Master Thesis Talent Management

DOES POWER DISTANCE MATTER?

Investigating the relation between Talent Philosophies, Organizational

Talent Management Approaches and Workforce Differentiation

INGRID KOOLEN (940855)

January – August, 2014

Department of Human Resource Studies

Tilburg University

Supervised by M.C. Meyers

2

Abstract

This research investigates whether a manager’s beliefs about talent management

predicts workforce differentiation and whether this relationship is mediated by an

organization’s talent management approach. Furthermore, it is studied whether power

distance moderates the relationship between a manager’s belief that talent is rare and an

organization’s talent management approach. In this study, 303 HR managers from 44 different

countries gave ratings on their own talent management philosophy, the organization’s talent

management approach, the workforce differentiation and the perceived power distance.

Evidence was found that the higher the degree of the manager’s belief of talent rareness the

higher the workforce differentiation. Furthermore, the results of this study indicate that an

organization’s exclusive talent management approach mediates the relationship between a

manager’s belief that talent is rare and workforce differentiation. No significant effect was

found of power distance on the relation between a manager’s belief of talent rareness and an

organization’s exclusive talent management approach. The challenge for both research and

practice is to elaborate on these findings by further investigating the directionality of the

relation between a manager’s beliefs about talents and an organization’s talent management

approach and how this influences workforce differentiation, so this information can be used to

enhance empirical knowledge about the effects of talent management philosophies and

approaches.

Keywords: manager’s talent management philosophies, organizational talent management

approach, workforce differentiation, power distance.

3

Content 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4

2. Theoretical framework ........................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Talent management ........................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Power distance ................................................................................................................. 7

2.3 Workforce differentiation ................................................................................................. 9

3. Method ................................................................................................................................. 11

3.1 Procedures ...................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Population and Sample ................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Scales .............................................................................................................................. 12

3.4 Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 15

4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 16

4.1 Correlations .................................................................................................................... 16

4.2 Multiple regression analyses .......................................................................................... 18

5. Conclusion and discussion ................................................................................................... 22

6. Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 24

7. Future research ..................................................................................................................... 26

8. Practical implications ........................................................................................................... 27

9. Reference list ........................................................................................................................ 28

10. Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 31

10.1 Appendix 1: Factor analysis Talent Management Approach by Organization ............ 31

10.2 Appendix 2: Factor analysis Workforce Differentiation .............................................. 34

10.3 Appendix 3: Factor analysis Power Distance .............................................................. 35

4

Introduction

For the past years the economic downturn and volatile market environments have

faced organizations all over the world with the defiance of effectively managing talent. As a

result, talent management has become an important way to gain a sustained competitive

advantage through human capital (Meyers, van Woerkom, & Dries, in press; Collings &

Mellahi, 2009; Tarique & Schuler, 2010). The challenge of maximizing the competitive

advantage through an organization’s human capital became even more significant since the

world’s recession of the beginning of the twenty first century (Collings & Mellahi, 2009).

Given the importance of talent management one might believe it to be a well-defined area of

practice supported by extensive research and a core set of principles, however this is not the

case (Lewis & Heckman, 2006). Talent management is a vague phenomena because of the

multiple definitions and terms that are described by many authors (Lewis & Heckman, 2006).

In organizational practice, the vagueness of the talent management construct is most

clearly reflected in a differentiation between an inclusive talent management approach and an

exclusive talent management approach (Meyers & Van Woerkom, in press). The inclusive

talent approach considers talent as something that every worker within the organization

possesses. The exclusive approach, on the contrary, entails that not everyone in the

organization is considered talented but only the “happy few”. These differences in talent

approaches can according to Paauwe (2004) and Meyers and Van Woerkom (in press) be

traced back to the beliefs about talent of managers or other organizational decision makers.

That is, the belief that talent is rare or the belief that talent is universal. It is assumed that the

higher the belief that talent is rare, the higher the degree of exclusive talent approach and the

higher the belief that talent is universal, the higher the degree of inclusive talent approach.

The inclusiveness or exclusiveness of the organizational talent management approach

can be expected to influence specific decisions with regard to the allocation of HR resources,

that is whether to allocate a mayor part of the resources to a minor part of the workforce (the

talented employees) or whether to allocate these resources equally to all employees. Several

researches extensively discusses that talented people need to be treated different from others

(Husselid, Beatty and Becker, 2005; Ulrich and Smallwood, 2012). As workforce

differentiation is part of HR practices it is expected that the differentiation is correlated to

beliefs of a manager about talent and the talent management approach of the organization.

This research partly builds forward on Meyers and Van Woerkom’s (in press) proposition that

there is a relationship between the exclusive talent philosophy and workforce differentiation

5

and investigates the relationship between the talent philosophy of a manager, the talent

approach of an organization and the differentiated workforce.

The globalization of the market brought another challenge to the field of talent

management, namely the influence of culture (Farndale, Scullion & Sparrow, 2010). Although

no research concerning culture and talent management has been done, previous research in

areas like leadership styles (Koopman, Den Hartog, Konrad, et al., 1999), conflict

management (Van Oudenhoven, Mechelse and De Dreu, 1998) and HR management (Meyers

& Van Woerkom, in press) has shown that there is a direct link between culture and

manager’s behavior and beliefs (Farndale, Scullion & Sparrow, 2010). Power distance is a

cultural dimension that concerns the way people deal with human inequality (Koopman, Den

Hartog, Konrad, et al., 1999). This inequality differs from country to country. High power

distance cultures show a high difference in hierarchical relations between groups or

individuals. Low power distance cultures show an ongoing search for equality (Koopman,

Den Hartog, Konrad, et al., 1999). It is assumed that organizations in a high power distance

culture would therefore accept the talent manager’s philosophy as the organization’s talent

management approach as the managers are expected to be authority figures. On the contrary,

organizations within a low power distance culture are searching for equality and would

therefore not see the talent philosophy of the talent manager as the only possibility. This

moderating effect has until now not been researched, however the previous assumptions show

that it would be reasonable to find a significant moderating effect of the cultural dimension

power distance on the relation between the manager’s talent management philosophy and the

organization’s talent approach.

In summary, this article will investigate the effect of the manager’s beliefs about talent

on the organizational talent management approach, which in turn affects workforce

differentiation. In addition, it will explore whether the relation between the manager’s belief

about talent and the organizational talent management approach will be moderated by power

distance. It thereby represents a valuable contribution to theory on talent management because

it is among the first to test the relation between talent beliefs, talent approaches and workforce

differentiation, and additionally, the effect of culture as a moderator.

This study’s research question is therefore: “Does a talent manager’s belief that talent

is rare predict workforce differentiation and is this relationship mediated by an organization’s

talent management approach, and is the relationship between a talent manager’s belief that

6

talent is rare and an organization’s talent management approach moderated by power

distance?”

Theoretical framework

Talent management

According to Meyers and Van Woerkom (in press) talent management can be seen as a

“systematic utilization of human resource management (HRM) activities to attract, identify,

develop, and retain individuals who are considered to be talented” (p.1). In general, the

literature describes two talent management approaches which are present in organizations,

namely the exclusive and inclusive approach (Meyers & Van Woerkom, in press). The

exclusive approach towards talent entails the thought that talent is a rare quality, a special gift,

which is only possessed by an elite group of the workforce. Talent management practices are

then focused on only those who are considered to be talented (Becker, Huselid, & Beatty,

2009). In practice, the exclusive approach often focuses on the recruitment and retention

and/or development of top performers/A-players/ talented people (Becker, Huselid, & Beatty,

2009). An inclusive approach towards talent management provides talent management

practices for the entire workforce without differentiation. This approach shows a more general

focus on finding talent of the whole workforce and the development of those talents (Meyers

& Van Woerkom, in press; Buckingham & Vosburgh, 2001).

Meyers and Van Woerkom (in press) argue that an organization’s talent management

approach depends on the underlying talent philosophy defined as the “fundamental

assumptions and beliefs about the nature, value and instrumentality of talent that are held by a

firm’s key decision makers” (p.192) like HR managers and/or talent managers. Meyers and

Van Woerkom (in press) additionally argue that talent philosophies are an essential factor that

impacts the nature of talent management in practice. The authors base this argument on

theoretical work about HR philosophies which is feasible due to the close connection between

talent management and HRM. In practice, two talent philosophies are salient, namely whether

talent is seen as a rare trait or whether talent is seen as something everyone has. The belief

that talent is rare stems from literature describing talent as a gift, which states that only 10-

15% of the workforce is really talented (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2012). Positive psychologists

on the other hand belief that talent is something that all people possess (Meyers, Van

7

Woerkom & Dries, in press). Literature describes that underlying philosophies about the

nature of human resources work as key determinants of the shaping of HR practices (Meyers

& van Woerkom, in press; Becker & Gerhart, 1996). Paauwe (2004) underscores the previous

argumentation by his theory on the so called ‘dominant coalition’. According to Paauwe

(2004) the design of an HR practice or system is influenced by this dominant coalition. The

dominant coalition consists of key organizational decision makers who shape HR practices

based on their beliefs, attitudes, values and norms (Paauwe, 2004) or their inherent

philosophies (Boxall, 2012; Boxall & Macky, 2009). In addition to these theories, behavioral

scientists showed that the confirmation bias theory plays a major role in decision maker’s

(like HR managers) choices (Arnott, 2006). Confirmation bias is seen as a determinant of

thought and behavior (Nickerson, 1998). Decision makers treat evidence in a biased way to

confirm or defend their own beliefs or desires (Arnott, 2006; Nickerson, 1998). Translated,

talent managers would therefore perceive their own talent management beliefs as a predictor

of the talent management approach of the organization they are active in. As a result of the

dominant coalition theory in combination with the confirmation bias theory you can expect a

link between the manager’s talent philosophy and the talent management approach

implemented in their organization. That is, the more an HR manager believes that talent is

rare, the more likely one is to find an exclusive approach to talent management in his/her

organization. In contrast, the more an HR manager believes that talent is universal, the more

likely one is to find an inclusive approach to talent management in his/her organization.

H1: The manager's belief of talent rareness is positively related to the exclusive talent

approach of the organization.

Power distance

Research has shown that the beliefs about talent differ as a result of cultural context

(Oudenhoven, Mechelse & De Dreu, 1998). Tansley (2011) showed that in many western

cultures, talent is believed to be a rare ability that leads to above-average performance in a

specific domain. In Eastern cultures, like Japan, talent will become manifest in high

performance as a result of many years of practice (Tansley, 2011). As there is not much

scientific research regarding culture and talent management, this research will draw on more

general studies on culture (Hofstede, 1980; 1991, Koopman, Den Hartog, Konrad et al. 1999).

Hofstede (1991) showed that there are major cultural differences between people living in

8

different parts of the world. The GLOBE studies done by Koopman, Den Hartog, Konrad et

al. (1999) built forth on the studies of Hofstede and they equally concluded that within Europe

there are various cultural clusters that can be distinguished. The GLOBE studies results

showed specifically two major clusters in Europe, contrasting the North-Western and South-

Eastern part of Europe. Based on these results it is hardly possible to speak of one typical

European culture or an European management style (Koopman, Den Hartog, Konrad et al.,

1999). This implicates that the cultural influences and leadership styles should also be

different for the talent managers in different European countries. Research shows that

leadership and decision making within organizations is strongly concerned with the question:

Who has the power? (Rutherford, 2005). The cultural dimension of power distance provides a

categorization that may be helpful in explaining cultural differences (Oudenhoven, Mechelse,

& De Dreu, 1998).

Power distance within cultures concerns the fact that human inequality may occur in

many fields, such as mental and physical characteristics, status, wealth, power, laws, and

rules. Although human inequality is inherent to society, the way people deal with it may

severely differ from country to country (Hofstede, 1991). In cultures high in power distance,

hierarchical relations between groups or between individuals drastically influence social

cognitions and behavior. In cultures characterized by low power distance, hierarchy tends to

explain far less variance in behavior. In fact, the latter cultures are characterized by an

ongoing search for equality (Oudenhoven, Mechelse, & De Dreu, 1998). The power distance

dimension shows for instance that in a low power distance society other desired leader

attributes would show than in high power distance societies. In high power distance societies

a less negative attitude towards authoritarian leadership may be found (Koopman, Den

Hartog, Konrad et al., 1999). This implicates that in societies with a high power distance the

opinions of decision makers or figures with leadership like talent managers would be more

respected and valued. In contrast, in more egalitarian societies leaders should perhaps

emphasize their equality to others (Den Hartog, Konrad et al., 1999). This reasoning suggests

that when there is a preference for low power distance the opinions of talent managers would

be respected equally to others lower in hierarchy. Their opinions would therefore be values

less and their talent philosophy would be lower related to the talent approach of an

organization then in a high power distance society. Because of this thought it could be

expected that the relationship between whether a manager beliefs talent is rare and the talent

management approach within an organization should differ due to the cultural context. It is

9

expected that contexts with a high power distance have a stronger positive relationship

between the belief of a manager on talent rareness and the exclusive talent approach of an

organization than contexts where low power distance is observed.

H2: The positive relationship between the manager’s belief that talent is rare and the

exclusive talent approach of the organization is moderated by power distance in such a way

that the relationship is stronger in high power distance contexts.

Workforce differentiation

The concept of workforce differentiation has been implemented in various ways in

organizational practice (Weis & Schaefer, 2012). It is not a new phenomenon that

organizations differentiate between different employee groups, like blue-collar and white

collar employees, managers and non-managers, low and high performers, workers with low or

high potential and younger and older employees. Consequently, HR policies react to the

different needs and ambitions of those differentiated individuals or groups (Weis & Schaefer,

2012). For example, employees with particular development potential are identified, selected,

developed and promoted to higher positions. Workers with greater contributions to company

goals are compensated in different ways than those who are delivering an average

contribution. In conclusion, the underlying differences and interests of stakeholders create a

broad variety of HR tools and practices in organizations.

With regard to talent management, Huselid, Beatty and Becker (2005) argue that an

organization should differentiate its workforce according to their contribution to the execution

of strategy and thus the company’s strategic goals (eg. Top performers, good performers and

mediocre/under performers). Specific HR actions should be consequently based on this

differentiation (Weis & Schaefer, 2012) Huselid, Beatty and Becker (2005) differentiation of

the workforce clearly is in line with an exclusive talent management approach since they

advocate a disproportionate investment in a small group of employees, typically the talented

employees (that is, only some workers receive special bonuses, promotions, trainings, i-deals

etc.). The opposite can be assumed when referring to the relation between the inclusive talent

management approach and workforce differentiation. In this case all workers are considered

equally talented and would therefore need the same, equal treatment. Because of this

argumentation, workforce differentiation is therefore more likely to occur when an exclusive

talent management approach is active within an organization.

10

H3: The higher the degree of exclusive talent approach of an organization, the higher the

degree of workforce differentiation.

Based on the direct effect between the manager’s belief that talent is rare and the

organization’s exclusive approach to talent management, and the direct effect between the

organization’s exclusive approach to talent management and workforce differentiation it

would be safe to assume that the beliefs of a talent manager influences the HR system, in this

case the talent approach of an organization and consequently influences the degree of

workforce differentiation. The relationship between the manager’s belief of talent rareness

and the degree of workforce differentiation is therefore likely to be mediated by the talent

approach an organization adopts.

H4: The relationship between the manager’s belief that talent is rare and the workforce

differentiation is mediated by the organization’s exclusive approach to talent management.

Next to an indirect link via an organization’s talent approach a direct link between the

manager’s belief that talent is rare and workforce differentiation can also be expected. This

entails, for instance, that a talent manager who believes that talent is very rare, would be more

eager to invest in the organization’s top performers. This can be done, for example, by

implementing a promotion system that strongly favors those top performers, or granting other

kind of favors, like bonuses to the high performers. One can therefore assume that the belief

of a talent manager whether talent is rare relates directly to the degree of workforce

differentiation.

H5: The higher the degree of the manager’s belief that talent is rare, the higher the degree

of workforce differentiation.

Figure 1: Conceptual model

H1

H2

H3

H5

Power distance

Manager’s belief that talent is rare

Organization’s exclusive talent management approach

Workforce differentiation

H4

11

Method

The study’s focus is to clarify the relationship between a manager’s belief that talent is

rare and workforce differentiation, with a mediating role of the organization’s exclusive talent

management approach, and a moderating role of power distance. A quantitative research was

used to test the conceptual model and its five composed hypotheses. The data used in this

study is cross-sectional and cross-cultural, since the data was collected in one moment of

time, and from all over the world. The target population were HR managers from different

organizations located worldwide. The research team START from the university of Leuven,

Belgium allowed the use of an already existing dataset on condition that more data for the

research team would be collected.

Procedures

The data for this study was gathered by means of online questionnaires and has taken

place in two separate moments in time. The first data collection was performed by the START

research team, headed by professor Nicky Dries and Sanne Nijs of the university of Leuven,

Belgium. The second data collection has been based on a shortened questionnaire (with fewer

scales), built on the designed one by the START research team. For both measurement

moments, the same way of recruiting respondents has been used. All participants were

approached and informed about the study through email or via social media like LinkedIn.

Participants were asked if they knew other candidates who would fit the research, making use

of the so-called snowball sampling. Participants were selected on basis of their position as

talent manager or HR manager. The questionnaire was written in English and contained an

information letter which explained the goal of the study. The letter stressed in particular the

anonymity of the participants.

Population and Sample

As previously mentioned, data collection took place in two separate time moments

which provided a total number of 303 valid respondents for the main analyses. In Table 1 a

summary of the power distance distribution by age, sex, tenure, organization type and

organization size is provided.

12

Table 1: Power distance distribution by age, gender, tenure, organization type and organization size

Countries with low power distance Countries with high power distance

Mean SD Percentage Mean SD Percentage

N = 303

Number of countries = 44

Age 59.35 10.39 57.00 9.27

Gender

- Male 95.0 5.0

- Female 96.5 3.5

Organizational tenure 12.91 8.64 15.33 8.43

Organization

- Privately owned 96.0 4.0

- Government owned 95.5 4.5

Size of the organization

- Less than 100 employees 96.7 3.3

- 100-500 employees 95.5 4.5

- 500-1,000 employees 93.8 6.2

- 1,001-5,000 employees 93.5 6.5

- 5,001-10,000 employees 100 0

- Over 10,000 employees 96.1 3.9

The total sample consists of 36.1% men, the mean age of the respondents is 55.99

(SD=13.27). The mean tenure of the sample is 11.33 years (SD=8.96). 76.7% of the

participants worked in a low power distance context, 3.2% of them in a high power distance

context. 79% of the respondents worked on a privately owned organization. The size of the

organizations where the participants worked varied but the majority worked in an

organization with more than 10,000 full-time employees (28.1%). There were also many

organizations with less than 100 full-time employees (13.6%) and between 1,001 and 5,000

full-time employees (13.6%).

Scales

Manager’s belief if talent is rare - The manager’s belief whether talent is rare has been

measured using one item that could be scored on a scale from 0 to 100% (Dries, Cotton

Bagdadli & Ziebell de Oliviera, 2013). The item question was “What percentage of all

employees within your company do you, personally, consider talented?”.

13

Talent management approach by organization - To measure whether organizations adopt an

inclusive or an exclusive approach to talent management, a six-item scale designed by Dries,

Cotton Bagdadli and Ziebell de Oliviera (2013) has been used. Participants were asked how

they perceive the talent management approach by their organization. Sample items are: “A

talent is not something that everyone possesses, but just the lucky few” and “Everybody has a

certain talent”. All items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from one (1=Not at all

the viewpoint of my organization) to five (5=Completely the viewpoint of my organization).

The construct validity of the created scale was tested by means of an exploratory

factor analysis. First, a principal component factor analysis was performed for the scale of

‘talent management approach by organization’, in order to categorize the items of this

variable. There the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (p<.001) and the Keiser

Meyer Olkin (KMO) had a value of .72, the factorability of the scale was supported. The

factor analysis showed that the scale encompassed two factors and that two items did not load

on the first factor. Therefore item 2 ‘A talent is a special individual that can make a

significant difference to a company’ and item 4 ‘It is a logical choice that developmental

assignments and resources are only invested in the most promising talent’ were deleted. The

associated screeplot, component matrix and pattern and structure matrix can be found in

Appendix 1. After the deletion of the two items a factor analysis of the remaining four items

took place. The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (p<.001) and the Keiser Meyer

Olkin (KMO) had a value of .73, which supported the factorability of the new scale. The

factor analysis showed that the scale entailed one factor with a variance of 55.47%. The

screeplot and component matrix of the 4-item factor analysis can be found in appendix 1.

Reliability analysis showed a cronbach's alpha (α) of .72. Following, a mean inter-item

correlation of .40 was found with the individual correlations ranging from .25 to .55 which is

suggestive of a modest relationship amongst the items. The values of the corrected item-total

correlation indicated that no additional items needed to be deleted as they were all above .30.

Further, the column ‘ alpha if item deleted’, did not support additional modification of the

scale.

Workforce differentiation - To measure the degree of workforce differentiation, an 8-item

scale was used (Dries, Cotton, Bagdadli & Ziebell de Oliviera, 2013). Sample items are “A

high potential is treated differently from other employees within the organization” and “A

high potential gets more opportunities for training than other employees within the

14

organization”. All items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from one (1=Do not

agree at all) to five (5=Completely agree).

Because of the Keiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) of .83 and a significant Bartlett’s test of

Sphericity it was possible to perform a factor analysis. All the factors from the scale loaded on

one component with an explained variance of 42.03%. The screeplot and the component

matrix of the variable can be found in appendix 2. The internal consistency of the scale was

tested analyzing the Cronbach’s alpha which has a value of .79. The current scale reported a

mean inter-item correlation of .33 with individual correlations ranging from .123 to .485,

which indicates a weak relationship among the items (Pallant, 2007). Since the corrected

item-total correlation values where all above .30 and all "Cronbach's alpha if item deleted"

values where lower that the current one the original scale was utilized.

Power distance - To measure the power distance within one’s society, a 4-item scale was used

based on Aycan, Kanungo, et al. (2000) and Mathur, Aycan and Kanungo (1996). Sample

items are “There needs to be a hierarchy of authority in our society” and “Inequality of status

among individuals is not acceptable in our society”. All items were scored on a 5-point Likert

scale ranging from one (1=Strongly disagree) to five (5=Strongly agree).

For the used scale of power distance the Keiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) was .56, which

indicates that a factor analysis is not suitable (.60 is required). The Bartlett’s test of Sphericity

however was significant. Because of the approximation of the required score on the KMO test

a principle component analysis was performed. Factor analysis showed that item 2 'Inequality

of status among individuals is not acceptable in our society' loaded on a different factor.

Therefore this item was deleted from the scale. In appendix 3 the screeplot, component matrix

and the structure and pattern matrix are shown. When performing a principle component

analysis on the three items a one factor solution showed. The amount of variance that is

explained by the current component is 53.33%. In appendix 3 the screeplot and component

analysis of the 3-item scale analysis is shown.

When performing a scale reliability test on the three items of the power distance scale

it showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .56, where .7 would support a reliable scale (Pallant, 2007).

Revising the Corrected Item-Total Correlation showed a correlation of .229 for item 1 ‘There

needs to be a hierarchy of authority in our society’, where .3 is advised. This could be seen as

an indication to remove this item. Additionally, when revising the Cronbach’s alpha if item

deleted column it showed that if item 1 would be deleted the Cronbach’s alpha would be

15

higher. Despite these indications, the item was not removed due to the content of the item.

When the item would be deleted the scale would not measure what was intended to measure

and could therefore have an impact on the research at hand.

An one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact

of power distance on countries. There was no statistically significant difference at the p<.05

level. Revising the means plots it shows that the majority of the countries score low on power

distance.

To test power distance on country level a dummy variable (0=low power distance and

1=high power distance) was created out of the continuous variable. In this way the individuals

who all scored low on power distance where grouped together as where the participants who

scored high on power distance.

Control variables - In order to rule out alternative explanations for the relations between

variables, a range of control variables were included in the analyses. First, the control variable

tenure has been used. Tenure is in this case the years of experience in HR and could account

for the power a HR manager could have. The higher the tenure the higher the power a

manager has. Secondly, there has been controlled for the variable number of hierarchical

levels (at the level of the subsidiary for which the HR director works). The hierarchical levels

can have an effect on the measurement of power distance which entails the distance between

the hierarchical levels within an organization. Thirdly, gender has been used as a control

variable. As it might be possible that the beliefs of women might differ from those of men, the

beliefs of a manager about talent rareness might be affected by gender.

Analysis

Prior to doing many of the statistical analyses several assumptions were tested (e.g.

Kolmogorov-Smirnov, linearity, homoscedasticity). First, by using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov

test the normal distribution of the variables was tested. A non-significant result will indicate

that there is a normal distribution. This study showed a violation on all the scales integrated in

this research, although, when investigating the graphs concerning the scales it showed that all

scales have a more or less normal distribution. The second assumption tested was linearity

which entails that the relationship between the independent and dependent variable is linear.

When investigating the scatterplots of the independent and dependent variables it showed that

the relationship between the variables is linear. Thirdly, the assumption of homoscedasticity

was tested. This means that the variance in scores for the independent variable should be

16

similar at all values of the dependent variable. When a scatterplot shows a fairly even cigar

shape along its length there is no indication that the assumption is violated. Revising the

scatterplots in this study it can be said that there is no indication that the assumption was

violated.

In addition, a revision of outliers was performed. By inspecting the boxplot several

outliers were shown. When checking the 5% Trimmed Mean in the descriptives it was shown

that the mean and the 5% Trimmed Mean of all variables were very similar. This indicated

that the outliers did not have a major influence on the study. In addition, the values of the

outliers were not too different from the remaining distribution. All this led to the conclusion

to not delete any outliers.

Due to the assumption of mediation in the conceptual model the mediation process of

Hayes (2009) including bootstrapping was used. This approach entails the construction of a

bootstrap confidence interval for a relative indirect effect. This was done by repetitively

taking samples of the original sample size (n). Next, all the coefficients in the mediation

model were estimated. From those estimated coefficients, the relative indirect effects was

calculated (Hayes & Preacher, 2011). When repeated several times (preferably 5000 times or

more) the distribution of the relative indirect effects from multiple bootstrap estimations

serves as an empirical approximation of the sampling distribution. Lastly, the confidence

intervals were investigated to see whether the indirect effect is significant. The indirect effect

is not significant when zero lies between the two calculated values.

To test for the moderation effect the independent variable and the moderator variable

were multiplied with each other to create a new predictor. Subsequently, a regression analysis

was performed which includes the independent, dependent and the new multiplied variable. In

order to interpret the interaction effect, a graphical plot of the interaction was created.

Results

Correlations

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations (Pearson’s r) of the

variables used in this study. When looking at the standard deviations within this table, it can

be stated that the range of values for workforce differentiation (.65) is relatively small. This

17

indicates that the sample values for this variable are grouped closely together. When taking

into account the four general variables of this study, it can be seen that between the Manager’s

belief of talent rareness and the Talent management approach by an organization the highest

significant correlation exists (r=-.380, p<01). In addition, a significant correlation has been

found between the talent manager’s belief of rareness and workforce differentiation (r=-.297,

p<.01. Moreover, a significant correlation between the talent management approach by an

organization and workforce differentiation exists (r=.307, p<.01). Power distance, however,

does not have a significant correlation with any of the main variables of this analysis. Because

most of the correlations between the main variables are significant, multiple regression

analysis needs to be performed to further test the relationship between these variables and the

suggested mediating effect. The moderator power distance shows no direct correlation with

the variables but should still be tested as a moderating effect on the relationship between the

talent manager’s belief of talent rareness and the talent management approach of an

organization. Table 2 furthermore shows that there are no correlations higher than .80, which

suggests that it is unnecessary to check these variables for multi-collinearity.

Additionally, the correlation matrix can be used to verify whether there are control

variables that correlate with both the independent and mediating variable. When this is the

case, both the direct and indirect relationships may be influenced. Table 2 shows that none of

the control variables have this correlation, which means that the control variables do not have

a direct relationship with the independent and mediation variable. However, the control

variables might still be involved in an indirect effect. Therefore the control variables will be

inserted in further analyses.

Table 2: Correlation matrix

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Gender¹

2. Tenure 11.33 8.96 -.119*

3. Hierarchical levels² 12.56 17.27 -.013 .012

4. Talent manager’s belief of rareness 51.35 32.23 -.002 .106 -.054

5. Talent management approach 2.33 .75 .076 -.094 .096 -.380**

6. Workforce differentiation 3.26 .65 .024 .151* .027 -.297** .307**

7. Power distance³ -.039 .052 .028 -.048 -.004 .015

Note: *p<.05 ¹Reference category: male = 0 ** p<.01 ²On scale from 0-100 ³Reference category: low power distance = 0

18

Multiple regression analyses

Mediation

Hypotheses 1,3,4 and 5 were tested by performing hierarchical multiple regression

analyses and the bootstrapping procedure. Within the current study, three hierarchical

multiple regression analyses were performed. In the first regression analysis the organization's

talent management approach was regressed on the independent variable talent manager’s

belief that talent is rare.

Table 3: Hierarchical multiple regression analysis – Organization’s talent management approach

Organization’s talent management approach

Model 1 Model 2

Variables B SE ß B SE ß

Gender¹ .105 .105 .067 .110 .098 .070

Tenure -.007 .006 -.087 -.004 .005 -.048

Hierarchical levels .004 .003 .098 .003 .003 .078

Manager´s belief of talent rareness -.009** .001 -.371**

R² .023 .159

ΔR² .023 .136

F change 1.701 35.387

Sig. F change .169 .000

Note: *p<.05 ¹Reference category: male = 0 ** p<.01

Table 3 presents the regression models on the organization’s talent management

approach. In the first model, the control variables are included and it is shown that none of the

variables are significant. It can be stated that this first model does not explain a significant

amount of variance in the organization’s talent management approach. In the second model,

the independent variable ‘manager’s belief of talent rareness’ was included, which presents a

statistical significant negative relation with the organization’s talent management approach

(ß=-.371, p<.01). The negative relation shows that when respondents score high on the

manager’s belief of talent rareness and thus beliefs that talent is not rare they would score low

on the exclusive talent management approach of an organization. Furthermore, the second

model explains 15.9% of the variance in the organization’s talent management approach.

19

After regressing the organization’s talent management approach on the talent

manager’s belief of talent rareness, workforce differentiation was regressed on the talent

manager’s belief that talent is rare.

Table 4: Hierarchical multiple regression analysis – workforce differentiation

Workforce differentiation

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variables B SE ß B SE ß B SE ß

Gender¹ .058 .093 .043 .062 .089 .046 0.39 .087 .029

Tenure .011* .005 .156* .014** .005 .189** .015** .005 .201**

Hierarchical levels .001 .003 .026 .000 .002 .009 .000 .002 -.010

Manager´s belief of

talent rareness -.006** .001 -.316** -.005** .001 -.228**

Organization’s talent

management approach .204** .060 .238**

R² .025 .124 .171

ΔR² .025 .098 .048

F change 1.773 23.037 11.737

Sig. F change .154 .000 .001

Note: *p<.05 ¹Reference category: male = 0 ** p<.01

In table 4, the regression models on workforce differentiation are presented. In the first

model, the control variables are included and it is shown that only the variable ‘tenure’

(ß=.156, p<.05) is significant. It can be stated that the first model does not explain a

significant amount of variance in workforce differentiation. In the second model the

independent variable ‘manager’s belief on talent rareness’ is included, which turned out to

have a significant effect on workforce differentiation (ß=-.316, p<.01). Furthermore, in this

model the variable ‘tenure’ turned out to have a higher level of significance (ß=.189, p>.01) in

contrast to the first model. The model as a whole explains 12.4% of the variance in workforce

differentiation. The third model shows that when adding the independent variable of

organization’s talent management approach there is a significant effect on workforce

differentiation (ß=.238, p>.01), which means that the organization’s talent management

approach significantly predicts workforce differentiation. In addition, the direct effect of

manager’s belief of talent rareness reduces a bit but remains significant (ß= -.228, p>.01).

20

When revising the explained variance in workforce differentiation, model 3 shows an

explained variance of 17.1%. This is an increasing of 4.7% compared to the second model.

Bootstrapping

The bootstrapping procedure was used for inference about relative indirect effects

within the current conceptual model, in order to answer Hypothesis 4. Table 5 shows the

standard coefficients, standard error (S.E.) and the bootstrap t-statistic with the level of

significance for each relationship.

Table 5: Bootstrapping

Standardized

coefficients S.E. Bootstrap t-statistic

Talent manager’s belief of talent rareness

� Organizational talent management

approach

-.396 .053 -7.4227***

Organizational talent management

approach � Workforce differentiation .224 .058 3.8424***

Talent manager’s belief of talent rareness

� Workforce differentiation -.297 .055 -5.3887***

Note:

* p< .05

** p< .01

*** p< .001

As table 5 shows, the relationship between the talent manager’s belief of talent

rareness and organizational talent management approach was calculated and turned out to be

statistically significant (ß=-.40, p<.001) with a bootstrapping t-statistic of -7.42. The

relationship between organizational talent management approach and workforce

differentiation was examined and appeared to be significant (ß=.22, p<.001) with a

bootstrapping t-statistic of 3.84. Furthermore, the direct relationship between the talent

manager’s belief of talent rareness and workforce differentiation was found to be significant

(ß=-.30, p<.001) with a bootstrapping t-statistic of -5.39.

In order to test Hypothesis 4, the lower-bound (LBCI) and upper-bound (UBCI)

confidence intervals of the indirect effect has to be taken into account. Within this study those

values are -.1449 (LBCI) and -.0423 (UBCI) which means that the mediator ‘organization’s

21

talent management approach’ is significant since zero lies not between the calculated values.

This finding leads to a affirmation of Hypothesis 4: The relationship between the manager’s

belief that talent is rare and the workforce differentiation is mediated by the organization’s

exclusive approach to talent management.

Moderation

Hypothesis 2 was tested by performing hierarchical multiple regression analyses.

Within the current study, one hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to test

for a moderation effect. Table 6 shows the regression of an organizational talent management

approach on manager’s belief of talent rareness and power distance (model 1). In the second

model the interaction effect of power distance was measured on the relation between

manager’s belief of talent rareness and the organizational talent management approach.

Table 6: Moderation

Organizational talent management approach

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variables B SE ß B SE ß B SE ß

Tenure -.009 .006 -.103 -.005 .005 -.056 -.005 .005 -.057

Hierarchical levels .006* .003 .134* .005 .003 .117 .005 .003 .117

Gender .071 .105 .046 .068 .096 .043 .068 .096 .043

Manager’s belief of

talent rareness -.010*** .001 -.430*** -.010*** .001 -.429***

Power distance -.118 .248 -.029 -.045 .604 -.011

Manager’s belief of

talent rareness*Power

distance

-.002 .012 -.020

R² .031 .213 .213

ΔR² .031 .183 .000

F change 2.297 25.207 .018

Sig. F change .079 .000 .894

Note:

* p< .05

** p< .01

*** p< .001

Table 6 shows that the direct effect of the manager’s belief of talent rareness on

organizational talent management approach is significant (ß=-.43, p<.001). In addition, it

22

shows that there does not exists a direct effect between power distance and organizational

talent management approach (ß=-.029, p>.05). In the third model the relationship between the

manager’s belief of talent rareness and the organizations talent management approach remains

the same when the interaction effect of a talent manager’s belief of talent rareness and power

distance is integrated (ß=-.43, p<.001). The interaction effect consequently shows a non-

significant relation with the organization talent management approach (ß=-.020, p>.05). This

finding leads to a rejection of Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between the manager’s

belief that talent is rare and the exclusive talent approach of the organization is moderated by

power distance in such a way that the relationship is stronger in high power distance contexts.

Conclusion and discussion

The current study's empirical evidence enlarges the current talent management

literature concerning HR manager's talent philosophies and organizational talent management

approaches and their effect on HR policies like workforce differentiation. Additionally, the

moderating effect of power distance on the relationship of a manager’s belief of talent

rareness and a talent management approach by an organization was investigated.

Based on the existing theory, it was expected that the belief of a manager that talent is

rare would be correlated to workforce differentiation and an organization’s talent management

approach. Consequently, the current study was guided by the following research question:

“Does a talent manager’s belief that talent is rare predict workforce differentiation and is this

relationship mediated by an organization’s talent management approach, and is the

relationship between a talent manager’s belief that talent is rare and an organization’s talent

management approach moderated by power distance?”

The first step was to investigate the relation between the managers belief of talent

rareness and the exclusive talent management approach of the organization. Theoretical

research showed a relationship through the dominant coalition theory by Paauwe (2004) and

research by Meyers and Van Woerkom (in press). This study confirmed the relationship

between the managers belief that talent is rare and the organization’s exclusive talent

management approach. It showed that the more a manager beliefs that talent is rare the more

exclusive the talent management approach is an organization adopts. The direct relation found

in this research therefore supports the previous done research by Meyers and Van Woerkom

(in press) who stated that an organization’s talent management approach depends on the

underlying talent philosophy. In addition, this study supports the influence of the dominant

23

coalition, described by Paauwe (2004) and influence of the confirmation bias theory (Arnott,

2006; Nickerson, 1998). The findings of this study show that the HR manager has a leading

role in shaping the organization’s talent management approach. The direct effect of an HR

manager’s belief that talent is rare on the organization’s talent management approach shows

that an HR manager is the decision maker with regard to talent or HR management. The

dominant position of the HR manager is shown in the fact that the organization follows the

HR manager’s belief of talent philosophy. However, since this was one of the first empirical

studies investigating the relation between a manager’s belief of talent rareness and an

organization’s exclusive talent management approach, reversed causation may not be ruled

out. It may be possible that organizations already have a talent management approach in place

where the talent manager does not have an influence on, which could explain a reversed

causal effect. Although, based on research by Paauwe (2004) and Meyers and Van Woerkom

(in press), which discussed the directionality of the relation between the beliefs of an HR

manager about talent management and an organization's approach towards talent, it is likely

that the relation's directionality is correct. The confirmation bias theory (Arnott, 2006;

Nickerson, 1998) additionally explains the direction since HR managers would see their own

beliefs reflected in the approach of an organization. An HR manager assumes that his or her

beliefs and decisions concerning talent management are reflected in an organization's

approach towards talent management.

Secondly, it was studied whether the relationship between the manager's belief that

talent is rare and the organization's exclusive talent management approach would differ under

different levels of power distance. Based on previous research it was expected that within a

high power distance context the relationship between the managers belief of talent rareness

and the organization’s exclusive talent management approach would be stronger than in a low

power distance context. The results did not support this reasoning and therefore hypothesis 2

was rejected. The unequal division between countries with low and high power distance may

explain this rejection. This research contained primarily the presence of low power distance

within the participating countries. With only a few countries scoring high on power distance it

is possible that the lack of data influenced the strength of the variable. Another explanation

would of the rejection could be the low reliability of the power distance scale. This could

indicate that the scale of power distance did not measure what it was supposed to measure. If

this was the case the scale of power distance could have influenced the lack of moderation

effect. In addition, the results suggest that no matter the cultural context of power distance,

24

the HR manager remains to have the power to adjust the organization’s talent management

approach as this is his/her area of expertise.

The final hypotheses where focused on workforce differentiation. In general, findings

were in support of the hypothesized relationships between the managers belief that talent is

rare, the organization’s exclusive talent management approach and workforce differentiation.

This research showed that the more a manager beliefs talent is rare the higher the

differentiation of the workforce. This finding suggests that a talent manager who believes that

talent is rare he/her will invest more in the organization’s top performers which leads to a

higher differentiation of the workforce, because people will be treated differently according to

whether they are seen as talented or not. This supports previously formulated theory by

Meyers and Van Woerkom (in press) who proposed that a relationship between the exclusive

talent philosophy and workforce differentiation exists. In addition, it was shown that when an

organization adopts an exclusive talent management approach, a differentiation within the

workforce will be present. People will be treated differently because they are labeled to be

different (talented/less talented). Moreover, the study investigated the mediating effect of the

organizations exclusive talent management approach on the relation between the managers

belief that talent is rare and the workforce differentiation. It showed that the organization's

exclusive talent management approach helps to explain the relation between the managers

belief that talent is rare and the workforce differentiation. This mediating effect means that the

ideas and beliefs of an HR manager shape the overall approach to talent management. In turn,

this overall approach influences more specific HR or workforce practices.

In conclusion, the moderating effect of power distance within this model has not been

proven, however, the mediating effect has been proven, as a partially mediating effect.

Furthermore, this study supported the direct relationships between the managers belief that

talent is rare, the organizations exclusive talent management approach and workforce

differentiation.

Limitations

This study has several limitations which could have an influence on the current

outcomes. First, the study could be limited because of common-source bias and common-

method bias. Common-source bias can be defined as a non-random measurement error or as

Richardson, Simmering, and Sturman (2009) state “a systematic error variance shared among

variables measured with and introduced as a function of the same method and/or source” (p.

25

763). As in this study only the self perception of HR managers and its perspectives are taken

into account common-source bias could be a limitation. Within this study it was decided only

to take the self perception of the HR manager into account since it was important to examine

if the managers belief of talent rareness has an influence on the dependent variables. A

negative effect from this unilateral perspective is that is can be out of line with reality, which

can lead to a certain bias. Common-method bias occurs when data has been collected from a

single method. As this research collected information by means of a questionnaire and no

other method was used it is possible that common-method bias could occur. However,

Podsakoff and Organ (1986) explain that it is no possible to differentiate between a single

source bias relationship form a substantive one. Therefore it is merely impossible to discover

the actual relationships between variables collected from a single source (Podsakoff & Organ,

1986). Since this has been one of the first empirical studies on talent philosophies the

unilateral perspective was necessary since it was focused on the manager’s belief of talent

rareness. Moreover, since it is a subject in the early stage of research it is important to

discover whether certain relationships exist and what effects they have an exploratory method

was used.

In addition, since the data was collected through the internet by ways of the snowball

effect it cannot with certainty be said that the so called dominant coalition has been reached. It

might be possible that the participating HR managers do not have a decision making position

within their organization. It could therefore be possible that not the correct participants

entered in this research. A more selective recruitment of participants could enhance the

reliability of the present of the decision making HR managers in the study. However, since the

required specifications of the participants where made clear when searching for respondents

the sample might contain a significant number of HR managers in a decision making role.

Moreover, the cross-sectional nature of the current study could be seen as a limitation.

Baker (1999) describes that to determine causality a change in the dependent variable must

happen before a change in the dependent variable. Due to the cross-sectional design of the

study, it cannot be said with certainty whether this condition is met. Reversed causation could

be likely for the variables ‘managers belief of talent rareness’ and ‘organization’s exclusive

talent management approach’. Since this study has been one of the first empirical studies

investigating the relation between a manager’s belief of talent rareness and an organization’s

exclusive talent management approach, it cannot been said with certainty that a causality

between a manager’s belief that talent is rare and an organization’s talent management

26

approach can be assumed. To further determine the causality of the findings a longitudinal

research should be performed to see whether the findings differ or are comparable.

Also, the low reliability score of the power distance scale could be seen as a limitation

of this study. Whether the scale measured exactly what it needed to measure cannot be

determined due to the lack of reliability. An adapted scale with different variables measuring

power distance could be a solution to solve this limitation.

Additionally, a limitation could be that the majority of the participants were active in a

low power distance setting and only a small amount in high power distance. Creating a

sample where there is a significant amount of both low and high power distance would

resolve this limitation.

Future research

Based on previous and current research the first direction for future research regards

the topic of Talent Management. As mentioned before, the definition of talent and its related

inclusive and exclusive approaches are not yet commonly accepted. Many researchers still

debate about the correct definition of the mentioned phenomena. Future research should

examine more antecedents and consequences that could be related to the talent management

philosophies and approaches. With more focused research in this specific area more data will

be available to define what talent is and how the philosophies and approaches are related.

Additionally, a longitudinal study based on talent philosophies and approaches would

be recommended for future research. Several cross-sectional studies, including the current

one, proved the existing relationship between talent philosophies, approaches and workforce

differentiation. However, a longitudinal research would determine whether the findings of

previous studies are indeed causal, since findings could differ over time.

Moreover, as this study merely focused on perspective from the manager it would be

important to see whether the talent philosophies of a manager are in line with different

perceptions of Talent Management seen by an employee’s perspective. This entails combing

a questionnaire for HR managers with a questionnaires for employees. Investigating the

different talent philosophies of the managers on the one hand and the effects of those different

beliefs on variables concerning employees, like well-being, job satisfaction, or perceived

organizational support.

In addition, despite the lack of significant findings concerning power distance, it

remains interesting to investigate whether power distance plays a role within talent

27

management philosophies and approaches. It would be interesting to see whether power

distance within one country of several countries differentiates and whether it influences talent

managers and/or organizations approaches towards talent management. A proportional

distribution of low and high power distance should be present in such a study.

Practical implications

Organizations can benefit from the results of this study, since it provides more insight

and knowledge about talent management, the relationship between a talent manager’s belief

about talent rareness and workforce differentiation and the mediating effect of an

organization’s talent management approach. It is shown that when a talent manager beliefs

talent is rare the workforce has a higher differentiation rate compared to managers who belief

talent is a non-rare phenomenon. Because of a talent manager’s belief in talent rareness,

employees who are seen as talented will be treated differently from the rest. Organizations can

learn from this finding by keeping in account that when talent will be seen as exclusive a

differentiated approach towards employees will lead to a higher fit.

Additionally, it is important for an organization to not only create a clear view about

their own talent management approach but also about the beliefs of their talent management

managers due to the correlation of these two concepts. To clarify, due to the power of a

manager, his/her beliefs about talent management will influence the talent approach of an

organization. An organization aware of the influence of an HR manager might choose to

assess his/her talent philosophies before hiring. This to align the organization’s talent

approach to the HR managers belief. In this way the organization chooses to control the HR

approach and does not run the risk of a change in talent approach due to the power of the HR

manager concerning Talent Management.

28

Reference list

Arnott, D. (2006). Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: a design

science approach. Information Systems Journal, 16, 55-78.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G. , & Kurshid, A. (2000),

Impact of Culture on Human Resource Management Practices: A 10-Country

Comparison. Applied Psychology:An International Review, 49, 192–221.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Becker, B. E., & Gerhart, B. (1996) The impact of human resource management on

organizational performance: Progress and prospects. The Academy of Management

Journal, 39, 779-801.

Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Beatty, R. W. (2009). The differentiated workforce:

Transforming talent into strategic impact. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H., Segall, M.H. & Dasen, R. (1991). Cross-cultural psychology.

Research and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boxall, P. (2012). High-performance systems: What, why, how and for whom? Asia Pacific

Journal of Human Resources, 50, 169-186.

Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems:

Progressing the high-involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19,

3-23.

Buckingham, M., & Vosburgh, R. M. (2001). The 21st century human resources function: It's

the talent, stupid! Human Resource Planning, 24, 17-23.

by implementing Workforce-Differentiation? Journal of Applied Leadership and

Management, 1, 53-76.

Collings, D.G., & Mellahi, K., (2009). Strategic talent management : A review and research

agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 304-313.

Dries, N., Cotton, R.D., Bagdadli, S., & Ziebell de Oliveira, M. (2013). HR Directors’

Understanding of ‘Talent’: A Cross-Cultural Study.

Eisinga, R., Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2012). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson,

Cronbach or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 1-13.

Farndale, E., Scullion, H., & Sparrow, P., (2010). The role of the corporate HR function in

global talent management. Journal of World Business, 45, 161-168.

29

Fritz, M.S., & MacKinnon, D.P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect.

Psychological Science, 18, 233-239.

Hayes, A.F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new

millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.

Hayes, A.F., & Preacher, K.J. (2011). Indirect and direct effects of multicategorical causal

agent in statistical mediation analysis. Unpublished, 1-54.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related

values. London: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-

Hill.

Huselid, M. A., Beatty, R. W., & Becker, B. E. (2005). “A players” or “A positions?” The

strategic logic of workforce management. Harvard Business Review, 110-117.

Koopman, P.L., Den Hartog, D.N., Konrad, E., et al. (1999). National Culture and Leadership

Profiles in Europe: Some Results From the GLOBE Study. European journal of work

and organizational psychology, 8, 503-520.

Lewis, R.E., & Heckman, R.J., (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human

Resource Management Review, 16, 139-154.

MacKinnon, D.P., Fairchild, A.J., & Fritz, M.S. (2007). Mediation Analysis. Annual Review

of Psychology, 58, 593-614.

Mathur, P., Aycan, Z., & Kanungo, R. N. (1996). Indian organizational culture: A comparison

between public and private sectors. Psychology and Developing Societies, 8, 199-222.

Meyers, M.C. & Van Woerkom, M. (in press). The influence of underlying philosophies on

talent management: Theory, implications for practice, and research agenda. Journal of

World Business.

Meyers, M.C., Van Woerkom, M., & Dries, N. (in press). Talent – Innate or acquired?

Theoretical considerations and their implications for talent management, Human

Resource Management Review.

Nickerson, R.S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitos phenomenon in many guises. Review

of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.

Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and Performance: Achieving long-term viability. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS

(4th edition). Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

30

Reilly, P. (2008). Identifying the right course for talent management. Public Personnel

Management, 37, 381–388.

Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M.J., & Sturman, M.C., (2009). A tale of three perspectives:

Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common

method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 762–800.

Rutherford, D. (2005). Who’s in charge? Cultural value differences: the concept of Power

Distance. Business Mexico, 15, 36.

Tansley, C. (2011). What do we mean by the term “talent” in talent management? Industrial

and Commercial Training, 43, 266-274.

Tarique, I., & Schuler, R.S. (2010). Global talent management: Literature review, integrative

framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of World Business, 45, 122-

133.

Triandis, H.C. (1993). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ulrich, D. and Smallwood, N. (2012). What is talent?. Leader to Leader, 2012, 63, 55–61.

Van Oudenhoven, J.P., Mechelse, L. & De Dreu, C.K.W., (1998). Managerial Conflict

Management in Five European Countries: The Importance of Power Distance,

Uncertainty Avoidance, and Masculinity. Applied Psychology: An International

Review, 47, 439-455.

Weis, P., & Schaefer, R. (2012). Enhancing recognition as HR-Business Partner. Journal of

Applied Leadership and Management, 1, 53-76.

31

Appendices

Appendix 1: Factor analysis Talent Management Approach by Organization

Screeplot Talent Management Approach by Organization 6-items.

Component Matrix 6-Items Component

1 2 Everybody has a certain talent .802 -.135 Everybody is gifted in one way or another, but we need to offer the

right context to develop those gifts into talents.

.733 -.403

A talent is not something that everyone possesses, but just the lucky

few.

.721 .302

Everybody has to discover his or her own talent, so that we can assign

him or her to the right job

.623 -.445

A talent is a special individual that can make a significant difference

to a company

.397 .648

It is a logical choice that developmental assignments and resources are

only invested in the most promising talents.

.352 .585

Note: major loadings for each item are bolded.

32

Pattern and Structure Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation of Two Factor Solution of Talent Management Approach by Organization 6-Items.

Note: major loadings for each item are bolded.

Item Pattern coefficients Structure coefficients Communalities

Component 1 Component 2 Component 1 Component 2

Everybody is

gifted in one way

or another, but we

need to offer the

right context to

develop those

gifts into talents.

.845 -.055 .834 .109 .699

Everybody has to

discover his or

her own talent, so

that we can assign

him or her to the

right job

.780 -.141 .753 .010 .586

Everybody has a

certain talent

.741 .223 .784 .366 .662

A talent is a

special individual

that can make a

significant

difference to a

company

-.065 .769 .084 .757 .577

It is a logical

choice that

developmental

assignments and

resources are only

invested in the

most promising

talents.

-.064 .692 .070 .680 .466

A talent is not

something that

everyone

possesses, but just

the lucky few.

.410 .591 .525 .670 .611

33

Screeplot Talent Management Approach by Organization 4 items

Component matrix 4-items

Component

1 Everybody has a certain talent .817 Everybody is gifted in one way or another, but we need to offer the right context to

develop those gifts into talents.

.800

Everybody has to discover his or her own talent, so that we can assign him or her to the

right job

.689

A talent is not something that everyone possesses, but just the lucky few. .660

34

Appendix 2: Factor analysis Workforce Differentiation

Screeplot Workforce Differentiation

Component Matrix Workforce Differentiation

Component

1

A high potential gets access to more special assignments than other employees within the organization. .733

A high potential is treated differently from other employees within the organization. .717

A high potential has more freedom and flexibility than other employees within the organization. .685

Being considered a high potential, in our organization, is reflected in one’s rewards and benefits package. .667

A high potential gets more opportunities for training than other employees within the organization. .645

A high potential is considered more “promotable” than other employees within the organization. .632

A high potential has a greater responsibility than other employees within the organization. .558

A high potential, within our organization, is usually a man. .520

35

Appendix 3: Factor analysis Power Distance

Screeplot Power Distance 4-items

Component Matrix Power Distance

Component

1 2

One should always obey the person in authority. .817 -.156

People having authority should be respected because of their position. .805 -.122

There needs to be a hierarchy of authority in our society. .532 .442

Inequality of status among individuals is not acceptable in our society. -.010 .905

Note: major loadings for each item are bolded.

36

Pattern and Structure Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation of Two Factor Solution of Power Distance on 4-Items.

Note: major loadings for each item are bolded.

Screeplot Power Distance 3-items

Item Pattern coefficients Structure coefficients Communalities

Component 1 Component 2 Component 1 Component 2

One should

always obey the

person in

authority.

.836 -.077 .829 .004 .692

People having

authority should

be respected

because of their

position.

.817 -.045 .813 .035 .663

Inequality of

status among

individuals is not

acceptable in our

society

-.185 .904 -.097 .886 .818

There needs to be

a hierarchy of

authority in our

society.

.439 .493 .487 .536 .479

37

Component analysis Power Distance 3-items

Component

1

One should always obey the person in authority. .817

People having authority should be respected because of their position. .805

There needs to be a hierarchy of authority in our society. .534