Mapping the relationship between proactive behavior and talent management practices: The me- diating role of organizational commitment

Article history: Received: July 10, 2020 Received in revised format: October 12 2020 Accepted: October 23, 2020 Available online: October 23, 2020 In a diverse and modern organization with high extent of competitiveness within the market, maintaining high performance is of necessity. Talent management practices, when implied and used properly can significantly contribute to an organizations’ degree of overall performance as it has been noted throughout the literature. Employees and individuals seeking professional careers are required to cope with fast-changing environments of their workplaces. The need to constantly improve oneself is a dire one. Current research paper analyzes mediation effect of organizational commitment on the relationship between proactive personality and talent management practices from employee perspective of university academic and administrative staff. Mediation regression analysis (PROCESS) has been used to analyze the gathered data from universities located in North Cyprus, and the accumulated results show a full mediation effect from organizational commitment on the aforementioned relationship. The study contributes to the literature through expansion of proposed model in context of talent management and proactive personality as well as analytical method alongside context of academia. Furthermore, this study provides tangible implications, which can be beneficial for university decision-makers. © 2021 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada


Introduction
In the context of competitive rivalry, talent management and its degree of effectiveness has been reported to be of significance for the organization (McKinsey, 2018). It is regarded as an antecedent of Human Resource practices, which is directed towards selection, development, and attraction of employees with high potential to fulfill requirements of organizational vacancies (Collings et al., 2018;Silzer & Dowell, 2010;Meyers, 2019). Through proper talent management and its implication, positive attitudes towards the organization can be triggered. In a similar context, employee reactions and attitudes towards talent management and its practices has been found to be a mediating effect regarding those practices and talent management as its core (Collings et al., 2009;De Boeck et al., 2018). Talent management and its practices have been found to be influenced by employee reactions as well as their type of behavior towards the firm (Meyers, 2019;De Boeck et al., 2018;Gelens et al., 2014). Talent management and its practices and their relationship with proactive behavior has been relatively less examined and investigated, when compared to passive recipients (Meyers, 2019;De Boeck et al., 2018). Talent management and its practices and the effect they receive from proactive behavior has been noted to require further examination (Bateman & Crant, 1993;Parker & Collins, 2010). This concept has been further explained in detail within this paper. It is intact with the line of thought that for talent management to thrive, it requires proactive employees, who tend to move beyond the normal reactions in passive form towards anticipatory behaviors, which in turn can benefit both the individual and the respective organization they work at. This notion applies to all employees regardless of their degree of contribution or performance level. A higher extent of diversity is or can be achieved by firms due to constant and fast-pace advancement of technologies, which allows firms to find suitable talents more easily (Al Ariss et al., 2014;Meyers, 2019). Additionally, through this advancement, companies will have a tendency towards having short-term or commissioned employments for talent acquisition processes. As a result, this will allow the firm to acquire the required talent in the right time and place as it is deemed necessary (Al Ariss et al., 2014). Thus, long-term and lasting relationship establishment with employees can diminish in time as the alternative is more desirable for organizations. This required staff and individual prospects to have a proactive approach towards their careers and/or companies. Knowledge, skills and abilities are to be constantly and proactively improved towards a proper fit with the organization from different aspects. Individuals with prior planning and innovation can then ensure a more reliable position with long-term basis outcomes. The aforementioned notion has led scholars in the field to pay a great deal of attention to talent management and its practices as well as underlying effect alongside influential factors in this context and in particular, proactive behavior and personality (e.g. Meyers, 2019;De Boeck et al., 2018;Collings et al., 2018;McKinsey, 2018).
This research paper regards talent management practices in terms of the extent of being impacted by proactive personality of employees and the extent of which this relationship is mediated by organizational commitment. Our paper is conducted within the academic field and addresses employees and their perception in universities located in North Cyprus. Thus, our theoretical model proposes a relationship between proactive personality and talent management practices perceived by employees, while being mediated though organizational commitment and its extent. It is noteworthy that commonly, only one dimension of organizational commitment has been investigated in this regard, while our study includes all three aspects of organizational commitment that are normative, affective, and continuance. These notions are explained and elaborated further in this paper. Three main aspects of proactive personality have been included in the equation that are namely, proactive work behavior, proactive strategic behavior and proactive person-environment fit behavior. These exhibit a number of facts that are namely, employees carry the role of producing work system rather than being mere products, and are able to secure their involvement with talent management practices through proactive behavior and initiatives conducted by self (Bandura, 1997;Frese et al., 2007;Seibert et al., 2001;Thunnissen, 2016;Meyers, 2019). Hence, the aim of this paper is twofold as firstly the mediation and moderation effects are being tested based on the model presented, and secondly, the results are to contribute to the literature of the subject as this paper and its model has not been investigated prior to conduction of this research.

Proactive Behavior
There are two major factors regarding definition of productivity based on Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. An anticipatory element that is referred to engaging in action in prior to a situation or needs' occurrence, and the other factor is focus on having control alongside production of change. The latter is maintaining control over a situation as opposed to actions in response (Princeton University, 2003;Parker & Collins, 2010). It is important to highlight that the aforementioned factors are vital elements for self-initiation. This means that if an individual is asked or required to perform a task, then it is not an act that is self-initiated. The abovementioned factors (anticipation, taking control and self-initiation) are associated with proactive behavior studies (e.g. Parker, 2006;Parker & Collins, 2010;Grant & Ashford, 2008). Such behaviors are towards changing the state of a situation or self. It is also to be noted that proactive behavior has been distinguished as an extra-role type of behavior as it is directed by the individual and is contradictory to in-role actions that are nondiscretionary. This is while the exact usage of these roles is dependent on the perception and definition of the role from the employee (Morrison, 1994;Andreasen, 2008). Individuals possessing proactive behavior/personality are more likely to broaden their beliefs and definitions of their roles (Parker et al., 1998;Andreasen, 2008). Such individuals also have a tendency towards contain their objectives as well as their roles (Frese & Fay, 2001). Additionally, proactive behavior cannot be considered as an adaptive performance. Adaptive performance refers to modified actions/behaviors in regard to a situation (Pulakos et al., 2000). This by its nexus differs from proactive behavior. Proactive behavior fosters initiation of actions for change while adaptive merely adapts to an existing or occurring change (Frese & Fay, 2001;Griffin et al., 2007;Parker & Collins, 2010).

Core of Proactivity
Proactive behavior has been defined in various terms. To initiate into actions to improve or enhance an existing situation or to provide a new situation has been referred to as proactive behavior (Crant, 2000 p. 436). Such behaviors do not comply with the adaptive behavior as previously mentioned and thus, challenge the current situation or state through initiatives (Belschak & Hartog, 2010). Through reviewing the literature of the subject, two common approaches have been identified that are namely, trait and behavioral approach. While the former approach measures proactive behavior and its extent based on stable dispositions of an individual (Bateman & Crant, 1993), the latter regards variations of employee behavior over a period of time as intra-individual behaviors change (Sonnentag, 2003). This behavioral approach exhibits changes and proactive behavior based on organizational variables (e.g. Fay & Sonentag, 2002;Parker et al., 2007). As a form of discretionary behavior from employee perspective, proactive behavior can be related to organizational citizenship behavior (Belschak & Hartog, 2010;Bolino & Turnley, 2005;Morrison & Phelps, 1999).
It is important to note that although proactive behavior can be related to OCB, it is not the same type of behavior (see Grant & Ashford, 2008;Belschak & Hartog, 2010). OCB can be reactive based on its nature. This is while proactive behavior is anticipatory and addresses future changes through self-initiated actions. It was noted in a study conducted by Frese and Fay (2001) that proactive behavior can exhibit a sense of rebellion in its nature due to the aforementioned characteristics that goes beyond OCB. It has been stated that extreme and unlikely cases of proactive behavior can be damaging for the organization as employees may take drastic actions in proactivity to create or cause a change in themselves and/or their workplace (Belschak and Hartog, 2010). Due to this reason, scholars have paid a greater deal of attention towards proactive behavior and its corresponding factors. In a study conducted by Griffin et al. (2007) proactive behavior was tested in various organizational levels and was found to have significant linkage with social embeddedness and objectives of the firm.
The abovementioned form of proactive behavior entails prosocial behaviors or organizational. These types of proactive behavior are not towards development of self and to further increase personal advancement or to achieve personal goals regarding jobs. It is highly important to take career as a major driver for employees into consideration as it has been a topic of interest for scholars. This is majorly due to the fact that commitment thrives in this context of proactive behavior, when selfdevelopment is intact with the job and organizational goals, which lead to advanced careers (e.g. Ellemers et al., 1998;Belschak & Hartog, 2010;Lau et al., 2017). This has shown itself within the literature of commitment, proactive personality, and careers (e.g. Seibert et al., 1999;Seibert et al., 2001). Therefore, it can be said that prosocial behavior can be regarded as to advance and improve organizational (e.g., Ashford et al., 2003), co-workers' (e.g., Ashford & Tsui, 1993) or career objectives (e.g., Raabe et al., 2007;Seibert et al., 2001).

Proactive Behavior Dimensions
As previously mentioned, a proactive employee is one, whom engages in active behavior and not passive. Self-initiated behavior is referred to as proactive behavior, and stable disposition on a relative basis is referred to as proactive personality . Table 1 demonstrates the summary of proactive behavior dimensions. Expressing work issues and problems regardless of how these views are different.

Individual innovation
Creating and implying ideas (Scott and Bruce, 1994), and recognizing opportunities.
To seek new methods and tools for generating new ideas Problem prevention Self-directed and anticipatory action to prevent the reoccurrence of work problems (Frese & Fay, 2001) Try to find the root cause of things that go wrong

Proactive strategic Behavior
Control and causing change regarding external environment of the firm and affecting strategies Strategic scanning Increasing fit through questioning and identification of workplace environment and search for threats and opportunities that may arise.
To identify how current situations may influence the firm in upcoming future Issue selling credibility Increasing awareness regarding specific issues and thus, affecting strategies of the firm; acquiring attention towards occurrences that can be influential for firm performance (Dutton & Ashford, 1993;Morrison & Phelps, 1999, p. 404) Recoding and tracks in a positive manner for issues Issue selling willingness Trying to influence strategies of the firm through provision of information for company decision-makers (Ashford et al., 1998) Amount of time willing to devote to selling this issue

Proactive P-E Fit Behavior
Causing changes to gain better fit with the firm and its environment

Feedback inquiry
Request of feedback in direct manner from others on a voluntary basis (Ashford & Black, 1996;Ashford, Blatt, & Van de Walle, 2003) Actively seeking feedback from supervisors and other colleagues regarding performance Feedback monitoring Active monitoring of ongoing circumstances from behaviors of others (Ashford & Black, 1996;Ashford et al., 2003) Using observation to determine rewarded behaviors from supervisor to change own performance Job change negotiation Adjusting to new conditions of job on an active manner, which can be from all employees and is vivid regarding changes towards obtaining better fit (Ashford & Black, 1996;Nicholson, 1984) Talking and negotiating different aspects of tasks and expectations from roles.
Career initiative Active actions regarding promotions in career and not merely reactions to situations in job as well as requesting consultation and development of skills (Seibert et al., 2001) Engage in career path planning An individual possessing proactive personality tends to have a fairly stable disposition regarding initiatives that are undertaken personally and comprise of a variety of activities in differing circumstances (Seibert et al., 2001). Those individuals with such personalities are more likely to engage in proactive behaviors as previously noted that are initiated by self and are anticipatory. Such behaviors are towards development of the existing circumstance or for self-improvement (Parker & Collins, 2010). It is also important to note that the abovementioned dimensions of proactivity are highly related to one another. Proactive personality can be considered as a more stable façade, when exposed to external factors. Based on the study conducted by Parker and Collins (2010), proactive behaviors of employees were grouped into three distinctive categories. These are proactive work behavior, proactive strategic behavior, and proactive person-environment (P-E) fit behavior. Proactive work behavior emphasizes on taking control and creation or causing of change that is inside the organization (Parker & Collins, 2010, p. 636).
Functions of team and subsequently, organization and improvement of this function is constructed through this behavior. Proactive work behavior includes behaviors that are self-initiated and their various forms. Such behaviors can be those in line with increasing efficiency and effectiveness of workflow (Morrison & Phelps, 1999); behaviors that are in regard to prevention of issues reoccurrences; innovative behavior towards conduction of job or execution of tasks in manners that are better for the firm (Parker & Collins, 2010); expression of voice, which is referred to the employees expressing problems, suggestions, or concerns, which are constructive and can enhance circumstance of work (Morrison, 2011).
Furthermore, proactive strategic behavior addresses initiating changes, from which fit degree of the firm and external environment can be increased (Grant & Parker, 2009;Parker & Collins, 2010). This dimension of consists of two elements that are strategic scanning and issue selling. The former refers to surveying and analyzing surroundings of the firm to identify opportunities as well as threats, which may arise (e.g. customer attitudes) (Jennings & Lumpkin, 1992). Spending time, energy and resources for increasing the degree of awareness for those threats and opportunities is described as issue selling (Dutton et al., 2001). The third dimension, proactive P-E fit addresses personal abilities of employees and the existing demand and their fit. Additionally, this entails the fit between the values of an individual and the circumstantial supply (Parker and Collins, 2010). Through changes within self or the current situation, the aforementioned fit can be achieved. Those employees, who portrait such traits can subsequently ask for feedback from supervisors or other colleagues regarding their performance (Ashford et al., 2003). As a consequent, these employees have a highly important information regarding the work environment and its needs in terms of abilities. Hence, misaligned or somewhat irrelevant tasks can be stopped and value-driven tasks can be replaced (Hornung et al., 2010). It is also to be noted that smaller changes can be also made by the employees regarding their jobs, which in time can be shaped and restructured (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p. 180).

Proactive Behavior and Talent Management Practices
It was noted that people are not mere products of experience but also produce work experience (Bandura, 1997). On a similar notion, it was noted that employees shape work events as much as their reactions to work situations . Taking talent management into consideration, employee reactions and this concept lacks extensive review. Actions engaged by employees are determinants of their recognition as talent and if talent management practices are accessible to them. Proactive behavior and its influence on talent management practices has been addressed by Signaling Theory (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011;Spence, 1973). Through this theory, asymmetrical information and situations occurring in this regard can be understood. This is a situation, where a party has a set of information, which is not available or at disposal of the other party. If the holder of information deems gains from sharing the information with the other party then signals are sent with the objective of information being passed (Spence, 1973). As a general manner, signaling communes quality-related information, or intent (Stiglitz, 2000). According to a study conducted by Meyers (2019) signaling can be linked with talent management as employees tend to have a higher awareness and comprehension regarding their qualities (potential) or intent (ambition), when compared to employers.
It was noted that assessment of the exact extent of potential of employees is not certain (Silzer & Church, 2009). Referring to what was mentioned above, employees as holders of information can then signal their employers regarding their talents to be considered among the talent pool gathered by the firm. This in turn leads to having access to talent management practices. Through proactive behavior employees can exhibit their capabilities as well as willingness (quality and intent) to their employers for gaining more responsibility than it is required from their positions (Seibert et al., 2001). In addition, Conservation of Resources Theory (COR) (Hobfoll, 1989) provides an alternative framework for proactive behavior of employees and the relationship with talent management practices as well as its access. Based on this theory, individuals exhibit a significant tendency towards creation, protection and accumulation of various resources. This allows them to have a degree of protection opposed to losses and threats, which yields in resilience, sustainable growth, and achievement (Hobfoll, 1989(Hobfoll, , 2012. According to Hobfoll (2012) resources can have various forms such as objects, conditions, personal resources, and energies (e.g. car, support, job autonomy, skills, time, and money). Valuable career outcomes can be achieved and acquired through proactive behaviors, which in turn leads to having a better access to talent management practices (Higgins and Kram, 2001; Du Plessis, L., 2010). Additionally, it was noted that proactive employees are more likely to have an adequate and more comprehensive political knowledge regarding major roles and organizational procedures (Seibert et al., 2001). As a result, a status of talent can be acquired as proper issues are addressed with correct connections and in right situations. Furthermore, individuals with proactivity tend to take initiatives for better changes (Bateman & Crant, 1993;Ctant, 2000) alongside a high motivational display for learning (Major et al., 2006). Through such initiatives, these employees seek higher positions and henceforth, increase their strengths and skills accordingly. This in turn leads to promotions and developments. Objective (increase in salary) and subjective (career satisfaction) success were found to be greatly influenced by engaging in proactive career management behaviors (Seibert et al., 2001;Meyers, 2019). Talent management practices were also found to have a significant relationship in a positive manner with perceived organizational support (Du Plessis, 2010). In this research article, talent management practices are considered as dependent factor being predicted by proactive behavior and are mediated through existence of organizational commitment. Talent management practices used in this study and its application are in Table 2 as follows,  Cappelli, 2008;Sharma & Bhatnagar, 2009Talent Deployment Galagan, 2008Performance Management Galagan, 2008Handfield-Jones, et al., 2001;Workforce Management, 2007Talent Retention Galagan, 2008T&D, 2004*See Du Plessis (2010 for additional information regarding talent management and its relevant factors. This is following the work of Du Plessis (2010) and Meyers (2019). These assumptions are based on theoretical frameworks mentioned earlier and evidence found from the literature of the topic. Hence, the following hypotheses have emerged: H1: Proactive behavior predicts Talent management practices.

Organizational Commitment and Proactive Behavior
Organizational commitment (OC) has been defined by a considerable number of scholars. Current study takes the model defined by Meyer andAllen (1991, 1997). OC can be defined as the extent of which an employee is devoted to their job as well as their respective firms. Based on the model present by Meyer andAllen (1991, 1997), OC has been categorized into three distinctive groups that are affective commitment (AC), continuance commitment (CC) and normative commitment (NC). AC is referred to degree of sense of attachment towards the organization, which leads to identification and henceforth, employees tend to maintain their jobs; CC can be described as perception of costs regarding quitting a certain job that is linked with lack of abundance of alternatives, which can lead to a state, where employee tends to keep their job; and NC can be described as a form of obligation towards the firm in terms of reciprocating benefits received, which leads the employee towards maintaining their jobs. However, these components can vary based on situation and the context that they are implied in. There is an array of elements that are influential in terms of OC and the extent of its intensity (i.e. culture, demographic variables, firm policies) (Haar & Spell, 2004). The validity of these constructs has been examined in a variety of locations as well as industries through different approaches (Farmanesh et al., 2018;Cheng & Stockdale, 2003). A number of work characteristics have been linked to proactive behavior. These can be job autonomy, complexity as well as control (Frese et al., 1996;Parker et al., 2007). Additionally, other factors such as, environmental factors have also been linked to proactive behavior that can be namely, management support (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Furthermore, individual characteristics as selfefficacy (Parker, 1998;Speier & Frese, 1997) and personality (Bateman & Crant, 1993) have also been noted to have relationships with proactive behavior. On a similar notion, organizational commitment has also been found to have a linkage with proactive behavior. However, it is noteworthy that affective commitment has been shown to be of significance, when compare to normative and affective commitment (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007;Belschak & Hartog, 2010). In a meta-analysis study conducted by Mathieu and Zajac (1990) affective commitment was found to be connected with behavior as a predictor, when compared to other forms of commitment. Accordingly, personal initiatives were examined in regard to affective commitment and were shown a different degree regarding peer-ratings and self-ratings (Belschak & Hartog, 2007). It can be followed from the work of Belschak and Harog (2010) that a specific facet of proactive behavior may be linked to a corresponding form of commitment. It was noted that affective commitment, when targeted in workplace can significantly impact proactive behavior towards the targets. The affective structure of commitment can lead to proactive and positive behaviors towards the firm (Hartog & Belshak, 2007;Cacioppo et al., 1999). Thus, the aforementioned notion links proactive behavior with work engagement (Sonnentag, 2003). Similarly, commitment emphasizes on directing employees towards positive behaviors with regard to a certain objective that is success of the firm (Hartog & Belschak, 2007, 2010. Commitment has been linked to a number of factors and attitudes on different degrees based on the context. These factors can be satisfaction, socially responsible human resource management, turnover intentions, OCB, and further initiative behaviors (e.g. Farmanesh et al., 2018;Becker, 1992;Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007;Ellemers et al., 1998). OC was also found to have a significant relationship with proactive behavior as it can be shown that commitment leads to a higher degree of proactive behaviors. Additionally, high degrees of commitment towards team leads to higher possibility of engaging in proactive behavior for self, and high commitment towards career leads to proactive behaviors regarding advancement in career (Belschak & Hartog, 2010). This can be linked with social categorization theory, from which commitment towards a group is a predictor of behaviors, which lead to higher success level of that group (Hogg, 2018). Hence, this research paper takes organizational commitment as a mediator in the relationship between proactive behavior and talent management practices. Organizational commitment was additionally found to have a significant relationship with talent management practices and achieving goals of talent management in some studies (Kontoghiorghes, 2016;Mahjoub et al., 2018;Gelens et al., 2015). In accordance to what has been mentioned, it has been reported that AC on low levels leads to a state, where only requirements for continued employments are met through employee behaviors (Riketta, 2002). Similarly, AC was found to have a positive linkage with proactive behavior within the workplace (Ng et al., 2010). Moreover, proactive customer service behavior at workplace was found to be linked with AC (Rank et al., 2007). In support to the previous notion, Morrison and Phelps (1999) reported a positive linkage between higher levels of identification with the organization and taking control-type of behavior within the workplace. Nevertheless, the following hypothesis has emerged: H2: Organizational commitment mediates the relationship in H1.

Aim
In short, the aim of this paper is to examine the effect of proactive personality (including its characteristics) on TM practices with mediating effect of OC.

Study Instruments and Method
The current research paper uses proactive personality measures from Bateman and Crant's (1993). Additionally, organizational commitment was measured through the proposed model of Meyer andAllen (1991 and1997). It is also to be noted that in this research all three dimensions of OC have been included. Furthermore, the scales measuring talent management practices (employee perception of organizational talent mindset) were selected from Human Capital Institute (HCI) Talent Practices Assessment that are namely, strategy, talent review process, staffing, talent acquisition, engagement, development, deployment, performance management, and talent retention. This model is derived from the work of Joubert (2007), which addresses talent management practices as "best". This instrument complies of a comprehensive number of items, from which a selection was used for this paper. Employee perceptions regarding talent management framework of organization is measured through this instrument. From a range of 45 items in this scale, a total number of 27 items were extracted. Furthermore, the aforementioned measures of talent management and organizational commitment are designed in a Likert-scale with 5 items ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Proactive behavior and its dimension are designed on 5-item Likert scale from very infrequently (1) to very frequently (5).

Sampling
As the case of this research paper is educational sector and the study is conducted in academia, alongside the fact that the current paper looks into the phenomenon from employee perception and perspective to understand the relationships and testing the proposed hypothesized model, the target population has been chosen to be academic and administrative staff of universities located in Northern Cyprus. The data was collected in two separated periods, where in first attempt, demographics and proactive items were given to respondents, which was followed by second survey, addressing organizational commitment as well as talent management practices assessment from employee perception. This was due to decreasing common bias error (Podsakoff etl al., 2003). Participation in the survey was completely arbitrary and all respondents were informed of means and purposes of the study. Relevant information was provided to each respondent and data confidentiality was explained. No personal or sensitive questions were involved in the survey. Surveys were administered by researchers. A total number of 186 respondents were selected in the final data collection, which is intact with recommendation of Hair et al. (2017) regarding response error and intervals (less than 200 respondents).

Data Analysis
To test our proposed hypotheses, multiple mediation analysis was used through SPSS version 23 (PROCESS macro for SPSS). A single linear regression was conducted to determine the relationship between proactive behavior and talent management practices, which showed a direct effect of significance with coefficient of 0.473 and p of 0.034. Furthermore, OC was tested against talent management practices through a linear regression based on its dimensions, from which AC was found to be of higher significance (p 0.023), followed by CC (p 0.41) and NC (p. 0.48). This exhibits a positive impact from proactive behavior dimension upon talent management dimensions, from which our first hypothesis is supported. Mediation effect of organizational commitment was found to be in full as the relationship between proactive behavior and talent management  Table below shows the mediation analysis conducted on our collected data: A reliability test was conducted separately on Talent Management Practices regarding its constructs, which is presented in Table 3 below:

Conclusion
The current research paper examined the mediating effect of organizational commitment with regard to the linkage between proactive behavior and its antecedents with talent management practices perceived by employees. Our research was conducted within academic field and data was collected from administrative and academic staff of three universities located in Northern Cyprus. Our results showed a high degree of significance regarding relationship between organizational commitment and talent management practices. In particular, Affective commitment was found to be significant on a higher degree, compared to normative and continuance commitment. However, this is in consensus with previous research with the same context as it was noted before (Mahjoub et al., 2018;Ng et al., 2010;Rank et al., 2007;Riketta, 2002). In addition, our analysis presented a vivid decrease in the relationship between proactive behavior and talent management practices perception by the employees, after inclusion of mediating variable that is organizational commitment. This exhibited a full mediation effect through organizational commitment, which was in line with our hypothesis. It is also noteworthy that both CC and NC were found to be of lesser significance. However, these dimensions did not show insignificance. Universities chosen for this study are international organizations with diverse staff. Contribution of this paper is a twofold as the literature of the topic has been developed through our proposed model as well as the context of application of proactive behavior and talent management practices.
Mediating effect of organizational commitment was not tested in this context prior to this research. Additionally, our study provides managerial implications as within universities, decision-makers are to be aware of talent management practices and their importance for both organization and its employees. This allows proper management of organizational flow, which yields in talents attraction and retention as well as development. Our findings do not merely address newcomer staff, but comprise all staff as such atmosphere can lead to employees' engagement in positive behaviors that can only be beneficial for the firm as a whole. Employees with higher degrees of commitment can openly embrace changes regarding new work conditions. Furthermore, higher extents of commitment towards the organization can lead to increased organizational citizenship behavior as well as reduced turnover intentions as a result (Farmanesh et al., 2018).

Study Limitations and Recommendations
Our research paper was limited as self-report assessments were used to examine perception of employees. Thus, relationships are exposed to common-method-variance. A mixed-method approach may provide a better understanding of depth of our presented model and results. Although our study conducted CFA regarding the constructs as well as reduction of biases, common-method-variance remains an error as it may obscure the dimensions (Spector, 2006). Additionally, our study was limited in terms of scale for measuring all talent management practices items. This can be further extended to comprise all items of assessing talent management practices. Furthermore, proactive behavior measurement was limited as our study addresses employees and their perception. This is while self-report has been noted to be a better measure as individuals are more aware of their own initiatives (Andreasen, 2008). However, a more comprehensive approach may include a managerial perspective, which can provide additional understanding upon the matter as perspectives then can be compared. Furthermore, our study was limited in terms of number of variables as current study opens the path towards inclusion of organizational commitment as a direct mediator in this context. Nonetheless, future research can include other organizational outcomes or variables (i.e. leadership, SRHRM, resilience, engagement, reactions and sustainability).