Talent Management and Its Impact on Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intention: A Literature Review

Suman Dahiya
Associate Professor, Panipat Institute of Engineering and Technology, Haryana, India. E-mail: suman1984dahiya@gmail.com

Rupa Rath
Research Scholar, GD Goenka University, Gurugram, India; and is the corresponding author. E-mail: r.ruparath@rediffmail.com

To attain competitive advantage and achieve business growth, organizations have realized that a highly engaged, and motivated workforce is the key. Retention of talent is an important agenda of every organization in the competitive world of business. Organizations are required therefore to be more innovative and dynamic in their Talent Management (TM) approach. However, academic research in the field of TM does not provide any specific conclusions for a right TM explanation. In fact, research on TM has been assumed to be not offering right talent management solutions to organizations to accomplish its effective talent management practices. This review of literature includes a detailed study of different interpretations of talent management as a concept, it also studies different factors of talent management. The study defines different components of commitment and the concept of turnover intention of employees in organizations. A theoretical framework is proposed to study the causal relationship between different factors of talent management and organizational commitment and also the causal relationship between organizational commitment and turnover intention of employees in organizations. Further research in establishing and analyzing the relationships will support effective implementation of different talent management policies, practices and their influence in addressing retention challenges in organizations.

Introduction

Talent Management (TM) is an important and critical aspect for senior managers (Skuza et al., 2013). Organizations have realized that a highly engaged and motivated workforce is the key to achieving business growth and attaining competitive advantage. Organizations are required therefore to be more pioneering and active in their TM approach. Research works in the field of TM do not provide any specific inferences for a right TM description. In fact, research on TM has been alleged to not offering a right TM solution to organizations to achieve its effective TM practices (Collings et al., 2011). There has been a lot of focus on the academic work on TM (Thunnissen et al., 2013), still there is no conclusive statement over its definition, theoretical basis and scope. It is also observed that the research work on TM was conducted in a specific group of organizations, i.e., organizations in the US and multinational (MNCs) and private organizations (Collings et al., 2011; and Powell et al., 2013). This demands more research on TM in various contexts and TM in theoretical framework as well as in research design (e.g., Collings et al., 2011).

Talent Management
"Talent" can be theorized in two broad ways-object and subject approach. In object approach, talent is the personal abilities exhibited in a particular area, whereas in the subject approach, talent refers to people who possess special skills or abilities, or expertise. Even though the object approach has a good fit with the real meaning of talent (Tansley et al., 2007), the subject approach appears to be more appealing in organizational practice and TM literature (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013). During the 2000s, recruitment, selection, learning and development and career management of employees would fall under the banner of Human Resource Management (HRM) and TM framework would include terms such as "succession management" or "workforce planning" to be used for creating practices such as "talent pipelines" and "talent pools" (Tansley et al., 2007; and Sparrow and Makram, 2015). HRM practitioners were concerned that it represented a repackaging of HR practices as "old wine in new bottle" (Chuai et al., 2008). Lewis and Heckman (2006) viewed talent more broadly but with two possibilities: first, talent has to be managed only against the levels required for performance and specific to those who are high performing and have high potential. This might require employees to be distinguished or graded at particular levels (A, B or C players, etc.) with those at lower grades at risk of termination (Axelrod et al., 2002). Second, talent could be seen as a way to high performance based on the work of everyone (Walker and Larocco, 2002), "the job of HRM is to bring out the talent intrinsic in each person, one individual at a time" (Buckingham and Vosburgh, 2001, p. 18). TM is applicable to all employees, giving scope of career development for everyone. This can also allow more attention to team working in organizations (Cerdin and Brewster, 2014). Knowledge workers such as IT professionals are considered to be a part of the smart version of TM (Whelan and Carcary, 2011). Another view on TM was stated by Collings and Mellahi (2009, pp. 306-307) that the TM strategy needs to start with identifying the "key strategic positions" providing high impact in an organization. Filling up of these positions can be possible by developing right talent consisting of high potential and high performing employees. Huselid et al. (2005, p. 1) also stated that the identification of "A" positions, that is, the critical jobs, is the first move towards TM. The purpose of TM is to identify and select what Huselid et al. (2005) called the "very best employees". Based on such various views, meaning and definitions of talent have been adopted at the workplace (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013, p. 293). TM is often designated as the efficient way of attracting, identifying, developing, engaging, retaining and deploying talent in an organization (e.g., Farndale, et al. (2010)). The difference between HRM and TM is that HRM includes many employeerelated practices, but TM is more strategic and focuses more on strategic issues of the business and aims at high potential employees or talented employees. Two major approaches which define TM are 'exclusive' approach and 'inclusive' approach. The exclusive approach of "workforce differentiation' views talent as a select subset of the employees in the organization who can influence and improve the performance of the organization (CIPD, 2006). The inclusive approach is more from a 'humanistic' consideration and proposes the provision of all of the organizational resources equally among the employees, with the consideration that every employee in the organization has potential 'talent' (Iles et al., 2010). Lewis and Heckman (2006) identified three separate schools of thought on the concept of TM, viz., redefining human resource management in the context of talent management, designing and development of talent pool, and focusing on talent broadly irrespective of its organizational boundaries or specific positions. Different factors of TM are talent acquisition, mentoring, performance management, leadership development, resource planning, career management, recognition and reward (Heinen and O'Neill, 2004; and Scheweyer, 2004). TM is a mutually beneficial relationship between the organization and employees, where employees are furthered with career development and organizations with higher performance. Requirement of highly talented and skilled employees and retaining these talented employees are the current challenges organizations have to overcome (Fegley, 2006). Researchers have identified that when the level of TM practices rises, turnover intentions of talent decreases (Oehley and Theron, 2010). TM plays a key role in creating employer brand also. Organizations with strong employer brand can attract and retain the best talent (Brewster et al., 2005). Research indicated that TM plays a critical role in creating positive employer brand, therefore it was in the agenda for HR executives in 2007 and beyond (Focus-HR, 2006). For competitive advantage of the organizations, talent plays an important strategic role. The management of talent, considered to be one of the key functions of HRM, contributes towards the strategic goals of the organization (Bhatnagar, 2004). Different authors have stated that though the war for talent is strong, yet very few research works have been started on competitive TM strategies. Khatri et al. (2010) mentioned TM as a framework of strongly cohesive human resource processes that assist in making informed decisions to support the strategic objectives of the organization, which has evolved into an emphasis on 'talent'. Many studies in the US and UK concluded that TM and human resource practices had a positive effect on labor turnover, productivity, financial performance trust, job satisfaction, commitment, product and service quality, and organization business performance (Huselid, 1995; and CIPD, 2008). Today, organizations are evolving and necessitate lifelong learning, employability, and TM for sustainability (Nilsson and Ellstrom, 2012). Despite the diversity of TM definitions and perspectives, relative convergence exists with regard to the purpose and desired outcomes of TM. As reflected by the results of a comprehensive literature review by Thunnissen et al. (2013), several authors agreed that the main purpose of TM is to 'attract, develop, motivate, and retain talent'. Others believed that the aim of TM is to contribute to organizational performance or competitiveness. Hence, regardless of the perspective followed, TM is generally observed as an 'input-process-output' transformation process with the primary purpose of attracting, developing, encouraging, and retaining talent in order to enhance organizational performance and competitiveness. The various structures of TM are talent acquisition, mentoring, performance management, leadership development, career management, recognition and reward (Figure 1) (Heinen and O'Neill, 2004; and Scheweyer, 2004).

Research Gap

• It is suggested that empirical support is necessary to determine the framework of TM. Except for a few studies, most of the studies on TM are conceptual, reviews and subjective from the standpoint of consultants and human resource practitioners. More empirical research is required to define TM. It is also noticed that most of the studies are mainly from developed countries, with only a few from Asian countries (Mensah, 2015).

• Thunnissen et al. (2013) stated that during the past few years, there had been a lot of focus on the academic work on TM. Gallardo-Gallardo et al. (2015) stated that there is still no consensus on its definition, theoretical outline and scope.
• There are various gaps and scarcities within the TM literature that require further practical and theoretical development (Iqbal et al., 2013). So, future research is required to examine TM with specific organizational-level outcomes (Gallardo- Gallardo et al., 2013).
• Though TM has become a very general topic in recent years, still its definition and core practices are debated by different authors. This can be attributed to different perspectives of different authors and in terms of policies and practices, it still remains unclear which policies and practices facilitate TM effectiveness (Lewis and Heckman, 2006, Mellahi and Collings, 2010; and Kontoghiorghes 2016).

Talent Management and Human Resource Management
HRM practices include recruitment, selection, learning and development, career management, performance management and reward (Lewis and Heckman, 2006). Researchers/practitioners have moved from traditional HRM practices to TM, which is united with strategic HRM or modern HRM practices that focus on high potential employees (Lewis and Heckman, 2006; Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Areiqat et al., 2010; and Jyoti and Rani, 2014). Further, TM builds significant competencies by developing individuals. The terms human resource and human capital are found to be often used interchangeably, there is a slight difference between the two terms. Human capital is more considered as human resources which add quantifiable value to the growth of the organization. Valuing human for the value of human talent as opposed to treating them as capital resources has become the trend in human resource practices in organizations (Armstrong and Taylor, 2014). This change shows an important change in the way organizations assess its employees and potential employees. TM affects all the areas related to people, ranging from employing, developing, positioning, evaluating, and of course, retaining employees.

Organizational Commitment (OC)
Psychological state with respect to employees' connection with the organization is known as OC. This connection determines the employees' desire to stay in the organization. Robbins (2005) defined OC as "the level of identification of an employee with a particular organization and its goals, and wishes to continue membership in the organization". Meyer and Allen (1997) stated that a committed employee continues to stay in the organization under all the satisfactory or unsatisfactory circumstances, and highly attached to the organization. Allen and Meyer (1990) had proposed the three-component model of commitment that provides three concepts of OC: affective, normative and continuance commitment. Affective commitment is "an employee's emotional attachment to and involving in a particular organization." (Allen and Meyer, 1990) stated that employees who are affectively committed to the organization have established strong personal bond and want to continue to be a part of it. Allen and Meyer (1990) also stated that continuance commitment refers to "commitment based on the costs that the employee associates with leaving the organization." Employees with continuance commitment cannot exit from the organization, may be due to family responsibilities, convenience or they are not able to find anything better. Normative commitment is "the employee's feelings of obligation to stay with the organization" (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Employees with normative commitment think that they 'owe it to the organization' as the organization has given jobs to them so that they can take care of themselves and their families. Numerous studies have concluded that high OC leads to various individual and organizational consequences like increased job performance (Hunter and Thatcher, 2007), higher motivation (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), more job satisfaction (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran, 2005), improved organizational citizenship behaviors (Riketta, 2002), reduced absenteeism and turnover (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran, 2005; and Lee et al., 2008). Thus, ensuring a highly committed workforce is a critical requirement in today's organizational world managing new employment trends like gig workers, flexible work policies, redefined career expectations etc. (Benkhoff, 1997). Scholl (1981) opined that the way OC is defined depends on the specific approach to commitment that one is following. Suliman and Iles (2000) stated that there are four main approaches to theorizing and exploring OC: attitudinal approach, behavioral approach, normative approach and multidimensional approach. The most general approach to OC is the multidimensional model of Meyer and his team. Meyer and Allen (1984), based on "Side Bets" theory (Becker, 1960), announced the dimension of continuance commitment to the already present dimension of affective commitment. Therefore, OC was considered as a bi-dimensional concept that comprised an attitudinal aspect as well as a behavioral aspect. Later, Allen and Meyer (1990) further added a third component of normative commitment to the existing two dimensions of OC. In behavioral sciences research, OC is found to be different from other commitment constructs (Meyer et al., 1993), such as job satisfaction, job involvement, turnover intention, (Meyer and Allen, 1997). For prediction of turnover, OC has been shown to be uniquely contributing (Meyer et al., 1993; and Tett and Meyer, 1993). Traditionally, commitment research has focused on commitment to the organization as a whole (Mowday et al., 1979), and emphasized the relationship between the affective component of commitment and turnover. In recent years, the concept of OC has been studied in relationship with both the outcomes of commitment, such as retention, job performance, turnover and other job-related constructs, as well as possible antecedents to commitment (Price et al, 1986; Meyer and Allen, 1997; and DeLoria, 2001).

Talent Management and Organizational Commitment
Researchers have not focused much on the results of the impact of TM practices on non-financial, such as motivational, career interests of the organization's employees (Gallardo-Gallardo and Thunnissen, 2016). Organizations taking care of employees' career aspirations will find employees to be more motivated and will contribute to the organization (Collings, 2014). Employees' talent and skill, if utilized and recognized well, will feel better and they will deliver improved performance (Bjorkman et al., 2013). Employees are more attached to the organization, if they receive different financial and non-financial recognition (Boxall, 2013). High potential employees who have extra talent are more employable and are therefore most likely to leave the organization and get better jobs. Therefore, OC plays an important role in the retention plan and becomes a key variable in TM. Retention of high performers is critical to achieve higher business performance (Sturman, 2003). Kumar and Raghavendran (2013) stated that employees are highly committed when they see the value of their work and the effect it has on customers. Therefore, the company should demonstrate responsiveness in knowing what employees like to do, what is their capability, what are the strengths they have, and how they are contributing towards the achievement of the goals of the company. Talented employees, but who are not committed, will not bring much value towards achievement of the goals of the company. Similarly, companies with low-value and high-commitment personnel will obtain average results (Luna-Arocas and Morley, 2015). It is observed that recognized high potential employees will be hesitant to leave the organization.

If the employees are aware that they are recognized as a talent in the organization, greater commitment is found compared to those who do not see that (Bjorkman et al., 2013). TM practices and activities are aimed at attracting, selecting, hiring, developing, and retaining talent (Thunnissen et al., 2013; and Oladapo, 2014). For higher growth and to achieve better results, organizations must emphasize not only on recruitment, selection and hiring, but also on developing and retaining talent (Oladapo, 2014). Globalization, competition, fast changing technology, continuous upgradation of skill and knowledge handling business dynamics have generated a demand for talented professionals, who in turn expect autonomy, a sense of meaning in their work and recognition (Kumar and Raghavendran, 2013).

Research Gap
- The above literature provides scope to understand and do a study of the perception of employees on the TM practices, and it also provides scope to study the relationship between different TM practices and their impact on commitment of employees in the organization (Figure 2).

- It also provides scope to examine an industry-specific study on TM practices and their impact on commitment of employees.

Therefore, the following hypotheses are formulated to be examined further.

H₁: TM is positively related with OC.

H₂: Competency development as a TM practice is positively related with OC.

H₃: Managing performance as a TM practice is positively related to organizational commitment.

H₄: Potential management as TM practice is positively related to organizational commitment.

H₅: Career growth as TM practice is positively related to OC.

H₆: Reward and recognition is positively related with OC.

Turnover Intention
Turnover intention is the reflection of "the (subjective) likelihood that an individual will change his or her job within a certain time period" (Sousa-Poza and Henneberger, 2002). Turnover intention is the phase ahead of actual turnover. It is the development of cognitively thinking, suitably planning and then keen to leave a job (Shahnawaz and Goswami, 2011). Knowing the intention is important as once the motives for increasing intention to leave the organization are known, some remedial measures could be implemented. Organizations are affected by increased cost of recruitment, selection and training for the replacements. If organizations address the issues of turnover, it induces the employees' loyalty and commitment to the organization, and hence, leads to improved organizational performance (Abbasi and Hollman, 2000; and Foon et al., 2010). Intention to leave can be reduced by objective management policies and practices such as fair employment opportunities, harmonious labor- management relations, timely payments, effective leadership (Mcnall et al., 2009) and satisfactory work attitudes like job satisfaction and OC (Vander et al., 2009). Turnover intention rises with stress, workfamily balance, inflexible work policies, etc.(Figure 2) (Fakunmoju et al., 2010; and Haar

et al., 2012). Takawira et al. (2014) stated that turnover intention is a model of an employee leaving the current organization and seeking employment in another organization. Perryer et al., (2010) opined that turnover intention is the immediate behavior or attitude before actual turnover.

Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intention
According to researchers Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) and Igbaria and Greenhaus (1992), intentions are the most immediate cause of actual behavior. Bluedorn's (1982) research on 23 studies found that individuals' turnover intentions matched their actual turnover actions. Absence of commitment affects the intention to quit. Thus, managers need to focus on increasing the commitment of employees. Parasuraman (1982) stated that OC can be used to foresee turnover intentions. Igbaria et al. (1994) found the positioning of OC as the most direct predictors of intention to stay. According to Ingram and Lee (1990), the intention to stay, the quality of job training and the quality of organization discipline are associated predictors of commitment. Different studies that examined the factors influencing turnover intention showed that OC is one of the influences that contribute to employees' intentions to leave an organization (Carmeli and Weisberg, 2006). There is ample evidence in the literature that supports the significant relationship between HR practices and turnover intention (Ferris and Aranya, 1983; and Caldwell et al., 1990). Various research studies have indicated that there is a significant relationship between OC and turnover. Ferris and Aranya (1983) suggested a significant positive correlation between intent to leave and job commitment, with commitment falling as employees decided to leave. The thought of quitting and intent to search for alternative employment are the outcomes of the relationship between OC and turnover (Tett and Meyer, 1993). Tett and Meyer (1993) also stated that various aspects of the work environment may activate withdrawal thoughts (i.e., thoughts of leaving, intent to search, intent to quit) and the result processes that may be linked to the employee's possibility of turnover. According to Adenguga (2013), there is a significant relationship between each factor of OC and turnover intentions. They reported that OC had a significant and a relatively strong relationship to employees' intention to quit. Empirical results suggest that OC has statistically significant and negative relationship, such as intent to quit (e.g., Jaros, 1997). Peters et al. (1981) studied the independent and joint contributions of OC and job-facet satisfaction made on a person's intention to quit. They said that OC had an important and a relatively strong relationship to employees' intention to quit.

Research Gap
In view of the above literature, it can be concluded that OC can influence the intention to stay in an organization. Therefore, it is important to examine the relationship between OC and turnover intention focusing on a particular sector.

H₇: OC has significant relationship with turnover intention of employees.

TM, OC and Turnover Intention
TM is very critical to every organization, and it is a part of companies' strategy to continue to be competitive with the best resources to achieve organizational productivity. The risk of losing finest employees will be always there by getting attracted to various improved openings given by the competitors. To overcome the challenges of the loss of talented and skilled workers, employers are initiating TM programs that might be helpful in identifying potential talents and most prominently, retaining employees. Retaining employees who are well-trained and highly skilled is always a task for organizations. The investment in training and developing human resources would not be justified if the employees leave and other organizations get benefited by their skills and abilities. Losing good employees would lead to decrease in productivity and quality can negatively affect an organization's competitive advantage. Different literatures support the significant connection between HR practices and turnover intention (e.g., Caldwell et al., 1990; Chew and Chan, 2008; Lam et al., 2009; and Gould-Williams and Mohamed 2010). Employees would always like to stay with good employers as they perceive that their employer will take care of their employment benefits, welfare, and believe in good people management (Buck and Watson, 2002).

The relationship between HR practices and OC could lead to high degree of OC which could reduce the inclination to leave the organization amongst the employees. Studies have been conducted to measure the degree of direct effect of HR practices and OC on turnover intention but such studies are still inadequate. A study done by Eisenberger et al. (1990) showed that HR practices that are well deliberated and executed are able to increase OC and decrease the intention of quitting among employees. Additionally, Pare and Tremblay (2007) studied the role of OC in the relationship between HR practices and turnover intention among IT professionals, and the outcome detailed that OC acted as a partial mediator. However, the studies carried out in the area are insufficient, thus further studies are required to understand the role of OC. The focus of different HR practices in managing the human capital that can increase OC, thus reducing the intention to quit by employees, can be projected, as OC is the factor that mediates the relationship between HR practices and turnover intention. Researchers have studied different aspects influencing turnover intention, specified several key variables such as demographics, job satisfaction, OC, Organizational Engagement (OE) and HRM practices such as training and development, performance management and compensation. HRM practices like ensuring skill development, providing career growth to unleash the potential, recognizing employees' efforts, pay for performance and ensuring high engagement of talent are a few important and critical steps for retention of talent in organizations.

The Theoretical Framework
It appears that to foresee turnover, OC must be a part of the model. However, there are inadequate studies to understand the impact of TM practices on turnover intention. Therefore, there is a need to study the factors that influence turnover intention especially empirically. It is important to conduct the study because the results would give stronger understanding on how companies can retain their employees. An industry-specific empirical study can give a clear understanding. The study aims to examine the causal relationship of TM practices on OC, and also to determine whether OC mediated the relationship between TM practices and turnover intention.

Discussion
Sustainability is the major focus of every organization in this Volatile, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity (VUCA) world. Talent plays a key role in achieving business goals and to sustain in a competitive environment. Retention of talent is the success factor to accomplish outstanding organizational performance. The proposed model further studies intend to focus broadly on the role of various factors of TM and their impact on employee commitment, and on the mediating role of organizational commitment and its impact on turnover intention of employees. The intervention of OC as a mediator between OC and turnover intentions results in OC to restrain employees from actual turnover by developing positive feelings among employees toward their organizations. The assessment of causal relationship between the constructs will lead to proactive evaluation of employee turnover and retaining high potential employees in the organizations.

Conclusion
This study reveals that TM plays a very significant role in engaging and retaining employees in an organization. TM includes various HR practices such as competency development, reward and recognition, performance management, high potential management and career growth of employees. Employees' behavior or intention to stay in an organization can be studied further by the mediating factor of commitment to the organization and the relationship of various TM practices with the commitment factor in an organization.

Limitations and Future Scope: Further research on finding the relationship between different factors of TM practices such as competency development, talent management, career growth, reward and recognition and managing employee performance with the commitment aspect of employees can be studied, and further relationship between commitment of employees and their intention to stay can be reviewed by the management periodically. Managers provide feedback with respect to their team on the impact of each factor of TM and will ensure high commitment for implementation of different TM policies and practices in the organization. This will help the top management immensely in formulating the right approach and policies on TM. The challenges of attrition and retaining the right talent in the organization can be addressed to a great extent.

In the proposed model, only a few factors are considered to be the components of TM practices in organizations. Future studies may add additional factors to the scope of TM practices and study their relationship with commitment factor in organization. Further, for the purpose of this study, the authors assumed that OC is the only predictor of employee's intention to stay in the organization. However, there are many other potential factors worth studying that demand due consideration. Future research in this context should be continued not only in a specific sector or industry but also in other sectors in India. The study offers direction regarding the challenges to the human resource practitioners on how to minimize attrition and retain talent in the organization.

References

1. Abbasi S M and Hollman K W (2000), "Turnover: The Real Bottom Line", Public Personnel Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 333-342.
2. Adenguga R A (2013), "Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intention Among Private Universities' Employees in Ogun State", Nigeria.
3. Ajzen I and Fishbein M (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviors, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
4. Allen N J and Meyer J P (1990), "The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 1-18.
5. Armstrong M and Taylor S (2014), Armstrong's Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, Edition 13, Kogan Page.
6. Areiqat A Y, Abdelhadi T and Al-Tarawneh H A (2010), "Talent Management as a Strategic Practice of Human Resources Management to Improve Human Performance", Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 329-341.
7. Axelrod B, Handfield-Jones H and Michaels E (2002), "A New Game Plan for C Players", Harvard Business Review, pp. 81-88, Brighton, MA.
8. Becker H S (1960), "Notes on the Concept of Commitment", American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 32-40.
9. Benkhoff B (1997), "Disentangling Organizational Commitment", Personnel Review, Vol. 26, Nos. 1/2, pp. 114-131.
10. Bhatnagar J (2004), "New Dimensions of Strategic HRM: HR is Managed Talent Management and Application of HR Six Sigma", Emerging Asia: An HR Agenda, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.
11. Bjorkman I, Ehrnrooth M, Makela K et al. (2013), "Talent or Not? Employee Reactions to Talent Identification", Human Resource Management, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 195-214.
12. Bluedorn A C (1982), "A Unified Model of Turnover from Organizations", Human Relations, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 135-153.
13. Boxall P (2013), "Mutuality in the Management of Human Resources: Assessing the Quality of Alignment in Employment Relationships", Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 3-17.
14. Brewster C, Suutari V and Minbaeva D B (2005), "HRM Practices and MNC Knowledge Transfer", Personnel Review, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 125-144.
15. Buck J M and Watson J L (2002), "Retaining Staff Employees: The Relationship Between Human Resources Management Strategies and Organizational Commitment", Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 175-193.
16. Buckingham M and Vosburgh R M (2001), "The 21st Century Human Resource's Function: It's the Talent", Stupid! Human Resource Planning, pp. 17-23.
17. Caldwell D M, Chatman J A and O'Reilly C A (1990), "Building Organizational Commitment: A Multi-Firm Study", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 245-261.
18. Carmeli A and Weisberg J (2006), "Exploring Turnover Intentions Among Three Professional Groups of Employees", Human Resource Development International, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 191-206.
19. Cerdin J L and Brewster C (2014), "Talent Management and Expatriation: Bridging Two Streams of Research and Practice", Journal of World Business, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 245-252.
20. Chew J and Chan C C (2008), "Human Resource Practices, Organizational Commitment and Intention to Stay", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 29, pp. 503-522.
21. Chuai X, Preece D and Iles P (2008), "Is Talent Management Just Old Wine in New Bottles? The Case of Multinational Companies in Beijing", Management Research News, Vol. 31, No. 12, pp. 901-911.
22. CIPD (2006), "Talent Management: Understanding the Dimensions", CIPD, London.
23. CIPD (2008), "Talent Management: An Overview", CIPD, London.
24. Collings D G (2014), "Toward Mature Talent Management: Beyond Shareholder Value", Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 301-319.
25. Collings D G and Mellahi K (2009), "Strategic Talent Management: A Review and Research Agenda", Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 304-313.
26. Collings D G, Scullion H and Vaiman V (2011), "European Perspectives on Talent Management", European Journal of International Management, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 453-462.
27. Cooper-Hakim A and Viswesvaran C (2005), "The Construct of Work Commitment: Testing an Integrative Framework", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 131, No. 2, p. 241.
28. DeLoria J E (2001), "A Comparative Study of Employee Commitment: Core and Contract Employees in a Federal Agency", Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Tech.
29. Eisenberger R, Fasalo P and Davis-LaMastro V (1990), "Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Diligence, Commitment and Innovation", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 51-59.
30. Fakunmoju S, Woodruff K, Kim H H et al. (2010), "Intention to Leave a Job: The Role of Individual Factors, Job Tension, and Supervisory Support", Administration in Social Work, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 313-328.
31. Farndale E, Scullion H and Sparrow P (2010), "The Role of the Corporate HR Function in Global Talent Management", Journal of World Business,Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 161-168.
32. Fegley S (2006), "Talent Management: Survey Report", Society for Human Resource Management.
33. Ferris K R and Aranya N (1983), "A Comparison of Two Organizational Commitment Scales 1", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 87-98.
34. Focus H R (2006), "Critical Issues in HR Drive 2006 Priorities: Number 1 Is Talent Management", HR Focus, Vol. 83, No. 8, pp. 8-9.
35. Foon Y S, Chee-Leong L, Yin-Fah B C and Osman S (2010), "An Exploratory Study on Turnover Intention Among Private Sector Employees", International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5, No. 8, p. 57.
36. Gallardo-Gallardo E and Thunnissen M (2016), "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants? A Critical Review of Empirical Talent Management Research", Employee Relations, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 31-56.
37. Gallardo-Gallardo E, Dries N and Gonzalez-Cruz T F (2013), "What is the Meaning of 'Talent 'In the World of Work?", Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 290-300.
38. Gallardo-Gallardo E, Nijs S et al. (2015), "Towards an Understanding of Talent Management as A Phenomenon-Driven Field Using Bibliometric and Content Analysis", Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 264-279.
39. Gould-Williams J and Mohamed R B (2010), "A Comparative Study of the Effects of 'Best Practices' On Worker Outcomes in Malaysia and England Local Government", The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 653-675.
40. Haar J M, Roche M and Taylor D (2012), "Work-Family Conflict and Turnover Intentions of Indigenous Employees: The Importance of the Whanau/Family for Maori", The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23, No. 12, pp. 2546-2560.
41. Heinen J S and O'Neill C (2004), "Managing Talent to Maximize Performance", Employment Relations Today, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 67.
42. Hunter L W and Thatcher S M (2007), "Feeling the Heat: Effects of Stress, Commitment, and Job Experience on Job Performance", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 953-968
43. Huselid M A, Beatty R W and Becker B E (2005), "A Players or A Position? The Strategic Logic of Workforce Management," Harvard Business Review, pp. 110-117, Brighton, MA.
44. Huselid M A (1995), "The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity and Corporate Financial Performance", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 635-672.
45. Igbaria M and Greenhaus J H (1992), "Determinants of MIS Employees' Turnover Intentions: A Structural Equation Model", Communication of the ACM, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 35-49.
46. Igbaria M, Meredith G and Smith C D (1994), "Predictors of Intentions of is Professionals to Stay with the Organization in South Africa", Information and Management, Vol. 26, pp. 245-256.
47. Iles P, Chuai X and Preece D (2010), "Talent Management and HRM in Multinational Companies in Beijing: Definitions, Differences and Drivers", Journal of World Business, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 179-189.
48. Ingram N T and Lee S K (1990), "Sales Force Commitment and Turnover", Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 19, pp. 149-154.
49. Iqbal S, Qureshi T M, Khan M A and Hijazi S T (2013), "Talent Management is Not an Old Wine in a New Bottle", African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 7, No. 35, pp. 3609-3619.
50. Jaros S J (1997), "An Assessment of Meyer and Allen's (1991), "Three-Component Model of Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intentions", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 319-337.
51. Jyoti J and Rani R (2014), "Exploring Talent Management Practices: Antecedents and Consequences", International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 220-248.
52. Khatri P, Gupta S, Gulati K and Chauhan S (2010), "Talent Management in HR", Journal of Management and Strategy, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 39.
53. Kontoghiorghes C (2016), "Linking High Performance Organizational Culture and Talent Management: Satisfaction/Motivation and Organizational Commitment as Mediators", The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27, No. 16, pp. 1833-1853.
54. Kumar H and Raghavendran S (2013), "Not By Money Alone: The Emotional Wallet and Talent Management", Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 34, No. 3, DOI:10.1108/ JBS-11-2012-0073.
55. Lam W, Chen Z and Takeuchi N (2009), "Perceived Human Resource Management Practices and Intention to Leave of Employees: The Mediating Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior in a Sino-Japanese Joint Venture", The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 20, No. 11, pp. 2250-2270.
56. Lee T H, Gerhart B, Weller I and Trevor C O (2008), "Understanding Voluntary Turnover: Path-Specific Job Satisfaction Effects and the Importance of Unsolicited Job Offers", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 651-671.
57. Lewis R E and Heckman R J (2006), "Talent Management: A Critical Review", Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 139-154.
58. Luna-Arocas R and Morley M J (2015), "Talent Management, Talent Mindset Competency and Job Performance: The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction", European Journal of International Management, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 28-51.
59. Mathieu J E and Zajac D M (1990), "A Review and Meta-analysis of the Antecedents, Correlates and Consequences of Organizational Commitment", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108, No. 2, p. 171.
60. McNall L A, Masuda A D and Nicklin J M (2009), "Flexible Work Arrangements, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions: The Mediating Role of Work-to-Family Enrichment", The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 144, No. 1, pp. 61-81.
61. Mellahi K and Collings D G (2010), "The Barriers to Effective Global Talent Management: The Example of Corporate Elites in MNEs", Journal of World Business, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 143-149.
62. Mensah J K (2015), "A "Coalesced Framework" of Talent Management and Employee Performance", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 64, No. 4, pp. 544-566.
63. Meyer J P and Allen N J (1984), "Testing the 'Side-Bet Theory' of Organizational Commitment: Some Methodological Considerations", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, No. 3, p. 372.
64. Meyer J P, Allen N J and Smith C A (1993), "Commitment to Organizations and Occupations: Extension and Test of a Three-Component Conceptualization", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, No. 4, p. 538.
65. Meyer J P and Allen N J (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application, Sage.
66. Mowday R, Steers R and Porter L (1979), "The Measurement of Organizational Commitment", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 224-247.
67. Nilsson S and Ellstrom P E (2012), "Employability and Talent Management: Challenges for HRD Practices", European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 26-45.
68. Oehley A M and Theron C C (2010), "The Development and Evaluation of a Partial Talent Management Structural Model", Management Dynamics: Journal of the Southern African Institute for Management Scientists, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 2-28.
69. Oladapo V (2014), "The Impact of Talent Management on Retention", Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 3, p. 19.
70. Parasuraman S (1982), "Predicting Turnover Intentions and Turnover Behavior: A Multivariate Analysis", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 111-121.
71. Pare G and Tremblay M (2007), "The Influence of High-involvement Human Resources Practices, Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment, and Citizenship Behaviors on Information Technology Professionals' Turnover Intentions", Group & Organization Management, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 326-357.
72. Perryer C, Jordan C, Firns I and Travaglione A (2010), "Predicting Turnover Intentions: The Interactive Effects of Organizational Commitment and Perceived Organizational Support", Management Research Review, Vol. 33, No. 9, pp. 911-923.
73. Peters L H, Bhagat R S and O'Connor E J (1981), "An Examination of the Independent and Joint Contributions of Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction on Employee Intentions to Quit", Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 73-82.
74. Powell M, Duberley J, Exworthy M et al. (2013), "Has the British National Health Service (NHS) Got Talent? A Process Evaluation of the NHS Talent Management Strategy?", Policy Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 291-309.
75. Price J L, Mueller C W, Curry J P and Wakefield D S (1986), "On the Causal Ordering of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 847-858.
76. Riketta M (2002), "Attitudinal Organizational Commitment And Job Performance: A Meta-analysis", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 257-266.
77. Robbins, S. P. (2005). Organizational Behavior. New York: Pearson Prentice Hal
78. Scholl R W (1981), "Differentiating Organizational Commitment From Expectancy as a Motivating Force", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 589-599.
79. Schweyer A (2004), "Are You Managing Your Company's Talent?", An Interview with HRIT.
80. Shahnawaz M G and Goswami K (2011), "Effect of Psychological Contract Violation on Organizational Commitment, Trust and Turnover Intention in Private and Public Sector Indian Organizations", Vision, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 209-217.
81. Skuza A, Scullion H and McDonnell A (2013), "An Analysis of the Talent Management Challenges in A Post-communist Country: The Case of Poland", The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 453-470.
82. Sousa-Poza A and Henneberger F (2002), "An Empirical Analysis of Working-Hours Constraints in Twenty-One Countries", Review of Social Economy, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 209-242.
83. Sparrow P R and Makram H (2015), "What is the Value of Talent Management? Building Value-Driven Processes Within a Talent Management Architecture", Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 249-263.
84. Sturman M C (2003), "Searching for the Inverted U-Shaped Relationship Between Time and Performance: Meta-Analyses of the Experience/Performance, Tenure/ Performance, and Age/Performance Relationships", Journal of Management, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 609-640.
85. Suliman A and Iles P (2000), "Is Continuance Commitment Beneficial to Organizations? Commitment-Performance Relationship: A New Look", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 407-422.
86. Takawira N, Coetzee M and Schreuder D (2014), "Job Embeddedness, Work Engagement and Turnover Intention of Staff in a Higher Education Institution: An Exploratory Study", SA Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-10.
87. Tansley C, Turner P, Foster C et al. (2007), "Talent: Strategy, Management, Measurement", CIPD.
88. Tett R P and Meyer J P (1993), "Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Turnover Intention and Turnover: Path Analyses Based on Meta-analytic Findings", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 259-293.
89. Thunnissen M, Boselie P and Fruytier B (2013), "Talent Management and the Relevance of Context: Towards a Pluralistic Approach", Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 326-336.
90. Van der Heijden B I, van Dam K and Hasselhorn H M (2009), "Intention to Leave Nursing: The Importance of Interpersonal Work Context, Work-Home Interference, and Job Satisfaction Beyond the Effect of Occupational Commitment", Career Dev. Int., Vol. 14, No. 7, pp. 616-635. doi: 10.1108/13620430911005681.
91. Walker J W and LaRocco J M (2002), "Talent Pools: The Best and the Rest (Perspectives)", Human Resource Planning, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 12-15.
92. Whelan E and Carcary M (2011), "Integrating Talent and Knowledge Management: Where are the Benefits?", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15, pp. 675-687, available at https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111152018