The meaning of ‘talent’ across cultures: A global study

1. The meaning of ‘talent’ across cultures: A global study Nicky Dries (KU Leuven), Richard D. Cotton (Appalachian State U.), Silvia Bagdadli (Bocconi U.), & Manoela Ziebell de Oliveira (U. Federal do Rio Grande do Sul)EIASM workshop on TM – October 7th, 2013

2. Aims To advance understanding of the meanings attributed to “talent” by HR directors across the world (N = 410), and how their “talent mindsets”translate into the ways in which talent is identified in their organizations (TMpractices).

3. Tension 1: Inclusive vs. exclusive TM • Inclusive perspective: All people are talented, but in a different way (strength-based approach) < POS, vocational/counseling psychology • Exclusive perspective: Some people (1-20%) are more talented and/or more valuable to organizations than others (human capital approach)< SHRM, RBV All resources (time, budget, money; HR support, career opportunities) distributed equally across all employees 90% of resources go to 10% of employees (Matthew Effect)

4. Tension 2: Selection vs. development approach (“make or buy”) • Innate perspective: Focus on recruitment, selection, assessment, identification (evidence-based approach) • Acquired perspective: Focus on training, experience, and learning (potential-based approach) < demand-supply dynamics! • <Implicit person theory: fixed/entity mindset vs. growth/incremental mindset • <National culture: English, German, and French stress innate aspect, Japanese hard work (Tansley, 2011)

5. Tension 3: Standardized vs. subjective approach • Standardized approach: Validated tests, assessment centers, structured interviews • Subjective approach: • Intuition, gut feelings, • “right stuff/ • X-factor thinking” • (the myth of • experience/stubborn • reliance on intuition, • Highhouse, 2008)

6. Methods & Sample • Online global survey in 410 HR directors • GLOBE clusters for which we have enough data: Anglo, Eastern European, Germanic, Latin American, Latin European • Not enough data from African, Confucian, Nordic, and Southern Asian clusters • Most respondents came from large, hierarchically structured private companies with a moderate degree of formalization and centralization • Most respondents were women, with an average age of 55.59 (sd = 13.66)

7. Measures • Qualitative • 10 spontaneous associations with ‘talent’. • Quantitative • Growth (incremental) vs. fixed (entity) mindset about talent. • Belief that talent is innate (0-100%). • Belief that everyone has talent (0-100%). • Inclusive vs. exclusive TM approach. • Reliance on personal judgment vs. standardized assessment. • Reliance on first impressions. • Organizational characteristics.

8. Associations (qualitative) • A high number of associations were both ‘universal’ and ‘prototypical’. • Respondents from all cultural clusters mentioned ability, skills, knowledge, and potential. • Culture-specific associations: • Anglo: exceptional nature, resource to organizations • Eastern European: effort, hard work, willpower • Germanic: inborn giftedness, passion • Latin American: calling, vocation, natural ease • Latin European: innovation, creativity, art

9. Inclusive-exclusive (quantitative) Respondents from the Anglo and Germanic cluster believed to a significantly higher extent that everyonehas talent (Latin American & Latin European: low; Eastern European: medium) Contrast with qualitative data (i.e., ‘excellence’, ‘exceptional performance’)! Possible explanations: topgradingand/or multidimensionalnotion of ‘talent’

10. Innate-acquired (quantitative) No significant differences as to fixed vs. growth mindset, nor extent to which talent is innate. On average, HR directors from around the world seemed to agree that talent can be developed for over 50 per cent. Anglo & Eastern European HR directors rely more on first impressions than other clusters.

11. Conclusions (i) • Considering the increasing international expansion of many large enterprises, we believe it is important to fully grasp how organizational decision makers (i.e., HR directors, line managers, CEOs), especially from subsidiariesof the same corporation in different cultures, see talent. • MNCs need to understand • cross-cultural differences in • terms of shared mental models • about talent before they can • formulate a viable global talent • management strategy.

12. Conclusions (ii) • Based on the findings reported in this chapter, we posit that cultural differences in terms of the meaning attributed to ‘talent’ by HR directors are not as big as one might expect. More research is necessary, however, to gain a more in-depth understanding of which meanings of talent are universal/prototypical versus culture-specific/peripheral. In the current study, for instance, we did not have data for the African, Confucian, Nordic, and Southern Asian cultural clusters.

13. Conclusions (iii) • We did find cultural differences relating to the extent to which organizations had an ‘inclusive’ talent management mindset, and the extent to which they rely on first impressions in assessments of talent. In both cases, organizations from the Anglo cluster scored higher than the other clusters. This is particularly interesting in that the global talent management literature is Anglo-Saxon biased (as most literature is produced in the US and the UK)—further research is necessary to examine the extent to which Anglo-Saxon approaches to talent management can be generalized(or ‘exported’) to other countries and cultures, especially within one and the same MNC.

14. Questions?Contact me:nicky.dries@econ.kuleuven.be+32.16.32.68.68.