The

current
issue
and
full
text
archive
of
this
journal
is
available
at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0140-9174.htm

Is
talent
management
just
old
wine
in
new
bottles ?

The
case
of
multinational
companies
in
Beijing

Xin
Chuai
and
David
Preece

The
Business
School,
University
of
Teesside,
Middlesbrough,
UK,
and

Paul
Iles
Leeds
Business
School,
Leeds
Metropolitan
University,
Leeds
UK

Abstract
Purpose
The
purpose
of
this
paper
is
to
explore
whether
talent
management
(TM)
practices
are
fundamentally
different
from
traditional
approaches
to
human
resource
management
(HRM)
and
whether
TM
in
China
is
an
element
of
the
struggle
by
those
in
the
human
resource
(HR)
profession
to
improve
its
credibility
and
status.
Design/methodology/approach
Case
studies
are
the
main
method
of
collecting
data.
These
are
supplemented
by
documentary
analysis.
Four
in-depth
case
studies
were
undertaken
in
Beijing.
The
target
organizations
were
chosen
from
the
information
technology,
health
care
and
education
sectors.
The
interviews
were
semi-structured
and
were
conducted
with
a
range
of
stakeholders
in
each
organization,
including
at
least
one
HR
specialist
(normally,
the
senior
HR
professional,
senior
and
functional
managers
as
well
as
non-managerial
staff.
In
addition,
interviews
were
also
conducted
in
three
management
consulting
firms
regarded
as
being
at
the
cutting
edge
in
order
to
explore
the
orientation
of
such
firms
to
the
TM
phenomenon.
Findings
TM
emerges
as
being
different
from
traditional
HRM,
incorporating
new
knowledge
rather
than
being
a
simple
repackaging
of
old
techniques
and
ideas
with
new
labels.
Therefore,
TM
should
not
be
seen
simply
as
old
wine
in
new
bottles
with
respect
to
the
case
of
China.
In
addition,
this
study
challenges
the
idea
that
TM
is
yet
another
struggle
by
HR
professionals
to
enhance
their
legitimacy,
status
and
credibility
within
their
organizations.
Research
limitations/implications
This
study
concerns
itself
with
only
well-established
and
recognized
multinational
corporations
in
Beijing.
There
might
be
different
conclusions
for
the
other
types
of
enterprises.
Originality/value
This
paper
offers
new
research
on
TM
in
China.
Keywords
Human
resource
management,
Leadership
development,
Multinational
companies,
Organizations,
China
Paper
type
Case
study

Introduction

A
recurring
topic
among
human
resource
(HR)
professionals
is
the
search
for
an
appropriate
role
and
status
for
practitioners
who
have
suffered
the
pain
of
trying
to
achieve
credibility,
recognition
and
status
in
the
eyes
of
senior
management
groups
and
even
employees
(Legge,
1995;
Shipton
and
McAuley,
1993).
However,
despite
the
inability
of
the
HR
profession
to
resolve
its
credibility
problem,
the
situation
has
never
been
as
favourable
to
HR
professionals
as
it
is
today.
Making
their
mark
at
the
strategy
table
is
now
an
achievable
goal
for
HR
professionals
(Ulrich,
1997).
With
the
emergence
of
the
so-called
knowledge
economy,
since
the
late
1980s
increasing
numbers
of
personnel
managers
have
demonstrated
their
willingness
to
adopt
different
roles
and
positions
to
strengthen
the
profession
and
provide
it
with
additional
credibility.

Since
the
emergence
of
the
HR
profession,
several
labels
have
been
employed
to
describe
the
tasks
this
group
performs,
including
personnel
management,
human

MNCs
in
Beijing

Management
Research
News
Vol.
31
No.
12,
2008
pp.
901-911
#
Emerald
Group
Publishing
Limited

DOI
10.1108/01409170810920611
MRN
31,12

resource
management
(HRM)
and
strategic
HRM.
Today,
we
have
talent
management
(TM).
Nevertheless,
Abrahamson
(1991,
1996),
Furusten
(1999)
and
Huczynski
(1993)
all
suggest
that
popular
management
concepts
may
represent
nothing
more
than
old
techniques,
which
have
been
re-invented
or
re-discovered.
Recently,
a
debate
about
whether
TM
is
just
a
collection
of
old
ideas
re-packaged
in
a
new
format
has
surfaced.
Perhaps
TM
is
nothing
new
(Adamsky,
2003)
and
just
a
fad
or
a
fashion
label
that
integrates
some
old
ideas
to
let
them
emerge
as
fresh
thoughts?
In
the
light
of
this
question,
this
study
explores
whether
TM
practices
are
fundamentally
different
from
traditional
HRM
and
whether
TM
is
only
a
continuation
of
the
struggle
by
HR
profession
to
improve
its
credibility
and
status
inside
organizations.

The
emergence
of
TM
in
China

Since
1997,
when
the
consultancy
firm
McKinsey
exposed
the
war
for
talent
as
a
critical
driver
of
corporate
performance ,
TM
has
become
increasingly
popular.
In
the
face
of
globalization,
the
People s
Republic
of
China
(China)
has
enjoyed
nearly
three
decades
of
economic
growth
with
an
average
of
around
10
per
cent
per
annum
over
the
years
since
Deng
Xiao
Ping
launched
the
open
door
and
four
modernizations
policies
in
1978
(Newton
and
Subbaraman,
2002).
From
the
onset,
these
reforms
produced
dramatic
changes
within
the
structure
and
management
of
China s
enterprises,
including
the
decentralization
of
planning
and
decision-making
processes,
the
introduction
of
responsibility
systems
enhancing
individual
accountability
for
performance
and
the
encouragement
of
private
and
foreign-invested
enterprises.

Accompanying
these
changes
were
changes
to
the
Chinese
labour
management
system,
which
remains
in
a
state
of
transition
even
today
(Shen,
2007;
Warner,
1997).
During
this
period,
the
HR
function
evolved
along
with
organizations
in
general
(Schweyer,
2004).
The
changing
political
environment,
reformed
legal
frameworks
and
economic
pressures
continued
to
add
new
dimensions
to
HRM
in
the
1990s
(Poole,
1997).
Most
recently,
with
the
widely
recognized
importance
of
the
intangible
resources
in
a
knowledge
economy,
attention
has
focussed
on
the
new
concept
of
TM.
China s
exacerbating
shortage
of
managerial
talent
and
the
relentless
pressure
of
fierce
competition
have
fuelled
a
strong
interest
in
TM.
As
a
newly
emerging
management
area,
TM
has
become
the
latest
trend
within
the
field
of
people
management
in
China
generally
but
particularly
in
China s
MNCs
that
are
exposed
to
Western
approaches
to
management.

Methodology

A
case
study
method
was
selected
as
the
main
research
methodology
given
the
scope
of
the
issues
at
hand.
The
study
was
undertaken
in
Beijing
and
the
target
companies
were
limited
to
MNCs,
for
the
reasons
discussed
below.

No
homogeneous
model
of
HRM
exists
in
Chinese
enterprises.
In
the
state-owned
enterprises
(SOEs),
the
labour
management
system
is
a
hybrid
structure,
somewhere
between
the
old-style
Maoist
model
and
a
market-driven
model,
which
has
not
fully
evolved
along
either
Western
or
East
Asian
lines.
In
private
and
collective
enterprises
in
China,
it
is
likely
that
HRM
systems
are
being
reformed
differently,
on
the
basis
of
prevailing
conditions.
Meanwhile,
in
the
more
prominent
MNCs,
the
term
HRM
is
in
fact
mostly
de
rigueur
(Warner,
2002).
Given
TM
is
an
emerging
managerial
concept,
it
would
seem
more
likely
that
MNCs
are
establishing
their
own
TM
strategies.
China s
tier-1
and
tier-2
cities
like
Beijing,
Shanghai
and
Guangzhou,
have
less
than
20
per
cent
China s
population
but
possess
more
than
80
per
cent
of
its
leadership
talent
(Lau,
2007).
Moreover,
three
quarters
of
people
who
attended
higher
education
(especially
those
with
a
Master s
degree
or
a
PhD)
want
to
work
in
Beijing,
Shanghai
or
Guangdong
(Lau,
2007).
Considering
this
unbalanced
development,
it
would
appear
more
likely
that
TM
will
be
on
the
agenda
of
organizations
in
cities
of
this
type.
Furthermore,
on
a
pragmatic
note,
the
researchers
conducting
this
study
had
direct
access
to
a
range
of
people
and
organizations
in
Beijing.

Four
in-depth
case
studies
were
conducted
in
firms
operating
in
Beijing
in
the
information
technology
(IT),
health
care
and
education
sectors.
The
participants
are
representative
of
management
level
employees
in
Chinese
MNCs,
with
both
local
and
expatriate
participants.
The
interviewers
were
fluent
in
both
English
and
Chinese.
Participants
were
provided
with
an
interview
schedule
and
the
interviews
were
semi-
structured
within
a
30-60
min
timeframe.
The
interviews
were
recorded
with
the
permission
of
the
participants.
Interviews
were
conducted
with
a
range
of
stakeholders
in
each
organization
but
in
all
firms
at
least
one
HR
specialist
was
interviewed
(including
the
senior
HR
professional
wherever
possible).
Other
participants
included
the
senior
and
functional
managers
and
non-managerial
staff.
In
addition,
to
broaden
the
perspectives
and
insights
about
TM,
the
researchers
interviewed
senior
members
of
three
consulting
firms
normally
regarded
as
management
fashion
setters.

Empirical
findings

The
case
study
firms
are
coded
as
A,
B,
C
and
D
and
the
three
consulting
firms
as
E,
F
and
G.
Firm
A
is
a
full-service,
full-spectrum
communications
software
company
and
a
market
leader
in
the
industry
with
25
corporate
offices
and
headquarters
in
the
USA.
Firm
B
is
one
of
the
world s
largest
IT
management
software
providers,
a
global
company
with
headquarters
also
in
the
USA
and
150
offices
in
more
than
45
countries.
Firm
C
provides
online
multi-vendor
sales
channels
for
diagnostic,
treatment
and
surgery
planning
solutions;
it
is
headquartered
in
London
with
offices
in
the
USA,
Japan
and
China.
Firm
D,
registered
in
Canada,
is
mainly
responsible
for
education
investment,
management,
consultation,
communication
and
cultural
media.
It
has
22
branch
offices
in
China
and
Canada.
Consulting
firm
E
is
a
leading
provider
of
HR
outsourcing
and
consulting
services,
headquartered
in
the
USA
and
located
in
35
countries.
It
employs
~24,000
associates.
Consulting
firm
F
is
also
headquartered
in
the
USA.
As
a
well-established
consulting
firm,
it
serves
more
than
8,000
clients
from
88
offices
in
47
countries
worldwide.
Consulting
firm
G
is
headquartered
in
the
USA
and
employs
more
than
15,000
individuals,
serves
clients
from
more
than
180
cities
and
operates
in
42
countries
worldwide.
A
summary
of
some
of
our
key
empirical
findings
is
provided
in
Table
I.

Analysis

The
analysis
below
addresses
was
guided
by
three
research
questions,
which
were
constructed
to
identify
similarities
and
differences
between
TM
and
traditional
HRM.
The
research
questions
were:
RQ1.
Is
TM
really
different
from
HRM?
RQ2.
Is
TM
another
managerial
rhetoric
through
which
HR
struggles
to
improve
its
legitimacy?
RQ3.
Is
TM
really
different
from
HRM?

The
transcripts
were
analyzed
by
reference
to
key
words
that
included:
differences,
similarities,
rhetoric,
struggle
and
legitimacy
in
the
context
of
HRM
and
TM.
Words
and

MNCs
in
Beijing
Table
I.

Summary
of
principal
findings
based
on
respondent s
location

MRN
31,12

Differences
between
TM
and
Firm
Defining
talent
Defining
TM
HRM
Why
adopt
TM?

A
Key
employees
with
distinguishedperformance
and
competence

B
Part
of
HR
with
betterperformance
and
competence
All
employees,
as
long
as
theymeet
their
job
requirements
D
People
occupying
key
positions
ineach
job
sequence

E
People
with
high
strategic
valueand
high
degree
of
scarcity

F
Part
of
the
way
employeesdirectly
relate
to
the
corebusiness
value
chain

G
People
occupying
the
posts
withcore
business
competence

Competence
development
butwith
an
organizational
focus
Improvement
of
organizationalcompetence
as
a
whole
Equal
to
traditional
personneldevelopment

A
smooth
supply
of
suitablepeople
for
key
positions

A
series
of
functional
models
toguarantee
smooth
talent
supply

Life
and
development
cycle
oftalents
Competence
development
of
thewhole
organizations

TM
breaks
HRM s
egalitarianismand
tends
to
favour
elites
TM
is
a
part
of
HRM
because
itstarget
is
part
of
HR
TM
emphasizes
differentiation

TM
is
one
part
of
HRM
but
amore
directed
and
detailedapproach
to
management
Point
of
departure
for
TM
istalents,
rather
than
splitfunctional
models
like
HRM
TM
works
from
the
perspectiveof
people
rather
thanmanagement
functions
TM
is
discussed
from
theperspective
of
organizationaldevelopment

Urgent
demands
for
retention
andneed
to
attract
talentsRetention
and
attraction
of
talentsfor
further
developmentDemand
for
development
oforganizational
competence
andpressure
from
the
talent
warDemands
for
retention
andattraction
of
talents

TM s
management
ideologysatisfies
the
demands
of
currententerprises
Overcome
the
hurdles
of
theretention
and
attraction
of
talents
Meets
an
enterprises
internalurgent
demands
phrases
that
implied
similar
meanings
also
added
to
the
interpretation
of
the
interview
data.

Similarities

Two
clear
similarities
between
TM
and
HRM
were
identified.
Both
TM
and
HRM
see
that
placing
the
right
people
into
the
right
roles
is
an
important
means
of
integrating
people
practices
with
organizational
goals,
including
individual
development.
Tichy
et
al.
(1982,
p.
51)
argue
that
a
key
process
of
HRM
is
one
of
matching
available
HRs
to
jobs
in
the
organization .
Huselid
(1995)
also
posit
that
HRM
activities
involve
getting
the
right
person
into
the
right
spot
(employee
skill
and
organizational
structures)
in
order
to
contribute
to
higher
productivity.
A
similar
finding
was
found
in
the
empirical
study,
typified
by
the
Public
Relations
Manager
at
company
C
who
said
that
simply
speaking,
TM
is
to
get
the
right
people
into
the
right
places,
make
sure
that
people
and
places
are
well
matched .
Arguments
of
this
type
can
be
found
in
a
wide
range
of
literature
on
TM.
For
example,
according
to
Duttagupta
(2005),
TM
assures
that
a
supply
of
talent
is
available
to
align
the
right
people
with
the
right
jobs
at
the
right
time,
based
on
strategic
business
objectives.
In
a
similar
vein,
Stainton
(2005)
claims
that
talent
management
is
concerned
with
having
the
right
people
in
the
right
roles
in
the
right
environment
with
the
right
manager
to
enable
maximum
performance .
Here,
the
implicit
focus
on
fit
and
talent
is
evident.

Both
TM
and
HRM
cover
the
same
core
functional
areas
of
people
management.
The
majority
of
people
management
treatises
on
HRM
and
TM
have
identified
similar
key
functional
areas.
For
example,
Cascio
(1998)
explicitly
defines
HRM
as
the
attraction,
selection,
retention,
development
and
use
of
HRs
in
order
to
achieve
both
individual
and
organizational
objectives .
This
is
the
same
as,
or
similar
to,
most
of
the
descriptions
of
TM
offered
by
participants
during
the
interviews.
Nearly,
all
the
respondents
mentioned
that
their
TM
projects
cover
almost
all
the
traditional
functional
areas
of
HRM,
albeit
sometimes
with
a
different
focus.
This
commonality
between
TM
and
HRM
is
also
found
in
the
normative
literature.
For
instance,
Creelman
(2004)
defines
TM
as
the
process
of
attracting,
recruiting
and
retaining
talented
employees,
whereas
Knez
and
Ruse
(2004)
assert
that
TM
refers
to
a
continuous
process
of
external
recruitment
and
selection
and
internal
development
and
retention.
Thus,
HRM
and
TM
share
much
in
common.

Differences

Notwithstanding
the
findings
above,
it
is
important
to
note
some
key
differences
exist
between
HRM
and
TM.
For
the
majority
of
participants,
TM
is
one
part
of
HRM.
TM
is
talent
focused,
with
a
more
directed
and
detailed
focus
by
management
upon
certain
groups
of
people;
that
is,
talents
as
against
HRM s
focus
on
the
management
of
all
staff.
However,
participants
at
firm
C
did
not
generally
hold
this
view.
One
educator
from
firm
D
stated
that
TM
is
just
one
aspect
of
HR
...
HRM
cares
about
the
management
of
all
employees
in
enterprises
...
while
TM
just
focuses
on
the
most
valuable
people
in
the
organization
...
therefore,
TM
is
just
one
part
of
HRM .
This
conclusion
is
directly
related
to
the
way
individual
firms
define
talents.
If
they
adopt
a
relatively
narrow,
exclusive
definition,
they
will
be
drawn
to
this
conclusion.

TM
requires
not
only
the
buy-in
of
HR
department
and
line
managers
as
does
HRM,
but
also
the
support
of
the
senior
management
team.
Staff
in
the
case
study
firms
unanimously
asserted
that
all
stakeholders
have
to
be
engaged
and
involved
in
the
process
of
TM
a
talent
mindset
was
an
essential
orientation.
According
to
the
Sales

MNCs
in
Beijing
MRN
31,12

Manager
from
firm
A,
TM
is
a
top-down
process
and
the
buy-in
of
the
senior
management
team
plays
a
key
role
because
TM
can
only
be
effectively
conducted
with
its
support.
Thus,
senior
management
controls
the
orientation
at
a
macro-level.
Her
view
was
that
the
HR
department
plays
the
dual
roles
of
advocator
and
designer
of
the
whole
system
as
well
as
the
role
of
the
result
examiner .
In
most
cases,
the
HR
department
also
assumes
the
responsibility
of
co-ordinating
different
functional
departments
in
order
to
guarantee
successful
outcomes
for
TM
activities.
Other
functional
departments
are
responsible
for
concrete
operations
although
they
can
always
seek
guidance
and
consult
the
HR
department.
In
essence,
the
vast
majority
of
respondents
across
all
firms
adopted
a
similar
position.

The
normative
literature
claims
that
TM
will
fail
if
it
is
viewed
purely
as
an
HR
initiative
(CIPD,
2006).
TM
needs
to
be
embedded
in
the
entire
organization,
led
by
the
senior
management
team,
supported
by
a
range
of
initiatives
developed
by
HR
and
implemented
by
HR
and
line
managers.
As
suggested
by
Chambers
et
al.
(1998,
p.
48),
superior
talent
will
be
tomorrow s
prime
source
of
competitive
advantage.
Any
company
seeking
to
exploit
it
must
instil
a
talent
mindset
throughout
the
organization,
starting
at
the
top .

TM
seems
to
emphasize
segmentation,
whereas
HRM
asserts
a
degree
of
egalitarianism.
A
viewpoint
widely
held
among
the
participants
from
the
case
study
firms
is
that
TM
is
significantly
different
from
HRM
because
the
latter
treats
each
employee
in
the
same
way
and
avoids
differentiation
in
the
allocation
of
a
firm s
resources.
In
contrast,
TM
sees
the
needs
of
core
and
non-core
employees
as
being
different
and
starts
to
pay
attention
to
different
demands
of
different
groups
of
people ,
at
least
according
to
a
IT
Support
Manager
in
firm
D.
Firm
A s
HR
Manager
explained
the
notion
of
difference
by
referring
to
Maslow s
hierarchy
of
needs.
He
suggested
that
the
needs
of
employees
with
different
performances
and
potential
are
different
and
therefore,
management
techniques
and
methods
should
account
for
these
differences.
The
Sales
Manager
from
firm
A
believed
that
TM
stresses
favouring
the
deployment
of
firm s
resources
towards
selected
elites
and
key
employees .
The
Finance
Manager
from
firm
A
also
pointed
out
that
it
is
a
kind
of
waste
of
a
company s
resources
to
manage
employees
without
any
particular
emphasis
in
pursuit
of
egalitarianism .
The
HR
Manager
from
firm
B
echoed
similar
sentiments
stating
that
traditional
HRM
means
that
enterprises
equally
distribute
their
resources
while
TM
emphasizes
a
differentiated
distribution
of
resources .

Similar
positions
in
the
normative
TM
literature
can
be
detected.
For
example,
Ledford
and
Kochanski
(2004,
p.
217)
argue
that
segmentation,
that
is
the
division
of
the
workforce
into
parts
that
are
treated
differently,
is
fundamental
to
talent
management .
Furthermore,
successful
organizations
tend
to
have
a
dominant
talent
segment,
while
their
weaker
peers
have
a
bit
of
everything;
but
no
company
can
be
all
things
to
all
people.
Ideally,
a
company
should
simply
figure
out
who
it
is
aiming
for,
and
make
sure
its
brand
is
tailored
to
the
talent
segment
it
seeks
to
attract
(Chambers
et
al.,
1998,
p.
51)
suggest
that
a
company
should
simply
figure
out
who
it
is
aiming
for,
and
make
sure
its
brand
is
tailored
to
the
talent
segment
it
seeks
to
attract .
While
traditional
HRM
stresses
managing
HRs
as
the
organization s
most
important
asset
and
main
source
of
competitive
advantage,
it
also
advocates
egalitarianism,
considering
everyone
as
(potentially)
equally
capable.
TM
advocates
take
the
opposite
standpoint,
arguing
that
employees
should
be
distinguished
from
each
other
in
terms
of
their
performance,
potential
and
core
competencies
(Berger,
2004).
TM
also
stresses
talentism
(Lin,
2006)
and
premises
the
classification
of
employees,
viewing
segmentation
as
effectively
a
practical
version
of
labour
economics.
Without
segmentation,
managers
would
treat
all
employees
as
equally
valuable,
regardless
of
their
performance,
competence,
potential
or
other
characteristics
that
distinguish
them
from
each
other.
This
is
seen
as
potentially
creating
unnecessarily
high
costs
in
recruiting,
hiring,
training,
developing
and
compensating
employees.

Starting
points

The
starting
point
of
HRM
had
a
consensus
among
the
senior
consultants,
respectively,
from
firms
E
and
F.
HRM
concerns
accomplishments
in
separate
functional
areas
such
as
recruitment,
training,
development
and
assessment.
Its
focus
is
not
on
people
but
on
the
successful
fulfilment
of
each
function.
On
the
other
hand,
the
starting
point
of
TM
is
people,
namely
talents.
Under
the
TM
umbrella,
management
functions
are
no
longer
seen
as
divided
but
as
linked
tightly
around
talents.
Consequently,
the
ultimate
result
of
TM
is
a
smooth
supply
of
networked
talents.
A
senior
engineer
from
firm
B
commented
that
previously
we
only
had
a
selection
mechanism
and
we
lacked
the
corresponding
management
means
and
a
method
aimed
at
those
selected
top
talents
...
current
TM
makes
the
management
of
those
specific
groups
of
people
systematized .
According
to
a
senior
consultant
from
firm
E,
this
can
be
seen
as
a
fundamental
change
in
thinking.
However,
it
is
just
such
a
change
that
enables
TM
to
gain
popularity
in
the
world
of
professional
managers.

The
above
comparisons
between
TM
and
HRM
ideology
and
practice
suggest
that
it
is
unacceptable
to
conclude
that
TM
is
completely
new
or
a
repackaging
of
HR
practices.
As
an
associate
HR
generalist
from
firm
B
observed,
TM
is
a
logical
result
of
the
further
development
of
HRM,
it
is
not
something
completely
different
and
isolated
from
HRM,
it
is
a
kind
of
management
developing
and
evolving
on
the
basis
of
HRM;
moreover,
it
is
still
covered
by
HRM .
TM,
therefore,
has
elements
of
both
HRM
and
TM.
As
Neil
Paterson,
the
Director
for
regional
business
units
at
Hay
Group
asserted,
there
is
an
element
of
TM
being
both
a
sound
bite
and
a
bandwagon
(Warren,
2006,
p.
29).
This
is
supported
by
Guest
who
sees
that
TM
integrates
some
old
ideas
and
gives
them
freshness
(Warren,
2006,
p.
29).

TM
has
emerged
and
developed
in
its
own
particular
social
and
economic
contexts
and
time
period,
inheriting
from
and
building
upon
existing
practices,
norms
and
processes.
It
also
draws
upon
an
extant
language,
which
defines
what
organizations
needs
from
its
employees
to
meet
the
performance
requirements
of
organizations,
both
now
and
in
the
future.

Old
wine
in
new
bottles?

Berglund
(2004)
argues
that
HR
professionals
have
attempted
to
(re)establish
their
legitimacy
and
status
by
showing
a
willingness
to
adopt
different
roles
and
rhetoric
to
impress
their
colleagues.
Evans
(1999)
argues
that
companies
have
begun
gradually
to
realize
that
talented
employees
play
a
critical
role
to
the
success
of
the
organization,
which
has
resulted
in
more
enhanced
responsibilities
for
HR
professionals.
She
further
claims
that
through
TM,
the
HR
function
will
increasingly
become
valued
as
a
strategic
business
partner
with
senior
managers,
ensuring
that
HR
activities
are
aligned
with
the
business
goals
of
the
organization.

The
findings
presented
here
do
not
entirely
support
the
above
arguments.
Participants
fairly
consistently
commented
that
the
real
driving
force
for
adopting
TM
was
their
own
demands
for
further
development
and
the
urgent
demands
for
the

MNCs
in
Beijing
MRN
31,12

attraction
and
retention
of
certain
staff
( talents )
rather
than
some
superficial
pursuits
as
put
by
one
educator
from
firm
D.
Much
evidence
could
be
found
for
this
position.
For
instance,
many
participants
in
firm
B
asserted
that
the
HR
department
played
the
role
of
a
strategic
partner
and
consultant.
Excluding
routine
work,
all
of
the
other
decisive
work
has
already
placed
the
HR
department
in
a
strategic
position.
Certainly,
if
the
HR
department
performs
effectively,
it
will
gain
the
respect
of
those
in
the
line
departments.
The
improvement
of
the
position
of
HR
might
be
one
effect
of
TM.
However,
it
is
by
no
means
a
point
of
departure
for
our
adoption
of
TM ,
according
to
the
HR
Manager
of
firm
B.

Other
participants
said
they
do
not
take
the
pursuit
of
an
improvement
of
the
HR
department s
legitimacy
and
status
into
consideration
during
their
decision-making
about
TM.
For
example,
an
educator
from
firm
D
said
that
there
are
three
classes
of
departments
in
our
company,
the
HR
department
belongs
to
the
A-class
and
has
always
been
valued;
our
HR
department
is
a
stable
department,
it
won t
make
any
decisions
based
on
those
superficial
pursuits .

The
literature
on
organization
studies
often
claims
that
popular
management
concepts
are
powerful
tools
for
individual
managers
inside
their
organizations,
enhancing
their
efforts
to
appear
modern
and
innovative
(Abrahamson,
1996;
Ernst
and
Kieser,
2002).
Contrast
this
view
with
the
observations
of
one
participant:

Maybe
certain
individuals
have
this
kind
of
cognitions
or
understandings
in
their
subconscious;
however,
it
is
definitely
not
controlled
by
the
HR
department
or
these
several
individuals
to
decide
for
their
enterprise
to
do
or
not
to
do
something,
because
enterprises
are
organizations
chasing
for
profits,
they
will
do
cost
accounting
for
any
business
action
(senior
consultant
from
firm
F).

On
the
basis
of
the
case
study
findings
and
the
argument
developed
above,
the
idea
that
TM
is
just
another
struggle
and
attempt
by
HR
departments
to
establish
and
enhance
their
legitimacy
and
credibility
can
be
challenged.
There
is
more
to
TM
than
just
being
old
wine
in
new
bottles.

Conclusion

The
paper
explored
what
is
distinctive
about
TM
and
the
factors
and
purposes
influencing
the
adoption
of
TM
in
China.
The
history
of
the
HR
profession
has
witnessed
several
different
labels
and
approaches,
many
of
which
overlap
over
time,
such
as
personnel
management,
HRM,
strategic
HRM
and
more
recently
TM.
Some
writers
have
argued
that
these
concepts
lack
distinctiveness
in
relation
to
each
other,
merely
exemplifying
the
struggle
by
HR
professionals
to
enhance
their
legitimacy,
status
and
credibility
both
within
and
outside
their
organization.

By
comparing
models
of
HRM
with
normative
and
empirical
findings
related
to
TM,
this
study
concludes
that
TM
seems
to
presage
some
new
and
rather
different
approaches
to
the
management
of
the
people
resource
in
MNCs
in
China
rather
than
a
simple
repackaging
of
old
techniques
and
ideas
with
a
new
brand
or
label.
Meanwhile,
the
study s
findings
give
grounds
to
challenge
the
idea
that
TM
is
another
struggle
by
HR
professionals
to
enhance
their
legitimacy,
status
and
credibility.
Rather,
TM
seems
to
be
a
new
management
ideology
that
may
make
a
difference
to
the
success
and
competitive
advantage
of
the
organization
studied
in
the
three
Chinese
cities
in
particular
and
to
Chinese
organizations
in
general.
Therefore,
TM
should
not
be
simply
considered
as
old
wine
in
new
bottles,
at
least
not
in
respect
to
the
cases
investigated
in
this
study.
Finally,
the
study
concerns
itself
only
with
well-established
and
recognized
MNCs
in
China.
Other
types
of
enterprises,
such
as
SOEs
or
private
and
joint-venture
enterprises
may
produce
different
findings
because
different
types
of
businesses
do
not
necessarily
fall
into
the
same
management
trajectory.
Hence,
further
investigation
into
TM
in
those
companies
will
be
a
welcome
addition
to
the
literature.
References

Abrahamson,
E.
(1991),
Managerial
fads
and
fashions:
the
diffusion
and
rejection
of
innovations ,
Academy
of
Management
Review,
Vol.
16
No.
3,
pp.
586-612.

Abrahamson,
E.
(1996),
Management
fashion ,
Academy
of
Management
Review,
Vol.
21
No.
1,
pp.
254-85.

Adamsky,
H.
(2003),
Talent
management:
something
productive
this
way
comes ,
available
at:
www.erexchange.com
Berger,
L.
A.
(2004),
Creating
a
talent
management
system
for
organization
excellence:
connecting
the
Dots ,
in
Berger,
L.
and
Berger,
D.
The
Talent
Management
Handbook:
Creating
Organizational
Excellence
by
Identifying,
Developing,
and
Promoting
Your
Best
People,
McGraw-Hill,
New
York,
NY.

Berglund,
D.
(2004),
The
Recurrent
Sense
of
Inadequacy:
A
Study
of
Personnel
Managers
Struggle
for
Legitimacy,
Stockholm
School
of
Economics,
Stockholm.

Cascio,
W.
(1998),
Applied
Psychology
in
Human
Resource
Management,
Prentice
Hall,
New
York,
NY.

Chambers,
E.G.,
Foulon,
M.,
Handfield-Jones,
H,
Hankin,
S.M.
and
Michaels,
E.
(1998),
The
war
for
talent ,
The
McKinsey
Quarterly,
Vol.
3,
pp.
44-57.

CIPD
(2006),
Talent
Management:
Understanding
the
Dimensions,
October,
Charted
Institute
of
Personnel
and
Development,
London.

Creelman,
D.
(2004),
Return
on
investment
in
talent
management:
measures
you
can
put
to
work
right
now ,
Human
Capital
Institute
Position
Paper,
Human
Capital
Institute,
Washington,
DC.

Duttagupta,
R.
(2005),
Identifying
and
Managing
Your
Assets:
Talent
Management,
PricewaterhouseCoopers,
London.

Ernst,
B.
and
Kieser,
A.
(2002),
Consultants
as
agents
of
anxiety
and
provides
of
managerial
control ,
in
Academy
of
Management
(Ed.),
Best
Paper
Proceedings,
Denver,
August
14-19.

Evans,
R.
(1999),
Changing
roles
for
HR
professionals
in
the
next
century ,
ACA
Journal,
Vol.
42
No.
6,
pp.
30-4.

Furusten,
S.
(1999),
Popular
Management
Books:
How
They
are
Made
and
What
They
Mean
for
Organizations,
Routledge,
London.

Huselid,
M.
(1995)
The
impact
of
human
resource
management
on
turnover,
productivity,
and
corporate
financial
performance ,
Academy
of
Management
Journal,
Vol.
38
No.
3,
pp
635-72.

Huczynski,
A.
(1993),
Management
Gurus,
Routledge,
London.

Knez,
M.
and
Ruse,
D.
H.
(2004),
Optimizing
your
investment
in
your
employees ,
in
Berger,
L.
and
Berger,
D.
(Eds),
Talent
Management
Handbook,
McGraw-Hill,
New
York,
NY,
pp.
230-42.

Lau,
D.
(2007),
China:
skills
shortage
makes
long-term
talent
management
key
to
successes ,
available
at:
www.ezifocus.com
(accessed
19
March
2007).

Ledford,
G.
and
Kochanski,
J.
(2004),
Allocating
training
and
development
resources
based
on
contribution ,
in
Berger,
L.
and
Berger,
D.
(Eds),
The
Talent
Management
Handbook:

MNCs
in
Beijing
MRN
31,12

Creating
Organizational
Excellence
by
Identifying,
Developing
and
Promoting
Your
Best
People,
McGraw-Hill,
New
York,
NY,
pp.
218-29.
Legge,
K.
(1995),
The
morality
of
HRM ,
in
Storey,
J.
(Ed.),
Human
Resource
Management:
A
critical
text,
Thomson
Learning,
London.
Lin,
W.Z.
(2006),
The
new
key
word
Talent
Management
in
retaining
the
top
employees ,
Human
Capital
Magazine,
May
(published
in
Chinese).
Newton,
A.
and
Subbaraman,
R.
(2002),
China:
Gigantic
Possibilities,
Present
Realities,
Lehman
Brothers,
London.

Poole,
M.
(1997),
Industrial
and
labour
relations ,
in
Warner,
M.
(Ed.),
TEBM
Concise
Encyclopaedia
of
Business
and
Management,
International
Thomson
Business
Press,
London.

Schweyer,
A.
(2004),
Talent
Management
Systems:
Best
Practices
in
Technology
Solutions
for
Recruitment,
Retention
and
Workforce
Planning,
Wiley,
New
York,
NY.
Shen,
J.
(2007),
Labour
contract
in
China:
does
it
protect
workers
rights? ,
Journal
of
Organizational
Transformation
and
Social
Change,
Vol.
4
No.
2,
pp.
111-29.
Shipton
J.
and
McAuley,
J.
(1993),
Issues
of
power
and
marginality
in
personnel ,
Human
Resource
Management
Journal,
Vol.
4
No.
1,
pp.
1-13.
Stainton,
A.
(2005),
Talent
management:
latest
buzzword
or
refocusing
existing
processes? ,
Competency
and
Emotional
Intelligence,
Vol.
12
No.
4,
summer,
pp.
39-43.
Tichy,
N.,
Fombrun,
C.
and
Devanna,
M.A.
(1982),
Strategic
human
resource
management ,
Sloan
Management
Review,
Vol.
23
No.
2,
pp.
47-61.
Ulrich,
D.
(1997),
Human
Resource
Champions:
The
Next
Agendas
for
Adding
Value
and
Delivering
Results,
Harvard
Business
School
Press,
Cambridge.
Warner,
M.
(1997),
China s
HRM
in
transition:
towards
relative
convergence? ,
Asia
Pacific
Business
Review,
Vol.
3
No.
4,
pp
19-33.
Warner,
M.
(2002),
Conclusion:
The
future
of
Chinese
management ,
Asia
Pacific
Business
Review,
Vol.
9
No.
2,
pp.
205-23.
Warren,
C.
(2006),
Curtain
call ,
People
Management,
Vol.
21
No.
6,
pp.
24-9.

About
the
authors

Xin
Chuai
is
a
full-time
PhD
student
in
the
Business
School,
University
of
Teesside,
Cleveland,
UK.
Her
main
research
interests
include
talent
management
in
joint
ventures
and
multinational
corporations.
She
is
currently
researching
leadership
development,
particularly
with
regard
to
talent
management
in
her
native
China,
and
has
given
a
number
of
conference
papers
on
talent
management.
She
is
a
member
of
the
School s
Centre
for
Leadership
and
Organizational
Change.
Xin
took
her
first
degree
in
Human
Resource
Management
at
RenMin
University,
one
of
the
top
universities
in
China,
and
following
this
worked
for
two
years
as
an
HR
consultant
in
a
Volkswagen
sales
company
in
Beijing.
She
then
returned
to
studying
full
time
and
obtained
a
masters
degree
in
Human
Resource
Management
from
Stirling
University,
Scotland.
Xin
Chuai
is
the
corresponding
author
and
can
be
contacted
at:
x.chuai@tees.ac.uk.

David
Preece
is
Professor
of
Technology
Management
and
Organization
Studies,
Head,
Centre
for
Leadership
and
Organizational
Change,
and
DBA
Programme
Leader
in
The
Business
School,
University
of
Teesside,
Cleveland,
UK.
His
main
research
interests
are
in
the
areas
of
organizational
and
technological
change
and
leadership
development.
He
has
published
in
a
number
of
refereed
journals,
including
Leadership;
New
Technology,
Work
and
Employment;
Human
Resource
Management
Journal;
Technology
Analysis
and
Strategic
Management
and
Personnel
Review,
and
is
author/editor
of
a
number
of
books,
including
Technological
Change
and
Organizational
Action,
Routledge,
2003
(edited,
with
J.
Laurila),
Technology,
Organizations
and
Innovation:
Critical
Perspectives
on
Business
and
Management,
Four
Volumes,
Routledge,
2000
(edited,
with
I.
McLoughlin
and
P.
Dawson)
and
Work,
Change
and
Competition:
Managing
for
Bass,
Routledge,
1999
(with
G.
Steven
and
V.
Steven).
He
is
Editor
of
the
Routledge
Research
Monograph
Series
Work,
Technology
and
Organizations .

Professor
Paul
Iles
is
a
Running
Stream
Professor
of
HRD
at
Leeds
Business
School,
where
he
provides
academic
leadership
in
HRD,
leadership,
and
change
management.
He
was
formerly
Professor
of
Strategic
HRM
and
Head
of
the
Centre
for
Leadership
and
Organisational
Change,
and
MBA
Programme
Leader
at
Teesside
University,
Teesside
Business
School.
Previously,
he
was
a
Senior
Lecturer
at
the
Open
University
Business
School
and
the
Littlewoods
Professor
of
HRD
at
the
Liverpool
Business
School,
Liverpool
John
Moores
University.
He
is
a
chartered
psychologist,
Associate
Fellow
of
the
British
Psychological
Society,
and
Chartered
Fellow
of
the
CIPD.
Paul
has
published
a
large
number
of
refereed
publications
in
many
refereed
journals.
He
has
written
or
co-written
four
books
and
many
book
chapters,
and
is
co-editor
of
the
Journal
of
Organizational
Transformation
and
Social
Change
and
associate
editor
of
the
Journal
of
Technology
Management
in
China.
He
recently
carried
out
research
with
the
Standards
Board
for
England
on
the
development
needs
of
Monitoring
Officers,
the
Academy
of
Chief
Executives
(NE)
on
leadership
development,
and
the
Learning
and
Skills
Council
on
world-class
comparisons
in
HRD.

MNCs
in
Beijing

To
purchase
reprints
of
this
article
please
e-mail:
reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or
visit
our
web
site
for
further
details:
www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints