How ‘boundaryless’ are the careers of high potentials, key experts and average performers?

Abstract

The talent management literature declares talent management a prime concern for HRM professionals while the careers literature calls talent management archaic. Three sets of assumptions identified through comparative review of both streams of the literature were tested in a large-scale survey (n = 941). We found more support for the assumptions advocated in the talent management literature. Those who organizations consider their ‘best’ people are more often found in traditional-organizational careers – both in terms of employer inducements and employee attitudes. Traditional–organizational careers yield more career satisfaction than careers displaying more boundaryless features. Individuals' career types are mostly determined by supervisor-rated performance, much more so than by personal career orientation.

Introduction

Talent management is the differential management of employees based on their relative potential to contribute to the competitive advantage of their organizations (Lepak & Snell, 1999). It is often described in the management literature as “a strategic imperative” (Ashton & Morton, 2005, p. 28). In contrast, voices in the careers literature label it “at best an anachronism, and at worst a false promise used to keep valuable employees in organizations” (Baruch & Peiperl, 1997, p. 356). The contemporary careers literature emphasizes the untenability of the traditional–organizational career based on the fact that organizations can no longer promise long-term employment to employees, let alone a rapid progression along the organizational ladder (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996, Sullivan, 1999). As a result, the premise that hard work and the display of exceptional talent will be rewarded by steady upward advancement is said to be undermined (Baruch & Peiperl, 1997). Simultaneously, however, the current demographic situation (characterized by skills shortages in the labor market due to lower birth rates, a larger relative percentage of older employees, and large-scale retirements) along with changes in the psychological contract between employers and employees that imply decreased loyalty (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993) are causing organizations to more than ever focus on talent management as a strategic tool for attracting and retaining valuable employees (Silzer & Dowell, 2010).

So which is closer to the truth? Should talent management be buried alongside the traditional–organizational career? Or can talent management (still) offer added value to organizations and individual career actors alike? Considering the degree of interest in both ‘new’ careers and talent management, surprisingly few empirical studies on these topics are found in the literature. Several authors have argued that careers researchers need to study actual facts about modern-day careers rather than develop new dogmas (Arnold & Cohen, 2008). The current paper aims to integrate the careers and the talent management literature by empirically testing some of their contradicting assumptions.