Talent Management in Public Sector Organizations: A Study on the Impact of Contextual Factors on the TM Approach in Flemish and Dutch Public Sector Organizations
| Author | Marian Thunnissen,Dorien Buttiens |
| Published date | 01 December 2017 |
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017721570 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2017
Article
Public Personnel Management
2017, Vol. 46(4) 391 –418
Talent Management in Public
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Sector Organizations: A Study sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017721570
DOI: 10.1177/0091026017721570
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm
on the Impact of Contextual
Factors on the TM Approach
in Flemish and Dutch Public
Sector Organizations
Marian Thunnissen1 and Dorien Buttiens2
Abstract
Public sector organizations are confronted with the intensifying competition for
talent and suffer from a chronic shortage of talented people. There is little empirical
research on the specific talent management (TM) issues in the public sector. This
article aims to clarify how public sector organizations conceptualize TM, and
particularly what (contextual) factors influence the adoption of an inclusive or a more
segmented people management approach in the public sector. Theory on institutional
mechanisms and institutional logics is used to clarify the impact of contextual factors.
The empirical data are collected in two substudies on TM in the public sector. The
data show that TM is highly contextual. Both the organizational internal and external
context affect the intended TM strategy, including the actors involved in TM and their
interrelated logs. This article is among the first to explore conceptually and empirically
the influence of institutional logics on the different aspects of TM approach and as
such provides some new directions for future TM research.
Keywords
talent management, public sector organizations, institutional theory, institutional
logics, workforce differentiation
1Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
2KU Leuven Public Governance Institute, Belgium
Corresponding Author:
Marian Thunnissen, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Postbus 347, 5600 AH Eindhoven,
The Netherlands.
Email: M.Thunnissen@Fontys.nl
392
Public Personnel Management 46(4)
Introduction
Finding talented people is one of the most important managerial preoccupation for this
decade (Iles, Chuai, & Preece, 2010; Stahl et al., 2012; Ulrich & Allen, 2014). Also
public sector organizations are confronted with the intensifying competition for talent
and some even suffer from a chronic shortage of talented people (Glenn, 2012;
Macfarlane, Duberley, Fewtrell, & Powell, 2012). However, there is little academic
attention for the specific talent management (TM) issues in public sector organiza-
tions, how they define talent, and how successful they are in their battle for talent
(Gallardo-Gallardo & Thunnissen, 2016; Thunnissen, Boselie, & Fruytier, 2013). The
majority of the TM publications focuses on TM in private sector organizations, multi-
nationals, and organizations in the U.S. context (Gallardo-Gallardo & Thunnissen,
2016; Powell et al., 2012; Vaiman & Collings, 2013). In some empirical TM studies,
data are collected in both the public and private sectors (e.g., Kim & Scullion, 2011;
Sonnenberg, van Zijderveld, & Brinks, 2014), but differences between the sectors are
not considered in discussing the data. Just a handful of publications pay explicit atten-
tion to TM issues in nonprofit or public organizations, such as health care institutes
(e.g., Groves, 2011; Powell et al., 2012), (higher) education institutes (e.g., Davies &
Davies, 2010; van den Brink, Fruytier, & Thunnissen, 2013), or local or central gov-
ernment organizations (e.g., Glenn, 2012; Harrisr & Foster, 2010). Despite the increas-
ing attention for TM in the academic literature over the course of the last decade
(Gallardo-Gallardo & Thunnissen, 2016), TM in the public sector is an underexplored
field of research.
According to Christensen, Lægreid, Roness, and Røvik (2007), the public sector
context is complex due to significant impact of institutional mechanisms. This implies
that the organizational context has to be considered in studying TM in the public sec-
tor. Yet, the growing awareness of the impact of contextual factors in the shaping of
the employment relationship and human resource management (HRM; Paauwe, 2004;
Wright & Nishii, 2013) is largely neglected in academic TM research. In many TM
studies—in public and in private sector organizations—the organizational context is
taken for granted, and researchers fail to use the external and internal organizational
context to explain how organizations conceptualize and implement TM (Gallardo-
Gallardo & Thunnissen, 2016). Several authors call up for more research on TM in a
variety of countries and sectors of industry, and advise to contextualize TM in both
theoretical frameworks and in research designs (e.g., Collings, Scullion, & Vaiman,
2011; Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014; Thunnissen et al., 2013).
This article on TM in the public sector wants to contribute to the above-mentioned
concerns and is focused on the contextual relevance. The aim of the article is twofold.
First, we aim to increase our understanding of how public sector organizations concep-
tualize and shape their TM approach (i.e., How is talent and TM defined, what are the
objectives, and the activities and practices?). Second, we particularly aim to clarify the
underlying external and internal mechanisms and logics affecting the shaping of the
TM approach in public sector organizations. The origin of this article lies in two stud-
ies on TM in public sector organizations in the Benelux countries: a study on TM in
Thunnissen and Buttiens
393
Flemish (local) governmental organizations and a study on TM in Dutch public uni-
versities. The organizations in both studies adopted a different approach to TM—either
predominantly a soft, inclusive or a hard, exclusive approach—and the data allow us
to investigate what (contextual) factors influence the adoption of an inclusive or a
more segmented approach to people management in the public sector. We have used
theory on institutional mechanisms and institutional logics to build a theoretical frame-
work in which the role of contextual factors in the conceptualization of TM (in terms
of objectives and intended practices) is incorporated. This framework is explained in
the next section.
Theoretical Framework
The TM Approach
TM is often described as the systematic attraction, identification, development,
engagement/retention, and deployment of talents (e.g., Chartered Institute of Personnel
and Development, 2006; Scullion, Collings, & Caligiuri, 2010; Stewart & Harte,
2010). Within their TM definitions, authors adopt different terms for “talent”: for
example “excellent abilities”, but also terms like “key employees” or “high potentials”
are used. The variety of terms used to define talent reflects one of the most central
debates in TM, that is, whether TM is an inclusive or an exclusive approach (Gallardo-
Gallardo, Dries, & González-Cruz, 2013; Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014). The inclu-
sive approach is based on the belief that all employees have qualities and strengths that
can be valuable for the organization. In this view, TM is approached as “the recogni-
tion and acceptance that all employees have talent, together with the ongoing evalua-
tion and deployment of employees in positions that give the best fit and opportunity
(via participation) for employees to use those talents” (Swailes, Downs, & Orr, 2014,
p. 5). The exclusive TM orientation is aimed at a select group of employees whose
skills, abilities, and performance are unique and very valuable for the organization (cf.
Lepak & Snell, 1999), and/or occupy strategically important positions within the orga-
nization. For the exclusive approach, the definition of Collings and Mellahi (2009) is
often cited: “the activities and processes that involve the systematic identification of
key positions which differentially contribute to the organization’s sustainable com-
petitive advantage, the development of a talent pool of high potential and high per-
forming incumbents to fill these roles, and the development of a differentiated human
resource architecture to facilitate filling these positions with competent incumbents
and to ensure their continued commitment to the organization. (p. 304)”
A review study of Gallardo-Gallardo and Thunnissen (2016) shows that the aca-
demic definition of talent seems to shift toward an exclusive approach. However, in
many public sector organizations, the principle of equality—implying that all workers
are equal and should be treated as equal as much as possible—has a strong tradition
(Boselie, Leisink, & Vandenabeele, 2011). Adopting this principle to the workplace
implies that all employees should get the same chances to develop and grow, including
equal promotion opportunities. This leaves little room for differentiation, as in the
394
Public Personnel Management 46(4)
exclusive approach to TM, and entails that the inclusive approach would be more
favorable in the public sector. Yet, literature shows that both inclusive and exclusive
approaches occur in public sector organizations (e.g., Glenn, 2012; Kock & Burke,
2008; Macfarlane et al., 2012), but the rationale behind these approaches unfortu-
nately remains vague.
The exclusive versus inclusive view on talent and TM is related to the commonly
accepted distinction between “hard” and “soft” HRM (Guest, 1999; Truss, Gratton,
Hope-Hailey, McGovern, & Stiles, 1997). In the “hard” approach...
To continue reading
Request your trial