In this editorial, we discuss and define the “future of work” as a phenomenon and research area, and outline avenues for further research at the conceptual and empirical level. We first offer a brief review of the different streams of research that study the future of work, both in management and organization studies and in adjacent fields. We then elaborate on what we see as the most promising avenues for research on the future of work, organized around five questions of what, when, who, how, and why. That is, research on the future of work needs to clarify its assumptions about (1) the phenomena it considers within scope; (2) the temporality associated with these phenomena; (3) which future of work actors it is about and whom it is for; (4) the methods and data types used to be able to study the future empirically; and (5) desired impact and envisioned outcomes. We discuss how moving beyond techno-determinism, depoliticization, and a present-day focus could open up new and important avenues for further research on the near and distant future of work. We conclude with some specific examples of research questions and methods.

In this research, we set out to uncover why silver ceilings exist in organizations. Drawing on systematic-heuristic processing theory and recent psychological findings, we propose that "older" workers (aged 45 or more) are less likely to receive promotions because these decisions are based on potential appraisals, which are susceptible to managers' heuristic (stereotypical) thinking. We test our hypotheses using two-wave field data (Study 1) from a large financial organization and an experiment (Study 2) in which we manipulate age while holding all else equal. Both studies show that employee age has a negative effect on promotion likelihood and that this relationship is mediated by managers' potential appraisals. Moreover, Study 2 also provides evidence for our theoretical rationale showing that the central effect is driven by managers' heuristic processing and work-related age stereotypes. Across both studies, our results provide consistent support for our hypothesis that appraisals of potential constitute a potent pathway via which managers' age stereotypes can affect promotion decisions in organizations. We discuss theoretical contributions to the literature on workplace aging, employee appraisals, and personnel decisions, and formulate practical recommendations to help organizations tackle silver ceilings in the workplace.

Career resilience is critical to the world's aging workforce, aiding older workers in adapting to the ever-evolving nature of work. While ageist stereotypes often depict older workers as less resilient when faced with workplace changes, existing research studies offer conflicting evidence on whether older age hinders or improves career resilience. In response to this conflicting evidence, the present study employs multi-level data from 6772 employees in 28 countries to examine the age-career resilience relationships and underlying mechanisms, hence advancing our understanding of career resilience across the life course. By integrating macro-contextual factors such as the unemployment rate and the culture of education with individual-level mechanisms such as positive career meaning and career optimism, we provide a comprehensive model explaining how career resilience varies across age groups. Grounded in life course theory, our findings resolve prior inconsistencies in resilience research, contribute to bridging the micro-macro gap in HRM literature, and challenge existing age-based stereotypes.

Due to recent technological developments, vignette studies that have traditionally been done in text or video formats can now be done in immersive formats using virtual reality—but are such virtual reality video vignettes superior to traditional vignettes? To address this question, we examine participants’ experiences within a fictitious organization by comparing their responses to a relevant and particularly sensitive organizational phenomenon presented either through written text, a video recording, or a virtual reality experience. The results indicate that participants prefer more immersive methods, and that these increase their attention to critical study details. Moreover, this augments the effect sizes of several measured employee reactions—particularly those with high emotional content—suggesting that virtual reality technology offers a promising avenue for developing ecologically valid vignette studies to measure employee affect. To facilitate and expediate the use of virtual reality video vignettes in organizational research, we provide organizational scholars with a step-by-step instructional guide to develop immersive vignette studies.

In many workplaces, managers provide some employees with unique privileges that support their professional development and stimulate productivity and creativity. Yet with some employees more deserving of a privileged status than others, co-workers feeling left out of the inner circle may begin to exhibit feelings of envy. With workplace envy and intergroup conflicts going hand in hand, the question arises whether co-worker acceptance of employee privileges—where conflict can be constrained through an affirmative re-evaluation of co-workers’ privileged status—may lower the envy experienced by employees. Using virtual reality technology, 112 employees participated in a virtual employee meeting at a virtual organization where they were exposed to a new workforce differentiation practice. We show through our experiment that co-worker acceptance of employee privileges negatively influences workplace envy, which was partially mediated by the anticipated ostracism of employees. Moreover, we show that this effect is only found for employees with privileges, who worry more about being ostracized than their non-privileged co-workers. We anticipate that our findings will enable managers to conscientiously differentiate between their employees, using virtual reality simulations to steer employees’ thoughts and feelings in a direction that benefits both employees and organizations.

McNamara and Schleicher have identified four principal paths for contributing to the Journal of Management (JOM): theoretical insights, phenomenon-driven research, research methodologies, and review papers. This editorial focuses on phenomenon-based research, emphasizing its potential for enhancing management knowledge by offering a nuanced understanding of real-world phenomena. Unlike traditional approaches, phenomenon-based research prioritizes the complexity of phenomena over the immediate generation of theoretical contributions. Grounded in established theory, phenomenon-based research utilizes the phenomenon itself as the primary source of insight, facilitating the development of relevant organizational frameworks. We propose a multistep framework encompassing phenomenon selection, framing, data collection, and study constraints, highlighting criteria—Pertinence, Reach, Insightfulness, Magnification, and Expediency (PRIME)—to guide scholars in identifying meaningful phenomena. Additionally, we discuss constraints that may limit research, including cultural, logistical, ethical, academic, and resource-related challenges (CLEAR). By addressing these considerations, we encourage management scholars to explore diverse and impactful phenomena, ultimately aiming to position JOM as a leading platform for phenomenon-based research and its contributions to real-world organizational challenges. This editorial advocates for a balanced approach that values both theory-driven and phenomenon-driven research in advancing management scholarship.

NL In deze studie nemen we afstand van het idee dat de toekomst van werk objectief kan worden voorspeld; in plaats daarvan stellen we voor dat de toekomst een 'fictie' is, die momenteel alleen in onze collectieve verbeelding bestaat. Op basis van een analyse van 485 persartikels over de toekomst van werk die tussen 2015 en 2021 werden gepubliceerd (studie 1), ontwikkelden we vier scenario's over de toekomst van werk: 'Business-as-usual' (Utopisch/Mensgedreven), 'Levenslang leren & cobots'(Utopisch/Technologiegedreven), 'Uitsterving' (Dystopisch/Mensgedreven), en 'Singulariteit/robocalyps' (Dystopisch/Technologiegedreven) Vervolgens vroegen we een steekproef (N=570) van verschillende groepen - geëngageerde burgers, arbeidsmarkt- en/of HR-experts, innovatie- en/of technologie-experts, journalisten en beleidsmakers/politici - om elk scenario te beoordelen in termen van hun emotionele respons (hoop vs. angst) en ingeschatte waarschijnlijkheid (studie 2). We ontdekten dat de disciplinaire achtergrond, maar ook de persoonlijkheid van mensen hun denkbeelden over de toekomst van werk beïnvloedden. We besluiten met implicaties voor de praktijk op het niveau van overheidsbeleid, HR management en mediaberichtgeving.

This study employs Uncertainty Management Theory (UMT) to explore how co-workers respond to supervisors’ communication about idiosyncratic deals (i-deals), specifically comparing secrecy and transparency. We suggest that co-workers’ perceptions of i-deal secrecy, as opposed to transparency, lead to uncertainty. Moreover, misalignment between co-workers’ perceptions and supervisors’ intentions regarding i-deal communication may create a second source of uncertainty. We propose that co-workers cope with this uncertainty by forming moral judgments about the i-deal communication, which subsequently relate to their trust in their supervisor and their turnover intentions. Data were collected from 27 supervisors and 224 co-workers across 27 teams, resulting in 224 matched co-worker-supervisor responses. Polynomial regressions reveal varying outcomes depending on the (mis)alignment between co-workers’ perceptions and supervisors’ intentions. Co-workers’ moral judgments, trust in their supervisor and turnover intentions are optimal when they perceive i-deal transparency, regardless of the supervisor’s intentions. These factors are suboptimal when co-workers’ perceptions of i-deal secrecy align with supervisors’ intentions, and detrimental when co-workers perceive i-deal secrecy while supervisors intend transparency. Our findings highlight the potential consequences of supervisors’ intentions for i-deal transparency, showing they can be positive or negative depending on co-workers’ perceptions. Moreover, supervisors’ intentions for i-deal secrecy are not necessarily problematic as long as co-workers perceive transparency. Yet, once secrecy intentions are revealed, suboptimal co-worker reactions occur.

We examine the assumption that making workforce differentiation practices more inclusive will cause employees to react more positively. We identify a fundamental 'paradox of inclusion', where practices designed to be more inclusive may in fact decrease employees' perceived inclusion. Drawing on social comparison theory and the 'genius effect' - using talent management practices as an empirical case - we found that both employees identified as 'talents' and 'non-talents' reacted more favourably to exclusive, secretive practices than to inclusive, transparent practices. Across four studies, we ran experiments testing managers' assumptions about employee reactions to talent practices (Study 1; N = 179); the reactions of 'non-talents' (Study 2; N = 576); the reactions of 'talents' (Study 3; N = 306); and conducted a field study (Study 4; N = 402). Managers' preferences for more inclusive practices were guided by their assumption that non-talents would react more positively to them. Non-talents, in fact, reacted more negatively to more inclusive practices in terms of envy, organization-based self-esteem, turnover intentions, and perceived inclusion. Keeping talent status a secret from employees buffered negative reactions. Based on these findings, we identify paradoxes inherent to workforce differentiation and extend theorizing on the tension between exclusive and inclusive practices within organizations.

Across two datasets-a corpus of 485 print media articles and a multiactor survey of tech/innovation experts, authors/journalists, economy/labor market experts, policymakers/ public administrators, and engaged citizens (n 5 570)-we build the case that the future of work is a fiction, not a fact; or, better yet, a series of competing fictions prescribing what the future will or should look like. Using an abductive and curiosity-driven mixed-method analysis process, we demonstrate that different narratives about the future of work stand in direct relation to specific actors in the public debate, through both framing tactics used by narrators in the media, and political and dispositional processes of narrative subscription. We conclude that future of work research requires a paradigm shift: from "predictions" to "imaginaries." This will help counter deterministic and depoliticized understandings of the future of work. We propose an integration of theory around framing contests, field frames, narrative subscription, and corresponsive mechanisms to offer a plausible account of our empirical discoveries and develop a research agenda. Per our study's practical implications, the future of work need not be something that happens "to us"-instead, it can be what we "make it."

In this chapter, we identify four different approaches to inclusive TM - a concept that is increasingly advocated for by both academics and practitioners but has so far lacked clarity and actionability. The four approaches are (1) focusing on potential and strengths rather than talent and gifts, (2) increasing the size of the talent pool, (3) defining a broader range of talent domains, and (4) topgrading the entire organization. We propose that exclusive and inclusive TM (co-)exist on a continuum rather than as dichotomies and develop a decision tree for organizations and researchers to determine which custom approach might best fit their talent philosophy.

Based on social identity theory, exclusive talent programs can be understood to divide employees into two groups—‘talents’ versus ‘non-talents’—creating a setting where ostracism may occur. Using 360°-video vignettes (Study 1; N = 184) and text vignettes (Study 2 and 3; N = 243 and 573) we recreate a fictional HR board meeting and trouble three assumptions commonly held in the talent management literature: First, does exclusive talent management indeed lead to a feeling of exclusion and turnover amongst non-talents? Second, do emotional reactions to talent management spill over between employees? Third, does transparent communication reduce negative employee reactions, as is often assumed? We found that employees identified as talents in fact anticipate more ostracism by non-talents than vice versa, increasing talents’ intention to quit. However, this effect only occurred when non-talents displayed contrastive emotional responses to talent programs (e.g., resentment), not when they displayed assimilative responses (e.g., admiration). In addition, talents’ anticipation of being ostracized by non-talents was also found to be reduced when organizations implemented talent management secrecy. This study addresses researchers’ and practitioners’ concerns about talent retention and provides theoretical and practical implications for the field of workforce differentiation, social identity theory, and organizational intergroup conflicts.

NL Talentmanagement neemt in populariteit toe en is een strategie om veelbelovende werknemers te identificeren en ondersteunen. In de huidige tijdgeest neemt echter het enthousiasme voor een exclusief beleid, waar maar een klein deel van de werknemers als ‘talent’ wordt gezien, razendsnel af onder het mom van gelijke behandeling. Al ruim tien jaar zijn zowel managers als academici aan het discussieren over hoe talentmanagement nu het beste aangepakt kan worden om optimale uitkomsten voor werknemers te realiseren. De meeste argumenten om bestaande exclusieve talentenprogramma’s aan te passen blijven echter ongefundeerd en komen niet verder dan een simpele heuristiek zoals: ‘exclusiviteit is moreel onverantwoord’. Relevante psychologische theorieën, zoals de sociale vergelijkingstheorie, zijn daarentegen wel in staat toe te lichten waarom huidige talentmanagementtrends juist tot meer negatieve werknemersreacties zullen leiden. Zolang managers geen gehoor geven aan deze theorieën, kunnen aanpassingen aan talentenprogramma’s meer kwaad dan goed doen voor de organisatie en haar werknemers. Gebaseerd op recent promotieonderzoek wordt er in dit artikel een kritische blik geworpen op exclusief talentmanagementbeleid en worden een zestal empirische onderzoeken toegelicht die werknemersreacties op talentmanagement bestuderen. Aan de hand van de belangrijkste uitkomsten van deze onderzoeken formuleren wij een aantal aanbevelingen voor HR-professionals, waaruit duidelijk wordt hoe managers verantwoord kunnen differentiëren tussen hun werknemers.

In this chapter, we discuss the career story of Ellen, a 48-year government employee who has been wanting to make a substantial change in her career for at least ten years, but doesn’t seem able to go through with it. Overall, she feels stuck in her current job. Ellen is not alone in this experience of feeling stuck - we all know people who have career dreams, aspirations, and goals which for some reason or another have not (yet) translated into action, a phenomenon which Verbruggen and De Vos (2020) recently labelled “career inaction”. Using Ellen’s case, we explore the drivers and explanations of career inaction and discuss how it can impact people’s emotions and subsequent career actions.

In this paper, we critically examine the assumption that most employees, and especially those not identified as talents, find exclusive talent management less fair than inclusive talent management. Across two factorial survey studies-one of which manipulates talent status experimentally (N = 300), the other using field data on meta-perceived talent ratings (N = 209)-we examine the extent to which the perceived fairness of talent management is predicted by self-interest (i.e., the extent to which you yourself are seen as talented) versus principle (i.e., a dispositional preference for equality-vs. merit-based allocations). We found a clear effect of talent status, indicating that perceived fairness is at least partly determined by self-interest (i.e., whether one personally stands to gain or lose from exclusive talent management). We also found an effect for preferred allocation norm-implying that fairness perceptions are influenced by matters of principle, independently from self-interest-but only on the boundary condition that organizations provide a transparent justification for their chosen (inclusive or exclusive) talent philosophy. Two major gaps are addressed: the lack of data on how employees perceive and experience talent management practices, and the inability of common study designs to make causal claims.

We examine how peers form talent appraisals of team members, reframing talent identification as a status-organizing social process. Using decision trees, we modeled configurations of characteristics and behaviors that predicted dominant vs. parallel routes to achieving the status of most talented team member. Across 44 multidisciplinary teams, talent status was most often granted to peers perceived as having both leadership and analytic talent; a STEM degree served a dominant signaling function. Where previous studies assumed that degree operates as a specific status characteristic, we show that a STEM degree operates as a diffuse status characteristic, which predicts status in general. We thus discovered that status hierarchies in teams are also based on the type of talent—and not just the level of talent—members are perceived to possess. In so doing, we offer a proof of concept of what we call ‘talent hierarchies’ in teams, for future research to build on.

In this chapter, I propose an integrative framework for theorizing and empiricizing about talent management, based on the notion of “talent philosophies.” I believe that current debates about whether talent management should be inclusive or exclusive create the risk that our field will become fragmented, thereby undermining its social-scientific legitimacy. Nonetheless, this debate is absolutely correct in identifying the tensions between inclusive and exclusive approaches to talent management as a phenomenon. This, however, creates issues for talent management as a construct for scientific inquiry, as we need clear definitions and measures to create a cumulative body of research as a community. I propose that the solution lies in an expansion of our vocabulary as talent management researchers and identify four constructs that can help us structure and categorize our collective work: giftedness, talent, potential, and strength. Each of these constructs map logically onto different talent philosophies and talent management practices. In establishing “unity in diversity,” I believe talent management could finally make the transition into a more mature field of academic inquiry – although clearly phenomenon driven – characterized in equal parts by construct clarity, rigor, and relevance. Keywords Talent philosophies Exclusive versus inclusive talent management Potential Strength Star performers Phenomenon-driven research Citation Dries, N. (2022), "What's Your Talent Philosophy? Talent as Construct Versus Talent as Phenomenon", Collings, D., Vaiman, V. and Scullion, H. (Ed.) Talent Management: A Decade of Developments (Talent Management), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 19-37. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80117-834-120221002 Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited Copyright © 2022 Nicky Dries License These works are published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of these works (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Introduction Since the late 1990s, early 2000s, annual surveys of CEOs and business leaders have consistently found that they rate talent management as their top “people” priority (PwC, 2017). So, if most executives agree that talent management is crucially important to businesses worldwide – then what is “talent”? This question dominated the academic literature on talent management for many years (especially in the 2010–2015 period; Gallardo-Gallardo, Nijs, Dries, & Gallo, 2015), as there was a lack of agreement on how talent should be defined and, consequently, measured. Much conceptual progress has been made since then, thanks to a tireless community of scholars devoted to solving the issue of “definition,” so that we could move on to studying the (side-)effects and (intended or unintended) consequences of common talent management practices on important employee (e.g., De Boeck, Meyers, & Dries, 2018), organizational (e.g., Collings, 2014), and labor market (e.g., Evans, Rodriguez-Montemayor, & Lanvin, 2021) outcomes. In other words, before we could begin to understand under which exact conditions talent management “works” versus “fails,” we needed to first agree as to what talent management “is” exactly. It is here that the issue of construct versus phenomenon becomes relevant. Chapter Outline From many years of doing talent management research, I have drawn two preliminary conclusions: (1) creating a robust body of social-scientific work on talent management requires clear, operationalizable, and measurable construct definitions; and (2) understanding talent management fully requires acknowledging the different forms it can take in the field phenomenologically. In what follows, I will first discuss the state of the art on talent as a construct and then on talent (management) as a phenomenon. I then explain how the construct of “talent philosophies” (Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014; Meyers, van Woerkom, Paauwe, & Dries, 2020) ties both aspects together and offers a solution to solving the tension between construct and phenomenon. I conclude with some recommendations for theory and practice. The “Talent Management” Construct Versus Phenomenon The tension between talent management as a construct versus a phenomenon can be summarized as follows: On the one hand, if we want to claim to be social scientists, adopting the scientific method in studying “talent management,” our central construct can really only have one definition. Only if all scholars in a field define and operationalize their central construct in the same (or at least a highly similar) way, can we aspire to make meaningful progress through cumulative research, where further theoretical and empirical work builds on prior work. So, if some scholars are defining talent as “top 10% in a given performance domain” (the exclusive view on talent management; e.g., Nijs, Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, & Sels, 2014), while others state that “everyone has talent but in a different way” (the inclusive view on talent management; e.g., Swailes, Downs, & Orr, 2014), it becomes hard to integrate research findings from both traditions into a broader body of knowledge on “talent management.” Imagine that, in research on stress, stress was defined by one half of the field as a harmful state of unpleasant arousal triggered by a situational threat, and by the other half of the field as a completely normal state of motivational arousal that helps people achieve optimal levels of performance. We can immediately see that there is some truth to both definitions – but also that research findings stemming from the former view should not just be mixed in with findings from the latter view. In thinking of solutions, it also seems unlikely that either “camp” will abandon their view and definition. Rather, what might be helpful is to analyze exactly where both views overlap and differ and develop more nuanced constructs (e.g., “distress” and “eustress”; Hargrove, Hargrove, & Becker, 2016) that create more clarity and structure in underlying assumptions. On the other hand, we must also acknowledge that, in practice – that is, in the “real world” outside of academia – companies can and do adopt many different practices under the header of “talent management,” entirely unhindered by and unconcerned with scholarly debates about the exact definition of talent (Dries, 2013a). For practitioners, to some extent, issues of definition and operationalization amount to pure semantics – whereas they are much more interested in practices and impact. The truth, I believe, lies in the middle. In recent years, I have developed a full-day workshop for human resource (HR) practitioners called “What’s your talent philosophy?” in which I walk them through conceptual issues in talent management and their implications for daily talent management practice. This chapter is a written reflection on some of the topics I address in these workshops but also on what I have learned from practitioners in running them. In my experience, academic research on talent management can definitely add value to talent management practice, even when it is highly conceptual and theoretical in nature – as long as the link to concrete practices is explicitly made. That said, through these workshops – and through a study I did together with talent management scholars from Tilburg University (Meyers et al., 2020) – I have also come to realize that there is academic value in studying talent management as a phenomenon, by which I mean “whatever organizations are doing that they are calling talent management.” If we want to understand and study antecedents, outcomes, and boundary conditions to successful talent management implementation, it seems important to acknowledge and study all the different forms this can take in the field – rather than exclude a large number of organizations from participating in our research because they do not fit our construct definition. The study that most opened my eyes to this was the above-cited one by Meyers et al. (2020), which uncovered that (in a sample of 321 HR managers) all four examined “talent philosophies” (more on this later) were equally prevalent in the field. This means that not only are organizations doing very different things under the header of talent management, they do so based on fundamentally different assumptions they have about “the nature and instrumentality of talent” (Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014, p. 193) – for example, the extent to which they believe talent is rare or prevalent in the population, and the extent to which they believe talent is innate or developable. Talent as Construct To answer the question of what “talent” is as a construct, it is helpful to look at its historical origins (Tansley, 2011). Etymological research dates the term “talent” back to Greek antiquity, when it was used as a unit of measurement (i.e., the weight of the amount of water that fit into a large amphora; approximately 36 kg or 80 pounds). Over time, its meaning shifted from a unit of weight to a unit of currency, equivalent to that weight in silver. For instance, the Parable of the Talents in the New Testament uses the term “talent” to refer to a coin of particularly high monetary value. One “talent” was worth about 6,000 denarii, and one denarius was the typical payment for a day’s work. This means that a single talent was worth the equivalent of 20 years of labor, assuming a six-day work week (Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, & González-Cruz, 2013). Around the thirteenth century, the meaning of the term “talent” shifted to denote human ability but keeping the association with high value and “extraordinariness.” For instance, in the late Middle Ages and up until the nineteenth century, people believed that having a talent at something was a gift from God, and that people thus had a moral duty to put their talent to good use in society (an idea still featuring in many Oscar and Grammy speeches today). In the nineteenth century, talent became associated with the idea of “mad genius” – that is, brilliant scientists or artists who lack social skills and develop mental health issues as a result of their abnormal levels of talent (Baudson, 2016). This view of talent correlating negatively with well-being outcomes was nuanced, however, by longitudinal research following gifted children throughout their lifespan, which found that on average, high levels of (intellectual) talent are associated with better life outcomes overall, including social skills and happiness (e.g., Oden, 1968). Across all of these evolutions in the meaning of “talent,” it is clear that the term was consistently used to refer to highly rare and valued attributes (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013). The first (documented) mention of “talent” in the context of management was probably the War for Talent book written by McKinsey consultants Michaels, Handfield-Jones, and Axelrod (2001). In this book, the authors claim that, due to both demographic (i.e., aging society) and labor market trends (i.e., the weakened loyalties between employers and employees), attracting and retaining talent would become increasingly harder. Drawing heavily from the human capital/resource-based view logic that dominated strategic HR discourse at that time, they equated talent with being an “A player,” meaning that a person belongs to the top 10%–20% in terms of performance and contribution to the company (p. 127). Again, what we see here is an emphasis on interpersonal excellence, meaning that a person is seen as having or being “talent” on the basis of demonstrating exceptional skill as compared to others (Nijs et al., 2014). There is one major problem with this type of definition of talent – many people deeply dislike it and therefore refuse to adhere to it (Holck & Stjerne, 2019). They typically argue that it is both impossible and undesirable to determine which employees are “better” than others. Surely, such evaluations depend on subjective impressions and biased criteria (Highhouse, 2008), office politics and nepotism (Dries & De Gieter, 2014), and are harmful to self-esteem and morale (Swailes & Blackburn, 2016), creating a “winners versus losers” hierarchy in which opportunities for growth and development are unfairly hoarded by A players (Malik & Singh, 2014), thus creating self-fulfilling prophecies (Livingston, 2009). Rather, the proponents of “inclusive” talent management argue, organizations should recognize and reward different types of talents that people may have, and appreciate each individual employee in their own right, instead of having employees compete with each other for validation (Swailes et al., 2014). Importantly, although it is often believed – not in the least by proponents of the inclusive approach – that the exclusive approach to talent management is the most dominant one, Meyers et al.’s (2020) study showed that it was actually 50-50 in an international sample of HR managers. In recent years, I have come to believe we can only interpret these trends in the literature, and these field data, as indications of the following: that inclusive talent management, as a phenomenon, is equally legitimate as exclusive talent management. What I propose, however – based on the ideas of many others, including but not limited to Eva Gallardo, Sanne Nijs, Giverny De Boeck, Christina Meyers, and Stephen Swailes – is that we refine our constructs to allow systematic empirical study and theorization of the different forms that the phenomenon of talent management can take in the field. Specifically, I suggest that the constructs of giftedness and talent reflect an inherently exclusive approach to talent management, whereas potential and strength reflect an inherently inclusive approach. Thus, although I believe we should stick to the terminology of exclusive and inclusive talent management – as this dichotomy is quite established in the literature at this point in time – I also believe that inclusive talent management research would be better served by using the constructs of “strengths” and/or “potential” rather than “talent.” As outlined above, the etymological and historical origins of talent have consistently referred to it as being something “exclusive.” Compare this to the etymological origins of the term “potential” – which derives from the Latin potens, meaning “capable.” Aristotle (in his seminal work “Nicomachean Ethics”) linked the construct of potential to eudaimonia, or the achievement of a meaningful life through the purposeful fulfillment of one’s potential (as opposed to hedonia; the pursuit of a pleasurable life), in line with one’s “personally expressive, self-concordant goals” (Sheldon, 2002). I argue that the essence of the difference between the inclusive and exclusive approach to talent management lies in whether “excellence” is defined more along the lines of personal “thriving” versus interpersonal “outperforming.” In Table 1, I present formal definitions for giftedness, talent, potential, and strength, based on the academic literature on each of these constructs. Table 1. Different “Talent” Constructs With Formal Definitions and Examples of Studies. Construct Definition Example of a Study Giftedness The possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed natural abilities, in at least one ability domain (i.e., intellectual, creative, socioaffective, sensimotor) to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10 percent of age peers (Gagné, 2004, p. 120). Corten, Nauta, and Ronner (2006): Qualitative study on the characteristics, pitfalls and management needs of intellectually gifted employees in the workplace. Talent The outstanding mastery of systematically developed abilities and knowledge in at least one field of human activity (i.e., academics, arts, business, leisure, social action, sports, technology) to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10 percent of age peers, (a) who have attempted to master the specific skills of that field or fields as well, and (b) who have learned and practiced for approximately the same amount of time (Gagné, 2004, p. 120). Nijs, Dries, van Vlasselaer, and Sels (2021): Data mining study examining talent hierarchies in teams – that is, configurations of characteristics and behaviors that lead to being seen as “most talented team member.” Potential The modifiability of unobservable structures that have not as yet become actual, or exist in possibility, capable of development in actuality; the existence of underlying abilities and skills that are currently not being fully used or demonstrated – reflecting the possibility that individuals can become something more than what they currently are. It implies further growth and development to reach some desired end state. In work environments, potential is typically used to suggest that an individual has the qualities (e.g., characteristics, motivation, skills, abilities, and experiences) to effectively perform and contribute in broader or different roles in the organization at some point in the future (Silzer & Church, 2009, pp. 379–381). De Boeck, Dries, and Tierens (2019): Longitudinal mixed-method study examining the relationship between the (non-)fulfillment of potential and work meaningfulness. Strength Characteristics of a person that allow them to perform well or at their personal best, developed on the basis of naturally occurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior. For these to become a strength, they must first be identified and then refined and developed with the appropriate skills and knowledge, which requires a high level of personal investment (Page & Vella-Brodrick, 2009, p. 452; Wood, Linley, Maltby, Kashdan, & Hurling, 2011, p. 15). Wood et al. (2011): Longitudinal study examining the effects of strengths use in the workplace on stress, self-esteem, vitality, and positive affect. Source: Author’s original work. In Fig. 1, I organize these four constructs along two dimensions, reflecting how they relate to each other. Specifically, while potential and giftedness represent aptitudes, strength and talent represent systematically developed abilities. And while potential and strength refer to abilities allowing a person to perform at their “personal best,” giftedness and talent refer to abilities allowing a person to perform better than others – that is, at the “interpersonal best” level. For example, a person can say they have a “language brain” more so than a “math brain,” meaning that they see languages as a personal strength of theirs. But only when that person’s language skills are better than those of (most) others (of the same age and experience level), would we also call it a “talent” of theirs. In addition, a potential can be developed into a strength, if a person systematically applies themselves to it; and a strength can in turn be developed into a talent, if a person becomes so good at something that they surpass the typical performance level of 80–90% of their peers. As for the relationship between giftedness and talent, Françoys Gagné (who wrote many of the most-cited articles on giftedness) famously said that “you can be gifted at something without being talented at it, but you cannot be talented at something without having an underlying gift for it.” What he means by this is that if two people devote 10,000 hours of their life to perfecting a certain skill (he uses the example of Olympic athletes), but one of them has a genetic (or early childhood) advantage over the other, that person will always outperform the other. In other words, although many types of skills and abilities can certainly be learned and trained, it will still be extremely difficult to compete with a person who has a higher aptitude for it – and who has trained equally hard as a person with a lower aptitude (Gagné, 2004). Conversely, it is also possible that a person has a gift for something that they never develop fully – either because they are unaware of it or unmotivated to pursue it – and therefore do not become “talented” at it (Gagné, 2004). Opens in a new window.Fig. 1.Mapping the (Relationships Between the) Different “Talent” Constructs. Talent as Phenomenon We can now map Meyers and van Woerkom’s (2014) talent philosophies onto each of these four constructs and, in turn, relate each talent philosophy (and construct) to a logical set of talent management practices. In their seminal article, the authors already made some suggestions as to what types of practices make more sense for what type of talent philosophy (cf. Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014, Table 1). Below and in Fig. 2, I complement their ideas with insights I gained through the “talent philosophy” practitioner workshops I have run for the last 10 years or so – and additional literature reviews I have conducted based on those insights. Opens in a new window.Fig. 2.Linking the Different “Talent” Constructs to Talent Philosophies and Talent Management Practices. Exclusive/Innate Talent Philosophy The construct that best fits the exclusive/innate talent philosophy – both in research and in talent management practice – is giftedness. Admittedly, this is a construct that is more often used in reference to gifted children than in the context of business (Gagné, 2004). That said, several management authors have written about phenomena quite similar to giftedness, in the context of talent management in companies – most notably, Morgan McCall who wrote several thought-provoking books (1998; McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988) and articles (McCall, 2004; Spreitzer, McCall, & Mahoney, 1997) on what he called “X factor” thinking in management. (I should probably note that McCall clearly holds an exclusive/developable talent philosophy.) Basically, the idea behind this type of talent philosophy is that (an exceptionally high level of) talent is something you either “have” or you don’t. This type of discourse is most evident when talking about prodigies or geniuses like Mozart, Messi, or Einstein (Meyers, van Woerkom, & Dries, 2013). The argument is that some people are so amazingly gifted that no amount of training or development could help more “average” mortals approach their level. In the business context, this type of rationale is applied in particular to leadership. In recent decades, there has been a lot of debate as to what extent great leadership is developable, especially when we are talking about transformational (Johnson et al., 1998) or charismatic leadership (Gibson, Hannon, & Blackwell, 1999). In an interview study I did with 14 people identified as “talents” by their organization (Dries & Pepermans, 2008), a majority among them (13 out of 14) said that they believed their abilities were at least partly innate or had emerged in their childhood – citing leadership roles in youth associations (such as scouting) and fraternities/sororities as evidence of their natural leadership. So what types of talent management practices offer a logical “fit” (Garrow & Hirsh, 2008) with the exclusive/innate talent philosophy and the associated construct of giftedness? Clearly, such practices should focus heavily on assessment and selection, as the underlying assumption of this philosophy is that there exist rare individuals “out there” who must be “found” and recruited. Headhunting and direct search make most sense as external recruitment practices for this type of talent management approach (cf. the “make or buy” question; Groysberg, Lee, & Nanda, 2008), while forced ranking of the performance of one’s current staff is a fitting approach for internal talent identification (Blume, Baldwin, & Rubin, 2009). As it is assumed, in this approach, that the basis underlying observable “talent” is largely dispositional, I argue that when budgetary choices need to be made, it makes most sense for organizations adhering to this philosophy to invest in talent identification rather than development. In addition, as talent is assumed to be highly rare in this approach, a strong differentiation in resources – allocating more talent management budget to a small subset of employees who are expected to generate a disproportionate return on investment (ROI) (Huselid & Becker, 2011; O’Boyle & Aguinis, 2012) – also follows logically. Case examples representing the exclusive/innate philosophy would be Apple (at least, Apple under the management of the late Steve Jobs) and Tesla (under the management of Elon Musk). We see both founders here, talking about how they define “talent” – as gifted people demonstrating exceptional ability and work ethic: Steve Jobs (Apple): https://youtu.be/a7mS9ZdU6k4 Elon Musk (Tesla): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQbKctnnA-Y Exclusive/Developed Talent Philosophy The construct that best fits the exclusive/developed talent philosophy is talent. In this approach, the focus lies on an élite subset of employees who are seen as having high potential and are being further developed to take up key strategic roles in their organization (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). As opposed to the construct of giftedness, the focus here lies much more on development, although it is still targeted only at those employees who are considered high potentials to begin with. Most organizations that I encountered in my field research over the years run such programs only for around 20–30 employees annually (e.g., through custom-designed, company-specific MBA programs at renowned business schools), even when they have several thousands of employees. The reason why I say this talent philosophy is centered around the construct of “talent” and not “high potential” is because in my experience, this type of talent management sees such employees as being “on trial.” That is, they are considered high potentials up until the point where they either prove they indeed have observable, measurable talent or are “eliminated” from the race and seen as “false positives” who did not live up to their potential (Dries & De Gieter, 2014). In other words, being seen as a high potential is considered only a temporary state that either develops further into the much more tangible construct of talent (mostly equated to high performance in this approach) or dissipates into thin air (Silzer & Church, 2009). In terms of practices, this view translates itself into high-potential, fast-track development programs that can feature MBA courses, executive coaching or mentoring, international assignments, and job rotations (cf. Dries & Pepermans, 2008, Table 4). Along the way, the performance of the members of the cohort is closely monitored to see if they, indeed, perform well under changing and novel circumstances (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000) and are consistently rated high performers by whoever they work with next. Those who “survive” are destined to become the future leaders of the organization, as they demonstrate the “helicopter view” and “generalist” leadership talent typically expected of corporate executives (Altman, 1997). A case example representing the exclusive/developed philosophy is the BESIX Potential Academy. Every year, a cohort of 25 employees is selected from an employee population of 14,000 employees worldwide to come to Belgium for a custom-made MBA program at Vlerick Business School and/or Solvay Business School. The idea is to offer their most “high-potential” employees a head start in developing a helicopter view of the business and give them access to mentoring by members from the Board of Directors. After the program, however, it is expected that the participants – who are typically under 35 – take their career into their own hands and figure out how to move forward with what they learned in the highly intensive (short) program themselves. Key values for career development at BESIX are proactivity and self-directedness. For more information, see https://www.besix.com/en/careers/top-reasons-to-join-us/your-development-our-priority. Inclusive/Innate Talent Philosophy The construct that best fits the inclusive/innate talent philosophy is potential. Note that I am not talking about “high-potentials” here (which is an exclusive construct; see, for instance, the work by Finkelstein, Costanza, & Goodwin, 2018), but rather potential in the broadest sense – referring to abilities that exist in a person latently but have not yet “come out.” The interesting thing about untapped potential – as opposed to high potential – is that it is a negative construct, one that I believe is rarely addressed or assessed both in research and in organizational practice. In research, a former doctoral student of mine (Giverny De Boeck) did her entire dissertation on the construct of untapped potential (i.e., potential that is not yet fulfilled and/or observable), from which an empirical study was published in Journal of Management Studies (De Boeck et al., 2019). Specifically, she asked a representative sample of 1,028 Belgian employees to indicate, on a sliding scale, what percentage of their (perceived) potential they were currently not utilizing at work (and why). On average, respondents indicated that they had 30% untapped potential at work. Reasons cited were being overqualified for one’s job, having a bad relationship with one’s supervisor or not being taken seriously due to being “only a lower-level worker” or being low educated. In organizational practice, interestingly, untapped potential could be assessed by looking at negative performance indicators, such as a lack of engagement with work, performing below one’s ability or education level, or the lack of identification with one’s job or profession. What I mean by this is that, when a