web viewthere are four major approaches to ... (2006) finding that the various forms ... assertion...

Exclusive Talent Management, Perceived Organisational Justice & Employee Engagement:

Bridging the Literature

By Mr. Edward P. O’Connor,Maynooth University School of Business, Maynooth, Ireland.

Email: [email protected]&

Dr. Marian Crowley-Henry,School of Business, Maynooth University School of Business, Maynooth,

Ireland.

Stream 4 - Working Paper

.

Abstract

Purpose - This conceptual paper explores the relationship between an organisation’s

exclusive talent management (TM) practices, the effects this has on its employees’

perceptions of organisational justice, and the implications for employee engagement. The

paper develops a conceptual framework from a detailed review of the literature, where

exclusive talent management, organisational justice and employee engagement overlap.

Design/methodology/approach – This conceptual paper is based on a review of the

academic literature at the intersection of exclusive TM, organisational justice and employee

engagement.

Findings – From the extant research, we postulate that in organisations pursuing exclusive

TM programmes the different components of organisational justice, such as procedural and

distributive justice (Gelens et al., 2013), together with perceptions on exclusive TM practices,

impact upon employee engagement (Purang, 2011). This in turn affects organisational

outcomes such as performance and retention (Gelens et al., 2014, Wooten and Cobb, 1999).

Originality/value – From our analysis, we construct and present a model depicting the

relationship between exclusive TM practices and employee engagement. The propositions in

the model are each supported by the respective literature. In unpacking how exclusive TM

practices can impact on employee engagement, the paper is relevant for academics in this

domain by bridging the literatures on TM, organisational justice and employee engagement.

The research is also relevant for organisations to understand in terms of the antecedents and

consequences of employee engagement which may be under the organisation’s control.

Keywords – Talent management, Employee Engagement, Organizational Justice, Procedural

Justice, Distributive Justice

.

Introduction

This conceptual paper presents the findings from a review of the literature on the justice of

exclusive talent management (TM) practices, and the implications this has for employee

engagement in the workplace.

The research concentrates on two questions;

1. How does exclusive TM practices by organisations impact on employees’ perceived

organisational justice?

2. What are the implications of question 1. on employee engagement in the workplace?

TM and employee engagement are currently two popular topics in management studies and

both have captured the interest of practitioners and academics alike (Hughes and Rog, 2008,

Saks and Gruman, 2014). Much of what has been written about both concepts comes from the

practitioner and consultant literature (Saks, 2006, Lewis and Heckman, 2006). The third

concept, organisational justice, is a popular medium with which to understand employee

reactions to organisational practices (Gelens et al., 2013, Gelens et al., 2014, Malik and

Singh, 2014), such as TM.

The links between the concepts are mostly examined under social exchange theory (SET)

(Biswas et al., 2013, Gelens et al., 2013, Mirvis, 2012, Saks, 2006, Ghosh et al., 2014), which

is a “well-established theoretical framework” (Ghosh et al., 2014, p.634). Social exchange

theory involves a series of interactions that generate obligations, with these interactions

usually seen as interdependent and contingent on the actions of another person (Emerson,

1976). These interactions, over time, can develop into high quality, committed and trusting

relationships, once all parties involved abide by the ‘rules’ of the exchange (Cropanzano and

Mitchell, 2005).

.

The paper is structured as follows: First it summarises the review process used and then

provides a summary of the review findings. It then builds up our postulation on the linkage

between the concepts on the basis of past research and extant literature. The paper concludes

with the study’s limitations and the scope for further research in the domains of TM,

organizational justice and employee engagement.

The Literature Review Process

The aim of a literature review is “to enable the researcher both to map and to assess the

existing intellectual territory, and to specify a research question to develop the existing body

of knowledge” (Tranfield et al., 2003, p.208). The paper reviews the literature at the

intersection of exclusive talent management, organisational justice and employee

engagement.

The rationale behind this paper is to review the existing literature on organisational justice,

exclusive TM and employee engagement and, using past research, develop the linkage

between the concepts in order to answer our research questions and provide direction for

future research. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted, as per the sequence of

.

Figure 1. Scope of Study

steps as devised by Tranfield et al. (2003) and Pittaway et al. (2004) (The SLR process is

detailed in appendix 1). A final total of 72 papers were reviewed..

Talent Management

Talent management is one of the most debated practices in the HRM field (Thunnissen et al.,

2013), and is an area that lacks theory and distinct academic boundaries (Lewis and

Heckman, 2006). Iles et al. (2010) , in a review of the literatures’ conceptualisation of talent

and TM, list four main perspectives on TM:

1. Exclusive-people view where an employee’s added value to the organisation is used

as a form of workforce differentiation

2. Exclusive-position view focuses on differentiating employees according to the

importance of their organisational role or position.

3. Inclusive-people view operates on the belief that all employees are talented in one

form or another, with the potential to add value to the organisation.

4. Social capital perspective, which regards the work context and culture as an important

part of TM.

There are also a number of disputed areas, or tensions in the literature (Dries, 2013). In this

paper, the inclusive/exclusive tension is under scrutiny. Inclusive TM argues that everyone in

the organisation has talent, and “the organization's task is to provide equal opportunities so all

employees can reach their potential” (Malik and Singh, 2014, p.3). This follows the general

HRM principle that all employees’ performances are to be managed.

Conversely exclusive TM regards some workers as more talented than others, and thus more

valuable (Dries, 2013). This is the more practiced form of TM in organisations today, mainly

due to perceived cost effectiveness and efficiency (Gelens et al., 2013) and as such is the

form of TM that this paper is concerned with.

.

While the exclusive form of TM has been advocated by some (Iles et al., 2010, Gallardo-

Gallardo et al., 2013), there are also more negative criticisms of the practice. The effects of

categorizing a small percentage of the workforce “as having special powers” (Swailes, 2013a,

p.37) is seen as raising ethical questions and being problematic, and employees who perceive

organizational practices as unfair are likely to be dissatisfied (Wan et al., 2012).

A limited number of studies have concentrated on the impact of TM practices, mainly taking

a meso perspective on organisational effects. This is despite TM practices also having effects

at the micro level, such as affecting employee attitudes and behaviours (Gelens et al., 2014).

However, Swailes (2013a) argues that not all employees are troubled over exclusive TM,

with many unconcerned whether or not they are selected for talent programmes. This paper

concentrates on those that are concerned with their selection (or not) for TM programmes and

considers how these employees’ perceptions of organizational justice toward them (in being

talented or not) impacts on their workplace engagement. This is important as “effective TM

practices demonstrate commitment to human capital, resulting in more engaged employees”

(Bhatnagar, 2007, p.645), with more engaged employees leading to positive organisational

outcomes.

Employee Engagement

Saks (2006) observes that multiple definitions of employee engagement exist and there is a

general lack of consensus in the literature on what employee engagement actually means

(Shuck, 2011). However, Saks and Gruman (2014) find there are two influential definitions

of engagement in the academic literature, from Kahn (1990) and Maslach et al. (2001).

Kahn (1990) defines ‘personal engagement’ as “the harnessing of organization members’

selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically,

cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p.694), and describes

.

engagement as the “simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred self’ in

task behaviours that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical,

cognitive, and emotional), and active, full role performance” (Kahn, 1990, p.700). Kahn

(1990) contends that three psychological states are needed for this engagement to happen;

meaningfulness, safety and availability. Meaningfulness is a “feeling that one is receiving a

return on investments of one's self in a currency of physical, cognitive, or emotional energy”

(Kahn, 1990, p.704). Employees experience meaningfulness when they feel worthwhile,

useful, appreciated and not taken for granted (Kahn, 1990). Safety is when employees can

employ ones “self without fear or negative consequences”, (Kahn, 1990, p.708), and feel the

organisation is supportive and trusting. Availability concerns how ready employees are to

engage and “place their selves fully into role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p.714). This

availability depends on employees having the “physical, emotional or psychological

resources” (Kahn, 1990, p.714) needed to cope with both work and non-work aspects of their

lives. Kahn suggests these three psychological states have a significant impact on employees’

physical, emotional and cognitive engagement. Studies have since shown that all three states

were important constructs in creating an engaged workforce (Harter et al., 2002, Shuck,

2011).

In the second definition by Maslach et al. (2001), in their paper on job burnout, they describe

engagement as “an energetic state of involvement with personally fulfilling activities that

enhance one’s sense of professional efficacy” (Maslach et al., 2001, p.498) and engagement

is characterised by “energy, involvement, and efficacy”. This is the positive antithesis of job

burnout and its three dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy (Maslach et al.,

2001).

These two influential definitions have since been amended or refined by various scholars.

Rich et al. (2010), in one of the first modern studies to re-examine Kahn’s domains of

.

engagement (Shuck, 2011) and drawing from Kahn (1990) and Ashforth and Humphrey

(1995), state engagement is a more complete representation of the self and that individuals

are only engaged when they are investing their “hands, head, & heart” (Ashforth &

Humphrey, 1995, p.110) in active, full work performance.

Schaufeli et al. (2002) define employee engagement as a state of mind that consists of three

components: vigour, dedication, and absorption, while Rothbard (2001) highlights that it

involves two critical components: attention and absorption.

There are four major approaches to employee engagement running through the literature:

Kahn’s (1990) Need-Satisfying approach, Maslach et al (2001) burnout-antithesis, Harter et

al (2002) satisfaction-engagement approach and Saks (2006) multidimensional approach.

These are summarised below:

Author(S) & Approach Contribution

Kahn (1990) Need Satisfying Approach

First application and use of engagement theory in the workplace (Shuck, 2011).Defined ‘personal engagement’ and ‘disengagement’ Early Theoretical Framework

Maslach et al.(2001) Burnout Antithesis

Conceptualises engagement as the positive antithesis of job burnout and its three dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy (Maslach et al., 2001).

Harter et al (2002) Satisfaction-Engagement

Much cited study, first to look at the effects of engagement at business unit level, suggesting a positive link between engagement and organisational outcomes.

Saks (2006) multidimensional approach

Multidimensional approach, hypothesised that employee engagement developed through social exchange model (Shuck, 2011). Differentiates separate types of engagement, finding “ a meaningful difference between job and organizational engagement” (Saks, 2006, p.600).

.

These approaches form what Shuck (2011) describes as “the scaffolding for the current

academic frameworks of employee engagement” (Shuck, 2011, p.316) and all four reach the

conclusion that “employee engagement inside organisations has the potential to significantly

impact important organisational outcomes” (Shuck, 2011, p.317).

The review revealed a strong relationship between employee engagement and positive

outcomes at both the meso (organizational) and micro (employee) levels. At the meso level,

employee engagement is seen as a key factor in areas such as organisational success (Rich et

al., 2010, Bhuvanaiah and Raya, 2014), higher shareholder return (Richman, 2006) and

improved customer satisfaction (Harter et al., 2002, Richman, 2006). Meanwhile micro level

studies demonstrat a positive relationship with organisational loyalty (Mehta and Mehta,

2013), employee wellbeing (Shuck and Reio, 2014), turnover intentions (Shuck et al., 2014)

and increased employee belief in CSR policies (Godkin, 2014). Overall the review presented

employee engagement as positive for organisations and individuals in ensuring performance

and in contributing to the organisation’s competitiveness.

Organisational Justice

Perceived organisational justice is defined as an employee’s “subjective perception of

fairness of allocation” (Gelens et al., 2013, p.343) and is directly related to the quality of the

employee-organizational relationship (Purang, 2011). Wooten and Cobb (1999) propound

that justice plays a particularly important role in career development, especially in areas

concerning the perceived fairness of organisational decisions affecting employees or their

colleagues. The concept is considered a suitable medium to examine and understand

employees’ reactions to exclusive TM (Gelens et al., 2013, Gelens et al., 2014, Malik and

Singh, 2014), while other authors establish a link between employee engagement and

organisational justice (Badewi, 2013, Ghosh et al., 2014, Mirvis, 2012, Saks, 2006).

.

There are three main forms of organisational justice: distributive justice, “the fairness of

outcomes distributions and allocations”(Thunnissen et al., 2013, p.332), procedural justice,

the perceived justice and fairness of the allocation process (Gelens et al., 2014) and

interactional justice, the quality of the interpersonal treatment people receive whilst

procedures are implemented (Thunnissen et al., 2013, p.332). Colquitt (2001) found that

interactional justice is made up of two separate forms of justice; interpersonal justice, how

employees are treated by those in authority, with respect, dignity etc; and informational

justice, how well employees are informed about procedures and processes that affect them.

An important finding for this research is how the various forms of justice moderate and

mediate the effects of organisational practices (Gelens et al., 2014) and the consequence of

the order effect of the different justice concepts (Van den Bos et al., 1997). Studies found

both distributive and procedural justice were linked to employee engagement (Biswas et al.,

2013), while in other studies distributive justice was found to have a greater effect at the

micro level, e.g. job engagement (Ghosh et al., 2014). Perceptions of procedural justice have

a greater effect at the meso level, such as organisational engagement (Saks, 2006).

An employee’s reaction to perceived injustice may result in “poor work attitudes, higher

incidents of interpersonal conflict and low job performance” (Mahajan and Benson, 2013,

p.723), and “low perceptions of fairness are likely to cause employees to withdraw and

disengage” (Ghosh et al., 2014, p.634), which is what we posit can happen with employees

not identified as high potentials in an organisation with exclusive TM practices.

Linking TM, organizational justice and employee engagement

For some employees exclusive TM practices have a negative effect on perceived

organisational justice (as contended by Gelens et al. (2014), Lacey and Groves (2014), Malik

and Singh (2014), Marescaux et al. (2013) among others) and, as perceived organisational

.

justice is an important element in employee engagement (as contended by Agarwal (2014),

Biswas et al. (2013), Ghosh et al. (2014), He et al. (2014), Li (2012), Saks (2006) and others)

we posit that exclusive TM may have a negative relationship with employee engagement,

through a mediating role played by organisational justice.

We posit that

P1. Employees labelled as talented, will experience higher levels of engagement. Employees labelled

as talented were found to be positively disposed to their recognition as being “talent” (Huselid and

Becker, 2011), dedicated with lower turnover intentions (Björkman et al., 2013) and have higher

perceptions of justice (Gelens et al., 2014). We contend that, as these have been recognised as

antecedents to engagement (Saks, 2006), that exclusive TM can affect employee engagement.

P2. Employees not labelled as talented may reciprocate with counterproductive attitudes and

behaviours, which is active disengagement. Marescaux et al. (2013) find workforce differentiation,

the core of exclusive TM, leads to negative effects, with lower affective commitment. Employees’

reaction to perceived injustice or inequality has been found to result in “poor work attitudes, higher

incidents of interpersonal conflict and low job performance” (Mahajan and Benson, 2013, p.723), and

.

Figure 2. Postulation framework

that “low perceptions of fairness are likely to cause employees to withdraw and disengage” (Ghosh et

al., 2014, p.634).

P3. SET does not happen in a straightforward way as every employee has their own perceptions of

fairness, just effort and reward. We posit that organisational justice, in its distributive and procedural

forms, will play a key role in how employees react to exclusive TM. Employees will evaluate the

fairness of themselves being labelled, or not, as talented, and will compare their estimated output with

their received resources and from this, if they perceive their contributions are/are not reciprocated by

the organisation, will experience more favourable/less favourable perceptions of distributive or

procedural justice.

P4. Perceptions of justice shape employee reactions (Cropanzano et al., 2007). Depending on the

perceived justice the employee will shape their reaction accordingly. In SET, if the employee

perceives an income/outcome imbalance, they will want to rebalance the relationship, as they want the

exchange relationship to be what they perceive as fair. Thus lower outcomes, as with some not

labelled as talented, will mean a lowering of work effort and commitment (Cohen-Charash and

Spector, 2001). On the other hand, some labelled as talented will respond positively as exclusive TM

positively affects their reactions (Gelens et al., 2014).

P5. Based on the moderating effects of interpersonal and informational justice, the effects of

procedural and distributive justice may be buffered. We posit that when employees are

provided with appropriate, clear information and fair treatment, and when they understand the

whole process, their reaction to announced TM outcomes may be moderated. However an

issue that inhibits this possible buffer to perceived injustice is the secrecy under which some

organisations operate their TM systems (Lacey and Groves, 2014), which prohibits the

provision of clear information and open procedures.

.

Discussion

Social scientists have long acknowledged that justice is vital in the effective running of an

organisation and for the satisfaction and fulfilment of its employees (Greenburg, 1990). In

this paper we have introduced a framework, constructed from a series of propositions, for

researching how perceptions of organizational justice concerning exclusive TM can affect

employee engagement.

The review suggests that organisational practices affect employee perceptions of fairness and

justice (Moorman, 1991) and that these perceptions affect employee engagement, with Ghosh

et al. (2014) and Saks (2006) finding that the various forms of justice predict and determine

employee engagement. This is supported by the Wooten and Cobb (1999) assertion that

organisation practices and career development interventions are “prone to perceptions of

distributive, procedural and interactional fairness” (Wooten and Cobb, 1999, p.177) by

employees. As one form of justice influences the others “the cumulative effects serve to

enhance the impact of fairness perceptions” of the organisation’s actions (Wooten and Cobb,

1999, p.177).

The review also established a link between perceived organisational justice and employee

reactions to exclusive TM practices (Gelens et al., 2014, Lacey and Groves, 2014, Swailes,

2013b), and it found that in some cases, such as with those not labelled as talented, that

exclusive TM was damaging to some employees’ perceptions of organizational justice, such

as the Lacey and Groves (2014) findings that ‘untalented’ employees experienced

marginality, isolation, distress and feelings of being undervalued.

As stated, the links between the concepts is mostly examined under SET (Biswas et al., 2013,

Gelens et al., 2013, Mirvis, 2012, Saks, 2006, Ghosh et al., 2014). However, under SET, for

employees to be engaged respect and trust must flow in both directions, with transparent

processes throughout (Doherty, 2010). If employees do not perceive they are being treated

.

fairly the employment relationship can suffer (Purang, 2011). The review has shown that

exclusive TM is damaging to some employees and their perceptions of justice (Lacey and

Groves, 2014, Gelens et al., 2014, Swailes, 2013a), thus we posit that exclusive TM, through

its effects on perceived organisational justice, can have an effect on employee engagement.

Study Limitations

This is a conceptual paper, with the conceptual model developed from a detailed review of

the literature. It requires empirical testing, preferably a longitudinal study, which would track

the categories of employees considered ‘talent’ or not in different organisation case studies,

in terms of their employee engagement scores. “At least seven different scales have been

developed to measure engagement” (Saks and Gruman, 2014, p.163), most based on Kahn’s

(1990) paper. However the most popular scale (Bakker et al., 2011, Klassen et al., 2012,

Shuck et al., 2015), the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) by Schaufeli et al. (2002),

is based on engagement being the antithesis of burnout. This research could be supplemented

with organisational information regarding information on progression (procedural,

information justice) and with interviews with employees recording their perceptions on

whether their respective organisation is perceived to practice exclusive TM and on

organisational justice. The propositions which form the basis of the model shared in the paper

serve as researchable propositions for further research.

The model focuses on the micro level analysis – how employees’ engagement may be

affected by an organisation’s exclusive talent management practices. It does not develop or

discuss in depth the meso perspective from the organisation with regards to the organisation’s

TM practices. It does, however, suggest the organisational implications of employees’

engagement, rendering the model of importance for organisations.

.

Conclusion

This paper bridges the current literature on the justice and fairness of exclusive talent

management practices and its relationship with employee engagement. Our review lays the

foundation for future empirical work to test our propositions. We initiate a consideration of

the relationship between exclusive TM, organisational justice and employee engagement,

which has not, to our knowledge, been done before. More research is required in this area, to

unpack the ramifications of exclusive TM practices on employee engagement and welfare,

and also on organisational performance and social justice. At the organisational level, “there

is an increasing body of compelling research linking TM and employee engagement with

bottom line results” (Hughes and Rog, 2008). However, organisations also need to be more

conscious of the extended effects of their TM programmes (Malik and Singh, 2014) on

individual employees, on the organisation’s performance and competiveness and the knock-

on effects for the wider society.

.

References

AGARWAL, U. A. 2014. Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement. Personnel Review, 43, 41-73.

ANITHA, J. 2014. Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63, 308-323.

ASHFORTH, B. E. & HUMPHREY, R. H. 1995. Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. ,. Human Relations, 48.

BADEWI, A. 2013. MIS Research Methodology Course (2) Positivism V.S Interpretivism [Online]. Cranfield. [Accessed 18 December 2014].

BAKKER, A. B., ALBRECHT, S. L. & LEITER, M. P. 2011. Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 4-28.

BERRY, M. L. & MORRIS, M. L. 2008. The Impact of Employee Engagement Factors and Job Satisfaction on Turnover Intent, Online Submission.

BHATNAGAR, J. 2007. Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES employees: Key to retention. Employee Relations, 29, 640-663.

BHUVANAIAH, T. & RAYA, R. P. 2014. Employee Engagement: Key to Organizational Success. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 11, 61-71.

BISWAS, S., VARMA, A. & RAMASWAMI, A. 2013. Linking distributive and procedural justice to employee engagement through social exchange: a field study in India. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 1570-1587.

BJÖRKMAN, I., EHRNROOTH, M., MÄKELÄ, K., SMALE, A. & SUMELIUS, J. 2013. Talent or Not? Employee Reactions to Talent Identification. Human Resource Management, 52, 195-214.

COHEN-CHARASH, Y. & SPECTOR, P. E. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.

COLQUITT, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.

CROPANZANO, R., BOWEN, D. E. & GILLILAND, S. W. 2007. The Management of Organizational Justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 34-48.

DRIES, N. 2013. The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 23, 272-285.

GALLARDO-GALLARDO, E., DRIES, N. & GONZÁLEZ-CRUZ, T. F. 2013. What is the meaning of ‘talent’ in the world of work? Human Resource Management Review, 23, 290-300.

GELENS, J., DRIES, N., HOFMANS, J. & PEPERMANS, R. 2013. The role of perceived organizational justice in shaping the outcomes of talent management: A research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 23, 341-353.

GELENS, J., HOFMANS, J., DRIES, N. & PEPERMANS, R. 2014. Talent management and organisational justice: employee reactions to high potential identification. Human Resource Management Journal, n/a-n/a.

GHOSH, P., RAI, A. & SINHA, A. 2014. Organizational justice and employee engagement: Exploring the linkage in public sector banks in India. Personnel Review, 43, 628-652.

GODKIN, L. 2014. Mid-management, employee engagement, and the generation of reliable sustainable corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics.

GREENBURG, J. 1990. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.

HARTER, J. K., SCHMIDT, F. L. & HAYES, T. L. 2002. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,, 87.

.

HE, H., ZHU, W. & ZHENG, X. 2014. Procedural Justice and Employee Engagement: Roles of Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Centrality. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 681-695.

HUGHES, J. C. & ROG, E. 2008. Talent management: A strategy for improving employee recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality organizations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20, 743-757.

HUSELID, M. A. & BECKER, B. E. 2011. Bridging micro & macro domains: Workforce differentiation and strategic human resource management. Journal of Management, 37, 421-428.

ILES, P., CHUAI, X. & PREECE, D. 2010. Talent Management and HRM in Multinational companies in Beijing: Definitions, differences and drivers. Journal of World Business, 45, 179-189.

KAHN, W. A. 1990. Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. The Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.

KLASSEN, R. M., ALDHAFRI, S., MANSFIELD, C. F., PURWANTO, E., SIU, A. F. Y., WONG, M. W. & WOODS-MCCONNEY, A. 2012. Teachers’ engagement at work: An international validation study. Journal of Experimental Education, 80, 317-337.

LACEY, M. Y. & GROVES, K. 2014. Talent management collides with corporate social responsibility: creation of inadvertent hypocrisy. Journal of Management Development,, 33, 399-409.

LEWIS, R. E. & HECKMAN, R. J. 2006. Talent management: A critical review. Human Resource Management Review 16, 139-154.

LI, H. A study on the relationships among organizational justice, organizational identification, and work engagement: The evidence from the hi-tech service industries. Proceedings - 2012 International Joint Conference on Service Sciences, Service Innovation in Emerging Economy: Cross-Disciplinary and Cross-Cultural Perspective, IJCSS 2012, 2012. 72-77.

MAHAJAN, A. & BENSON, P. 2013. Organisational justice climate, social capital and firm performance. Journal of Management Development, 32, 721-736.

MALIK, A. R. & SINGH, P. 2014. ‘high potential’ programs: Let's hear it for ‘b’ players. Human Resource Management Review.

MARESCAUX, E., DE WINNE, S. & SELS, L. 2013. HR practices and affective organisational commitment: (when) does HR differentiation pay off? Human Resource Management Journal, 23, 329-345.

MASLACH, C., SCHAUFELLI, W. B. & LEITER, M. P. 2001. Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.

MEHTA, D. & MEHTA, N. K. 2013. Employee Engagement: A Literature Review. Economia: Seria Management, 16, 208-215.

MIRVIS, P. 2012. Employee Engagement and CSR: TRANSACTIONAL, RELATIONAL, AND DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACHES. California Management Review, 54, 93-117.

MOORMAN, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855.

PETTICREW, M. & ROBERTS, H. 2006. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences. A practical guide., Oxford, Blackwell publishing.

PITTAWAY, L., ROBERTSON, M., MUNIR, K., DENYER, D. & NEELY, A. 2004. Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5, 137-168.

PURANG, P. 2011. Organisational justice and affective commitment: The mediating role of perceived organisational justice. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 16, 141-156.

RICH, B. L., LEPINE, J. A. & CRAWFORD, E. R. 2010. JOB ENGAGEMENT: ANTECEDENTS AND EFFECTS ON JOB PERFORMANCE. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617-635.

RICHMAN, A. 2006. Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it? Workspan, 49, 36-39.

.

ROTHBARD, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-684.

SAKS, A. M. 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619.

SAKS, A. M. & GRUMAN, J. A. 2014. What do we really know about employee engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 155-182.

SCHAUFELI, W. B., SALANOVA, M., GONZALEZ-ROMA, V. & BAKKER, A., 3(1), 71–92. 2002. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Hapiness Studies, 3.

SHUCK, B. 2011. Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 10, 304-328.

SHUCK, B. & REIO, T. G., JR. 2014. Employee engagement and well-being: A moderation model and implications for practice. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 43-58.

SHUCK, B., TWYFORD, D., REIO, T. G., JR. & SHUCK, A. 2014. Human Resource Development Practices and Employee Engagement: Examining the Connection with Employee Turnover Intentions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 239-270.

SHUCK, B., ZIGARMI, D. & OWEN, J. 2015. Psychological needs, engagement, and work intentions: A Bayesian multi-measurement mediation approach and implications for HRD. European Journal of Training & Development, 39, 2-21.

SWAILES, S. 2013a. The ethics of talent management. Business Ethics: A European Review, 22, 32-46.SWAILES, S. 2013b. Troubling some assumptions: A response to “The role of perceived organizational

justice in shaping the outcomes of talent management: A research agenda”. Human Resource Management Review, 23, 354-356.

THUNNISSEN, M., BOSELIE, P. & FRUYTIER, B. 2013. Talent management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach. Human Resource Management Review, 23, 326-336.

TRANFIELD, D., DENYER, D. & SMART, P. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207-222.

VAN DEN BOS, K., VERMUNT, R. & WILKE, H. A. M. 1997. Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 95-104.

WAN, H. L., SULAIMAN, M. & OMARB, A. 2012. Procedural justice in promotional decisions. Asia Pacific Business Review, 18, 99-121.

WOOTEN, K. C. & COBB, A. T. 1999. Career Development and Organizational Justice: Practice and Research Implications. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10, 173-178.

.

Appendix 1. The Systematic Literature Review (SLR) Process

The SLR process for this paper utilised the sequence of steps as devised by Tranfield et al.

(2003) and Pittaway et al. (2004). The sequences of steps in the process are:

1. Initial Study, 2. Pilot Study, 3. Categorization of Literature, 4. Review of Literature

and 5. Synthesis of Review.

1. Initial Study.

The literature review commenced with an initial study of the subject area, with the keywords

‘employee engagement’, ‘talent management’ and ‘justice’ used to perform a broad scoping

search of the Business Source Complete and Academic Search Complete databases.

1. Academic Search Complete – Over 13,600 peer reviewed journals.

2. Business Source Complete – Over 2,400 peer reviewed journals.

To ensure concentration on the relevant areas, articles were limited to those with the search

string terms appearing in the abstract or title, published in the English language and peer-

reviewed. This search returned 30 possible papers.

The initial search is designed to identify key scholars and papers across the research areas.

The bibliographies and citations of these articles are also analysed and the key authors in the

field were identified. The led to further searches of each author to review their specific

articles and a further search was conducted of the main citing papers. This process added 9

papers.

.

Search String Data-Bases LimitersFields Searched Returns Returns

SavedReturns

Used

“employee engagement”& “justice”

Academic Search CompleteBusiness Source Complete

TitleTitlePeer reviewed1990 - 2015

3 3 2



TitleAbstractPeer reviewed1990 - 2015

6 5 4



AbstractTitlePeer reviewed1990 - 2015

5 3 1



AbstractAbstractPeer reviewed1990 - 2015

8 1 0

“employee engagement”& “talent management”



2 2 2




6 3 3




7 2 1




17 5 4

“justice”& “talent management”



3 3 3




2 2 0




3 1 1

2. Pilot Study

.

Initial Study

Keywords and synonyms from the returned papers in step 1 were used to create more

complex search strings for the second step, the pilot study. In the searches for this stage the

full range of the EBSCO library of databases, along with the Scopus database, were utilised

to complete a wide ranging and multi-disciplinary search for peer reviewed papers.

Using the keywords searches were conducted in the 24 EBSCO library databases, which

contains over 515,000 e-books plus access to 360,000 e-journals, e-journal packages and

print journals. Searches were also conducted in the SCOPUS citation database, which has

access to just under 22,000 titles and 5000 publishers. The returns from this stage are detailed

below. These returns exclude duplicates from the initial search

Pilot Study – with revised search strings

Search Strings"talent management" or "high potential programs" or "workforce differentiation"

"job engagement" or "employee engagement" or "personal engagement" or "organizational engagement" or "work engagement"

“justice”

Pilot Study – with revised search strings used to search SCOPUS citation database


SavedReturns

Used

“employee engagement” + synonyms& “justice”

SCOPUS

Article title, Abstract & Keywords for both terms1990 - 2015

29 11 6

“employee engagement” + synonyms& “talent management” + synonyms

SCOPUS


18 3 2

“justice”& “talent management” + synonyms

SCOPUS


4 0 0

Pilot Study – with revised search strings and searching entire Ebsco library

.


SavedReturns

Used


Ebsco Library


20 4 3


Ebsco Library


28 3 1


Ebsco Library


33 1 1


Ebsco Library


58 2 2


Ebsco Library


2 0 0


Ebsco Library


8 0 0


Ebsco Library


9 3 1


Ebsco Library


41 12 5


Ebsco Library


4 1 1


Ebsco Library


5 0 0


Ebsco Library


4 1 0


Ebsco Library


7 1 0

The bibliographies and citations of these articles are also analysed and the key authors in the

field were identified. This process added 6 papers.

3. Literature Categorisation

.

The next stage, literature categorisation, involved developing an exclusion and inclusion list

of the returned articles identified in the previous searches. The inclusion/exclusion criteria

used, which were subjective in nature, were designed to create a resulting return of papers

that were most relevant to the research topic. This resulted in a final total of 72 papers

reviewed.

Inclusion List – VIPs (Very Important Papers)Papers with Employee Engagement, TM and Org Justice as main theme or subject.Papers with Employee Engagement and TM and as main theme or subject.Papers with Employee Engagement and Org Justice as main theme or subject.Papers with TM and Org Justice as main theme or subject.Papers identified as seminal or foundation papers - e.g. (Kahn, 1990)Papers with employee engagement, TM or Org. justice definitions or conceptsPapers by key authors identified in VIPsLit reviews on Employee Engagement, TM and Org. Justice

Inclusion List – Important PapersPapers with antecedents or outcomes of Employee Engagement, TM and Org JusticeCase studies on Employee Engagement, TM and Org JusticePapers on measuring or scales for Employee Engagement and Org JusticePapers which may provide insights into study’s area and related fields.Articles which provide background on developments in the Employee Engagement, TM and Org Justice fields which would be helpful in providing context

Exclusion List – All PapersPractitioner papers and articlesPapers with Employee Engagement, TM and Org Justice as minor theme or secondary subject.Papers with Employee Engagement and TM and as minor theme or secondary subject.Papers with Employee Engagement and Org Justice as minor theme or secondary subject.Papers which were deemed not relevant to the study as they did not provide any additional information or insights.

.

4. Review of the Literature

At this stage each individual paper is scrutinized critically to determine whether it fits with

the research, and if it does, where does it belong? This process involves determining whether

any studies or selection criteria are affected by bias. This is important as the

inclusion/exclusion criteria used to select papers is created by a subjective process. This part

of the SLR process is sometimes called critical appraisal or as assessing study quality

(Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). This step is to assess whether the research is of a quality,

suitability and depth to answer the research questions in an unbiased and adequate manner.

To aid in this I used the list of appraisal questions for qualitative research as advocated by

Petticrew and Roberts (2006), which are detailed below.

Eighteen appraisal questions for qualitative research

1. How credible are the findings?

2. How has knowledge or understanding been extended by the research?

3. How well does the evaluation address its original aims and purpose?

4. How well is the scope for drawing wider inference explained?

5. How clear is the basis of evaluative appraisal?

6. How defensible is the research design?

7. How well defended are the sample design/target selection of cases/documents?

8. How well is the eventual sample composition and coverage described?

9. How well was the data collection carried out?

10. How well has the approach to, and formulation of, analysis been conveyed?

11. How well are the contexts of data sources retained and portrayed?

12. How well has diversity of perspective and content been explored?

13. How well have detail, depth, and complexity (i.e. richness) of the data been conveyed?

14. How clear are the links between data, interpretation and conclusions.

15. How clear and coherent is the reporting?

16. How clear are the assumptions/theoretical perspectives/values that have shaped the form

and output of the evaluation?

17. What evidence is there of attention to ethical issues?

18. How adequately has the research process been documented?

.

5. Synthesis of Review

“Synthesizing evidence is like assembling a jigsaw” (Petticrew, 2006, p.125), with the

previous steps of the review concerned with finding and sorting the right pieces. For

qualitative social studies the findings are usually too “too heterogeneous to permit a statistical

summary” (Petticrew, 2006, p.126), so a narrative analysis was utilised. This involved

organising the returned papers into groups of meta-themes, analysing each paper’s findings

within its theme and synthesising the findings overall.

.

web viewthere are four major approaches to ... (2006) finding that the various forms ... assertion...

Documents