Search results

A core assumption of exclusive talent management is that some employees have more talent than others. Performance data and talent reviews provide some support for this assumption yet there are grounds thinking that a proportion of talent identification is false; average people can be included, talented people can excluded. In an exploration of how talent recognition is exposed to risk, this chapter considers two approaches to talent that are seldom treated together. First, the social construction of talent is developed in ways that highlight the dangers that inevitably arise in talent recognition processes. A social constructionist treatment raises the prospect of ‘empty’ talent pools and the chapter explores the ethical and moral issues arising and questions whether it matters that talent pools might be empty. Second, talent is considered as an innate characteristic of people highlighting that talents are not static and continue evolving up to a point. As such, and if so, it is right that organizations should look periodically for talent across their employee base. The chapter highlights areas for further research into the existence of ‘the talented’ in business contexts and in particular the question of how much talent pools actually contain people with above average talent. The practical implications of appreciating both social and natural bases of talent are considered.

The digital transformation of talent acquisition is underway. In fact, for the global software company Epicor Software, it has been de facto standard for some time now and has been playing a vital role in helping fuel the company’s growth.

This is an opinion paper based on real-world experience and industry-related education.

The HR professional of today must master many skills in this area that are digital by design.

This is an original paper written for Strategic HR Review.

Purpose – Role-taking refusal was a foundational problem in Mead's work but was ignored by subsequent interactionists who focused on the benefits of role-taking – empathy and solidarity – but failed to examine how they are destroyed or crippled from emerging as inclusionary aspects of social consciousness. Role-taking refusal constitutes both the microfoundation of dehumanization in the case of the oppressor and, in the case of the oppressed, the microfoundation of resistance. Role-taking refusal is linked to Giddens's notion of the reflective project of the self, Omi and Winant's racial formation theory, Feagin's theory of systemic racism, and the perspective of Critical Race Theory.

Methodology – I shall portray role-taking refusal by using historical, theoretical, and empirical works, especially ethnographic studies.

Social implications – The oppressed know the image their oppressors have of them. Refusing to internalize this image is the first step – the microfoundation – of resistance. Role-taking refusal in the oppressed fosters critical consciousness, which, if solidarity with others is formed, can lead to collective action and, possibly, permanent institutional change.

Originality – “The superiority delusion” is the paradigmatic ideology of all oppressors, deployed to justify their power, privilege, and prestige. This delusion is maintained by the microfoundation of dehumanization, which is a systematic refusal to role-take from those over whom oppressors oppress. All other ideologies that justify oppression are derived from some form of “the superiority delusion,” identifying for the first time role-taking refusal as paradoxically both the original sin of social relations and the foundation of social resistance.