This chapter traces interest in the idea of talent, particularly in relation to business contexts, as a way of understanding the sociogenesis of talent management in the 1990s. Talent, together with talent management, is treated here as a meme and, using the idea of memes as transmitters and social replicators, the reasons for the proliferation of the talent meme are suggested. These reasons go beyond rational explanations for organizational interest in talent as a route to organizational improvement, although that doubtless plays a part, and look within the meme for explanations of its popularity.
Talent management displays some of the features of fads and fashions in management (Iles, Preece, & Chuai, 2010) and, given that some innovations spread for reasons that are not entirely rational (Scarborough, Robertson, & Swan, 2015), it is useful to look at alternative theoretical explanations for the progress of the meme. How, for instance, can the sudden rise in popularity of talent management in the twenty-first century be explained and what has sustained it so far? What is it about the idea that continues to attract attention? In exploring these questions, we move away from rational explanations for innovation diffusion and look closely at the innovation itself in order to get a more nuanced explanation of its capacity to keep attracting attention.
Using a conventional approach to understanding how memes form and proliferate (Paull, 2009), the chapter explores three distinct periods: events before the creation or birth of the meme, its creation point, and the diffusion of the meme after creation. The historical overview is provided to set the scene and is not an exhaustive treatment of how âtalentâ has been seen by society (see Cappelli & Keller, 2017). Moreover, it is intended to give sufficient flavour here of how society has treated talent and to highlight some important moments in the history of thinking about talent. It is worth noting at this point that business organizations have a long history of showing interest in selection, training, and management development (Cappelli, 2009). For sure, managers deemed to have high potential would have been a focus for some of these activities, but seeing and talking of high potential employees as âtalentâ is a relatively recent phenomenon in business organizations. Reasons for the rapid diffusion of this phenomenon are discussed in this chapter.
Historical Overview
People lucky enough to be deemed as talented have always attracted attention. Writing in the early twelfth century, the cleric Henry of Huntingdon tells us of âWilliam, a young man of great natural talentâ and of Richard âwhose talents we admired and of whom we expected great deedsâ (Greenway, 2002, pp. 99â101). Henry clearly saw in these individuals something different from the norm, something that marked them out from others and that credited them with the potential to achieve more than most.
There is a long tradition of thinking in terms of âtalentâ and âgiftednessâ in sport, art, and music and a substantial body of research as to why some people have more ability in certain fields than others (Kaufman, 2013; Sternberg & Davidson, 2005). The meanings of giftedness, talent and genius, very different things that should never be conflated,1 started to be explored in the early twentieth century (Fischer, 1904). Of particular interest were the social conditions that associated with talent development (Faris, 1936) perhaps in the hope that if associating conditions could be identified then this would enable the talents of more people to flourish. A noble aim perhaps, but more comprehensive theories of talent development began to emerge that also took account of hereditary characteristics, general intelligence, and psychological disposition (Bray, 1954).
For sure, most business organizations have always recognized the importance of developing their employees and looking out for above average people. It makes commercial sense after all, but for most of the twentieth century this was, for the most part, treated using labels such as management development, training, and retraining. One exception (Hadley, 1888: 576) noted that industrial competition would âguaranteeâ that men with the best talent for organizing would end up running organizations as the result of a process of ânatural selection which prevented incompetent employers from maintaining themselves long at the head of large enterprisesâ. But despite over 100 years of systematic study of management practices and work psychology, the term âtalentâ was little used in business contexts until the 1990s.
In the United States, a Committee for the Identification of Talent was set up in the early 1950s and the Committee recognized that talent identification was inexorably bound up in the prevailing power relationships in organizations (McClelland, Baldwin, Bronfenbrenner, & Strodtbeck, 1958). âTalentâ, as a descriptor for above average people, started to gain traction in the 1960s. Twedt (1967) used the term âtalent poolâ in relation to concerns about shortages of marketing managers and Patton (1967) was concerned with shortages of executive talent. Miner (1969, p. 257) devoted half a page to talent searches in a textbook on personnel relations considering them to be for âlower management levelsâŠfrom within the firmâ and reflecting a much more parochial approach to talent management than is taken today.
Social changes at the time as evidenced through the 1960s counterculture and changing university curricula that much more openly questioned authority and the establishment were thought to be capable of discouraging young people from taking up careers in management (Miner, 1974). This shift and potential clash of attitudes is illustrated by the central character Benjamin Braddock in the 1967 film, The Graduate.The short piece of dialogue between the young graduate and the business executive contrasts the traditional, parental views of expectations of a career with a large corporation with a new generationâs more liberal attitude to work and employment. In case you are wondering, Ben did not pursue a career in plastics, preferring to focus his attentions on the neighbourâs daughter and, at the end of the film, drive her off into an unspecified future.
- Mr McQuire [a businessman at a family party for Benâs graduation]:
- âBen, I just wanted to say one word to you â just one word.â
- Ben:
- âYes, sir.â
- Mr McQuire:
- âAre you listening?â
- Ben:
- âYes I am.â
- Mr McQuire (gravely):
- âPlastics.â
- Ben:
- âExactly how do you mean?â
- Mr McQuire:
- âThere is a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?â
- Ben:
- âYes, I will.â
- Mr McQuire:
- âEnough said. Thatâs a deal.â
Manpower planning was popular in large corporations at the time and the importance of identifying talented employees in this process was recognized (Hinrichs, 1966; Vetter, 1967) as attention was turning to the personal characteristics that signalled all the qualities of managerial talent (Ghiselli, 1971; Siegel & Ghiselli, 1971). Both researchers and practitioners were looking at better ways of identifying managerial talent (Edwards & Bartlett, 1983; Stahl, 1983). Longitudinal studies of the relationships between individual differences, career success, and income appeared (Abrahamson, 1973; Husen, 1972). Scholars were also starting to investigate the subjectivity contained in decisions surrounding judgements of a personâs talent, for example, beauty (Kaplan, 1978; Landy & Sigall, 1974).
Alongside a growing interest in understanding the ingredients of talent in a range of domains, some important developments were occurring in how businesses thought about managing people. This is captured in the transition from personnel management to human resource management and the more widely held belief that employee performance is proportional to the ways that people are managed. From the 1970s onwards, a number of trends affecting businesses in the West can be identified (Gospel, 2010) including the rapid growth of industrial sectors such as food and consumer goods; trade liberalization; new technologies, rising competition; new ways of structuring such as multidivisional businesses; declining employee commitment to trades unions; and rising living standards enjoyed by employees. These changes to the conditions that businesses had to deal with called for new ways of managing to circumvent practices that for many firms had become centralized and paternalisti...