Class, Harper Business, New York, NY. Forrier, A. and Sels, L. (2003), The concept of employability: a complex mosaic, International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 102-24. Frank, F.D. and Taylor, C.R. (2004), Talent management: trends that will shape the future, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 33-41. Gaskell, J. and Rubenson, K. (2004), Educational Outcomes for the Canadian Workplace: New Frameworks for Policy and Research, University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Gerhart, B. (2005), Human resources and business performance: ndings, unanswered questions, and an alternative approach, Management Revue, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 174-85. Guthrie, J. (2001), High-involvement work practices, turnover and productivity: evidence from New Zealand, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 180-92. Haesli, A. and Boxall, P. (2005), When knowledge management meets HR strategy: an exploration of personalization-retention and codication-recruitment congurations, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16 No. 11, pp. 1955-75. Harvey, L. (2005), Embedding and integrating employability, New Directions for Institutional Research, Vol. 2005 No. 128, pp. 13-28. Heidrick & Struggles (2007), Mapping Global Talent, Heidrick & Struggles, Chicago, IL. Heinen, J.S. and ONeill, C. (2004), Managing talent to maximize performance, Employment Relations Today, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 67-82. Hesketh, A. (2000), Recruiting an elite? Employers perceptions of graduate employment and training, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 245-71. Hillage, J. and Pollard, E. (1998), Employability: Developing a Framework for Policy Analysis, Department for Education and Employment, London. Hiltrop, J.M. (1998), Preparing people for the future: the next agenda for HRM, European Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 70-8. EJTD 36,1 42 Horwitz, F., Heng, C.T. and Quazi, H.A. (2003), Finders, keepers? Attracting, motivating and retaining knowledge workers, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 23-44. Huselid, M.A. (1995), The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate nancial performance, Academic Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 635-72. Huselid, M.A., Beatty, R.W. and Becker, B.E. (2005), A players or A positions? The strategic logic of workforce management, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 12, pp. 110-7. Iles, P., Preece, D. and Chuai, X. (2010), Talent management as a management fashion in HRD: towards a research agenda, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 125-45. Illeris, K. (2007), How We Learn: Learning and Non-learning in School and Beyond, Routledge, London. ILO (2000), Training for Employment: Social Inclusion, Productivity and Youth Employment, Report V, International Labour Organization, Geneva. Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. (1990), Human resource planning: challenges for industrial/organizational psychologists, American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 223-39. Jrgensen, C.H. (2004), Connecting work and education: should learning be useful, correct or meaningful?, The Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 455-65. Kock, H. and Ellstrom, P.E. (2011), Formal and integrated strategies for competence development in SMEs, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 71-88. Knight, P.T. and Yorke, M. (2004), Learning, Curriculum and Employability in Higher Education, Routledge, London. Lewis, R.E. and Heckman, R.J. (2006), Talent management: a critical review, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 139-54. Lockyer, C. and Scholarios, D. (2007), The rain dance of selection in construction: rationality as ritual and the logic of informality, Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 528-48. McQuaid, R.W. and Lindsay, C. (2005), The concept of employability, Urban Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 197-219. Marsden, P.V. and Gorman, E.H. (2001), Social networks, job changes and recruitment, in Berg, I. and Kalleberg, A.L. (Eds), Sourcebook on Labor Markets: Evolving Structures and Processes, Kulwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 467-502. Mencken, F.C. and Wineld, I. (1998), In search of the right stuff: the advantages and disadvantages of informal and formal recruitment practices in external labor markets, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 135-54. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), Institutionalised organisations: formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 340-63. Michaels, E., Handeld-Jones, H. and Axelrod, B. (2001), The War for Talent, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Moreau, M.P. and Leathwood, C. (2006), Graduates employment and the discourse of employability: a critical analysis, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 305-24. Murphy, J. (1993), A degree of waste: the economic benets of educational expansion, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 9-31. Nilsson, S. (2010a), On the meaning of higher education in professional practice: the case of physicians and engineers, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 255-74. Employability and talent management 43 Nilsson, S. (2010b), Enhancing individual employability: the perspective of engineering graduates, Education & Training, Vol. 52 Nos 6/7, pp. 540-51. OECD (1998), Human Capital Investment: An International Comparison, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris. Patton, A. (1967), The coming scramble for executive talent, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 155-71. Pool, L.D. and Sewell, P. (2007), The key to employability: developing a practical model of graduate employability, Education & Training, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 277-89. Pfeffer, J. (1998), The Human Equation: Building Prots by Putting People First, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Rothwell, W.J. (2010), Effective Succession Planning: Ensuring Leadership Continuity and Building Talent from Within, 4th ed., AMACOM, New York, NY. Ryle, G. (1963), The Concept of Mind, Penguin Books, Aylesbury. Schultz, T.W. (1961), Investment in human capital, American Economic Review, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 1-17. Schweyer, A. (2004), Talent Management Systems: Best Practices in Technology Solutions for RecruitmentRecruitment, Retention, and Workforce Planning, Wiley, Toronto. Scott, W.R. (1992), Introduction: from technology to environment, in Meyer, J.W. and Scott, W.R. (Eds), Organisational Environments: Ritual and Rationality, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Sennett, R. (2006), The Culture of the New Capitalism, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. SNAHE (2004), Arbetsmarknad och ho gskoleutbildning (Labour market and Higher Education), Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (Hogskoleverket), Stockholm. Soderquist, K.E., Papalexandris, A., Ioannou, G. and Prastacos, G. (2010), From task-based to competency-based: a typology and process supporting a critical HRM transition, Personnel Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 325-46. Spence, L.J. and Petrick, J.A. (2000), Multinational interview decisions: integrity capacity and competing values, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 49-67. Stewart, T.A. (1997), Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organisations, Doubleday/Currency, New York, NY. Tannock, S. (2009), Global meritocracy, nationalism and the question of whom we must treat equally for educational opportunity to be equal, Critical Studies in Education, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 201-11. Tarique, I. and Schuler, R.S. (2010), Global talent management: literature review, integrative framework, and suggestions for further research, Journal of World Business, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 122-33. Tansley, C., Turner, P. and Foster, C. (2007), Talent: Strategy, Management and Measurement, CIPD, London. Tomlinson, M. (2008), The degree is not enough: students perceptions of the role of higher education credentials for graduate work and employability, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 49-61. Ulrich, D. (1998), A new mandate for human resources, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 124-34. Van der Heijde, C. and Van der Heijden, B. (2006), A competence-based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability, Human Resource Management, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 449-76. EJTD 36,1 44 Walker, J.W. and Larocco, J.M. (2002), Talent pools: the best and the rest, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 12-14. Williams, C. (2005), The discursive construction of the competent learner-worker: from key competencies to employability skills, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 33-49. Wood, S.J. (1999), Human resource management and performance, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 367-413. Wright, P.M., Gardner, P.M., Moynihan, L.M. and Allen, M.R. (2005), The relationship between HR practices and rmperformance: examining causal order, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 409-46. Young, M. (2009), Education, globalisation and the voice of knowledge, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 193-204. Further reading Celani, A. and Singh, P. (2011), Signaling theory and applicant attraction outcomes, Personnel Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 222-38. About the authors Staffan Nilsson is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies in Higher Education and Training (CHET) and the Department of Educational Studies (EDST) at the University of British Columbia and is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning and the HELIX VINN Excellence Centre at Linkoping University. His research interests include the relationship between higher education and work, graduate employability, employee recruitment, and HRM/HRD. Staffan Nilsson is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: staffan.nilsson@liu.se Per-Erik Ellstrom is a Professor of Education at Linkoping University and the Director of the HELIX VINN Excellence Centre at Linkoping University a multidisciplinary research and innovation centre in the eld of HRM/HRD research (www.liu.se/helix). His research interests include learning and innovation processes in organisations, the interplay between formal and informal learning in the workplace, interactive research, and leadership. Employability and talent management 45 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints Reproducedwith permission of thecopyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.