**1. Introduction**

354 New Research on Knowledge Management Models and Methods

Rodríguez-Gómez, D. (2009). *La creación y gestión del conocimiento en las organizaciones* 

Rodríguez-Gómez, D., Armengol, C., Fuentes, M. & Muñoz, J.L (2011). Roles y funciones en

Saez, F., Garcia, O., Palao, J. & Rojo, P. (2009). Capital Humano (y II): Gestión del Co-

Sallis, E. & Jones, G. (2002). *Knowledge Management in Education: enchancing leaning and* 

Schenkel, A. & Teigland, R. (2008). Improved organizational performance through

Silva, J. (2004). El rol moderador del tutor en la conferencia mediada por computador.

Smith, M. K. (2009). *Communities of Practice. The encyclopedia of informal education.* Retrieved from <http://www.infed.org/biblio/communities\_of\_practice.htm> Smith, M.A. & Kollock, P. (Eds.) (2003). *Comunidades en el ciberespacio*. Ediuoc, *Comunidades* 

Sveiby, K.E. (2000). *Capital intelectual. La nueva riqueza de las empresas. Cómo medir y gestionar* 

Towsen, A., De Marie, S. & Hendrickson, A.R. (1998). Virtual teams: technology and the

Usoro, A., Sharratt, M.W., Tsui, E. & Shekhar, S. (2007). Trust as an antecedent to knowledge

Ward, J. & Peppard, J. (2002). *Strategic Planning for Information Systems.* Weley, ISBN 978-

Wenger, E. (2007). *Communities of Practice. A brief Introduction*. April 18th, 2009, Available

Wiig, K.M. (2004). *People-focused Knowledge Management. How effective Decision Making leads to corporate success*. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, ISBN 978-0750677776, Oxford Zang, W. & Watts, S. (2008). Online communities as communities of practice: a case study.

*Harvard Business Review*, 78, pp. 139-145, ISSN 0017- 8012

*Journal of Knowledge Management,* 12, 4, pp. 55-71, ISSN 1367-3270

<http://www.ewenger.com/theory/communities\_of\_practice\_intro\_WRD.doc> Wenger,E. & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier.

180). DaVinci, ISBN 9788492651481, Barcelona

<http://www.gsi.dit.upm.es/~fsaez/intl/indicecontenidos.html>

*education.* Kogan Page Limited, ISBN 978-0749434953, London

<http://edutec.rediris.es/Revelec2/revelec17/silva\_16a.htm>

*tecnológica en las empresas*. Retrieved from

Barcelona.

1367-3270

0896-3789

from:

*en el ciberespacio*, Barcelona

0470841471, Chichester

Éditeur, ISBN 9788480885454, Barcelona

*Practice*, 5, pp. 199-212, ISSN 1477-8238

*educativas: barreras y facilitadores.* Tesis doctoral. Universitat Autònoma de

la creación y gestión del conocimiento. In: *El trabajo colaborativo en red. Actores y procesos en la creación y gestión del conocimiento colectivo*, J. GAIRÍN (Ed.), (pp. 161-

nocimiento e-Learning y Modelos sociotécnicos. In: *Temas Básicos de Innovación* 

communities of practice. *Journal of Knowledge Management*, 12, 1, pp. 106-118, ISSN

Edutec. *Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa*, ISSN 1135-9250, Retrieved from

*los activos intangibles para crear valor*. Gestión 2000, Máxima Laurent du Mesnil

workplace of the future. *Academic of Management Executive,* 12, 3, pp. 17-29, ISSN

sharing in virtual communities of practice. *Knowledge Management Research &* 

In many organizations knowledge becomes increasingly important for sustaining competitive advantage. Knowledge-intensive firms (KIFs; Alvesson, 2004) gain competitive advantage by continuous adaptation to their environment. This constant adaptation to the competitive environment is realized by the unremitting generation and use of new knowledge (Harrison & Kessels, 2004, p. 3). Thus, for KIFs the strategic capacity to compete flows from knowledge; this knowledge is mainly derived from people (Kessels, 2004). Therefore it is assumed that managing their workforce's knowledge has become ever more critical to organizations. The relevance of HRM to knowledge management debates has long been noticed (e.g. Haesli & Boxall, 2005; Scarbrough, 2003; Storey & Quintas, 2002). Knowledge presumes knowing subjects, and therefore management focusing on knowledge and learning needs to pay attention to these subjects. Because of the emphasis on the knowledge people in knowledge-intensive firms possess and may create, organizations constantly need to find ways to make better use of this knowledge. Here, improved knowledge usage does not just concern better exploitation of existing knowledge sources but also leveraging the knowledge creation capability hidden in available knowledge. Even the most intelligent knowledge-based systems remain void of knowledge without intelligent users of these systems. As Kaulingfreks (2002) argues, knowledge management in an ICToriented approach easily runs the risk of producing erudite folly because of its preoccupation with information. What gets lost in even the most user-friendly and fully updated storage of best practices, Kaulingfreks argues, is the contextual, individual, nontransferrable, purposeless activity that knowledge is. Introductions into KM nowadays are considered incomplete if they do not pay sufficient attention to HRM and HRM handbooks typically include a chapter or section on knowledge and learning (e.g. Harrison & Kessels, 2004; Redman & Wilkinson, 2006; Adams, 2006).

A possibly interesting yet mostly unexplored domain of managing knowledge via HRM is by means of talent management. Since the late 1990s the interest in the topic of talent management has grown considerably. In 1997 a group of McKinsey consultants formulated the importance of talent for the performance of organizations by coining the 'War for Talent'. Since then the topic of talent management has received a remarkable degree of practitioner and academic interest (Gollings & Mellahi, 2009, p. 2). Changes in the environments of organizations such as globalization, growing operational complexity, an aging workforce, scarcity of talent, and greater international workforce mobility made the

Talent Management in Knowledge-Intensive Organizations 357

A useful starting point for finding a navigation path through the definitional maze that surrounds the talent management concept is provided by Lewis & Heckman (2006) who identify three distinct streams of thought regarding talent management. First, some studies merely substitute the label of human resource management with talent management by focusing on human resource practices, functions, activities such as recruiting, selection, development and career succession management (Lewis & Heckman, 2006, p. 140). A second perspective on talent management primarily highlights the concept of 'talent pools' by focusing on 'projecting employee/staffing needs and managing the progression of employee through positions' (Lewis & Heckman, 2006, p. 140). These approaches typically build on earlier research in the manpower planning/human resource planning or succession planning literature. A third perspective on talent management emphasizes the management of talented people; this perspective involves is a clear focus on talent generically (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Lewis & Heckman, 2006, p. 141). With this approach, all roles within the organization should be filled with employees who are considered 'A performers' or 'top

Two assertions can be made. First, of these three streams only the third type of definition seems to offer a serious attempt to provide a foothold for asking who is to be considered a 'talent' and what is the 'talent' that this person has or should have. The first two classes (talents as substitute for HR or talent as element of a pool to be developed) seem to use the concept of talent just for labelling reasons – and perhaps even for rhetoric or advertisement reasons. They would need further elaboration of the concept of talent. And second, the three types of definition do not represent approaches that are conceptually at odds with one another, but provide perspectives that may be combined (e.g. one can easily combine stream 3 typified by its focus on A-performers with the attention for talent pools in stream 2). To explore these linkages we can inspect some of the definitions of talent management given in

Cappelli (2008, p. 74-76) defines talent management as 'a matter of anticipating the need for human capital and then setting out a plan to meet it'. He mentions the need for a fundamentally new approach to talent management that takes into account the great uncertainty businesses face today. By borrowing lessons from operations and supply chain research, firms can forge a new model to make talent management better suited to today's realities (Cappelli, 2008, p. 76). Cappelli's definition fits with the third perspective on talent

Another example that fits the third stream is provided by Frank and Taylor (2008). These authors acknowledge the evolutionary changes that will permanently affect how we approach talent management. 'Workplaces everywhere are facing an increasingly complex and ever-changing landscape in their efforts to acquire, retain, motivate and develop the talent needed to keep their organizations operating efficiently and competitively' (Frank and Taylor, 2008, p. 34). This definition also acknowledges the need for talent and therefore their definition of talent management also fits in the third stream of thought regarding the concept of talent management as identified by Lewis & Heckman (2006). However, because of their focus on human resource practices such as recruitment and development of employees and because of the emphasis on strategic goals ('operate efficiently and competitively'), this definition adds elements of the first perspective on talent management:

A third example, also within the third stream, can be found in Fishman (1998). According to this author, talent management refers to the skills of attracting highly skilled workers, of

management because of the focus on (the management of) talented human capital.

'talent management as a substitute for strategic human resource practices'.

grading' (Smart, 1999).

the literature.

competition for talented knowledge workers a business case. 'Talent is the oil of the future and is the key to strategic success. Talent means all people in an organisation that contribute to its goals and competitive advantage' (Van der Sluis, 2009). Nowadays, most companies are experiencing a shortage of top talent as well as tough competition for talent (Heinen & O'Neill, 2004, p. 67). In 1998 Fishman already predicted a growing interest in the field of talent management in the near future: 'The most important corporate resource over the next 20 years will be talent: smart, sophisticated business people who are technologically literate, globally astute, and operationally agile. And as the demand for talent goes up, the supply of it will be going down' (Fishman, 1998, p. 1).

Connections between talent and its management on the one hand and subjects of knowledge and learning in organizations on the other seem logical and possibly fruitful. Yet subjects of knowledge management hardly receive any systematic attention in the talent management literature. Also the knowledge management and organizational learning literatures do not seem to have embraced notions of talent management. This paper aims to explore the potential of linking the fields of talent management and knowledge management, The method taken in this research is that of a literature review of the emerging stream of talent management studies via a knowledge and learning perspective that is derived from a literature review of the knowledge management literature. To meet these objectives, the chapter addresses three questions:


#### **2. Towards a definition of talent management**

It is no easy task to find a unanimously accepted definition of talent management. A key limitation in the field of talent management is its lack of a consistent definition (Collings & Mellahi, 2009, p. 1; Lewis & Heckman, 2006, p. 139; Cappelli, 2008, p. 74). 'There isn't a single consistent or concise definition of talent management' (Ashton & Morton, 2005, p. 30). Lewis & Heckman (2006, p. 139) speak of a 'disturbing lack of clarity regarding the definition, scope and overall goals of talent management'. As Lewis & Heckman (2006, p. 143) mention: 'Talent management, as defined currently, is not well grounded in research, not distinct from traditional HR practices or disciplines, and is supported mainly by anecdote'. Also, the terms 'talent management', 'talent strategy', 'succession management' and 'human resource planning' are often used interchangeably (Lewis & Heckman, 2006, p. 140). Thus, despite a growing popularity in the field of talent management and despite hopeful debates between authors, the concept of talent management remains unclear (Collings & Mellahi, 2009, p. 3).

competition for talented knowledge workers a business case. 'Talent is the oil of the future and is the key to strategic success. Talent means all people in an organisation that contribute to its goals and competitive advantage' (Van der Sluis, 2009). Nowadays, most companies are experiencing a shortage of top talent as well as tough competition for talent (Heinen & O'Neill, 2004, p. 67). In 1998 Fishman already predicted a growing interest in the field of talent management in the near future: 'The most important corporate resource over the next 20 years will be talent: smart, sophisticated business people who are technologically literate, globally astute, and operationally agile. And as the demand for talent goes up, the supply of

Connections between talent and its management on the one hand and subjects of knowledge and learning in organizations on the other seem logical and possibly fruitful. Yet subjects of knowledge management hardly receive any systematic attention in the talent management literature. Also the knowledge management and organizational learning literatures do not seem to have embraced notions of talent management. This paper aims to explore the potential of linking the fields of talent management and knowledge management, The method taken in this research is that of a literature review of the emerging stream of talent management studies via a knowledge and learning perspective that is derived from a literature review of the knowledge management literature. To meet these objectives, the

1. What is the definition of talent management; what do different literature views say

2. Why should we aim at linking talent management to debates on knowledge management and organizational learning? What debates regarding the latter two fields

3. How would talent management when linked to KM/OL help envision practical implementation of management programmes around knowledge and learning? This question refers to the objectives as well as the means of talent management in light of knowledge-related challenges and problems. For example, a relevant debate concerns which HR practices can be applied to achieve the objectives of talent management to support knowledge and learning processes. Which approaches does talent management

It is no easy task to find a unanimously accepted definition of talent management. A key limitation in the field of talent management is its lack of a consistent definition (Collings & Mellahi, 2009, p. 1; Lewis & Heckman, 2006, p. 139; Cappelli, 2008, p. 74). 'There isn't a single consistent or concise definition of talent management' (Ashton & Morton, 2005, p. 30). Lewis & Heckman (2006, p. 139) speak of a 'disturbing lack of clarity regarding the definition, scope and overall goals of talent management'. As Lewis & Heckman (2006, p. 143) mention: 'Talent management, as defined currently, is not well grounded in research, not distinct from traditional HR practices or disciplines, and is supported mainly by anecdote'. Also, the terms 'talent management', 'talent strategy', 'succession management' and 'human resource planning' are often used interchangeably (Lewis & Heckman, 2006, p. 140). Thus, despite a growing popularity in the field of talent management and despite hopeful debates between authors, the concept of talent management remains unclear

can be supported by adding insights from the talent management domain?

offer that may help organizations meet their knowledge-related objectives?

about the definitions on talent management and their scopes?

**2. Towards a definition of talent management** 

it will be going down' (Fishman, 1998, p. 1).

chapter addresses three questions:

(Collings & Mellahi, 2009, p. 3).

A useful starting point for finding a navigation path through the definitional maze that surrounds the talent management concept is provided by Lewis & Heckman (2006) who identify three distinct streams of thought regarding talent management. First, some studies merely substitute the label of human resource management with talent management by focusing on human resource practices, functions, activities such as recruiting, selection, development and career succession management (Lewis & Heckman, 2006, p. 140). A second perspective on talent management primarily highlights the concept of 'talent pools' by focusing on 'projecting employee/staffing needs and managing the progression of employee through positions' (Lewis & Heckman, 2006, p. 140). These approaches typically build on earlier research in the manpower planning/human resource planning or succession planning literature. A third perspective on talent management emphasizes the management of talented people; this perspective involves is a clear focus on talent generically (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Lewis & Heckman, 2006, p. 141). With this approach, all roles within the organization should be filled with employees who are considered 'A performers' or 'top grading' (Smart, 1999).

Two assertions can be made. First, of these three streams only the third type of definition seems to offer a serious attempt to provide a foothold for asking who is to be considered a 'talent' and what is the 'talent' that this person has or should have. The first two classes (talents as substitute for HR or talent as element of a pool to be developed) seem to use the concept of talent just for labelling reasons – and perhaps even for rhetoric or advertisement reasons. They would need further elaboration of the concept of talent. And second, the three types of definition do not represent approaches that are conceptually at odds with one another, but provide perspectives that may be combined (e.g. one can easily combine stream 3 typified by its focus on A-performers with the attention for talent pools in stream 2). To explore these linkages we can inspect some of the definitions of talent management given in the literature.

Cappelli (2008, p. 74-76) defines talent management as 'a matter of anticipating the need for human capital and then setting out a plan to meet it'. He mentions the need for a fundamentally new approach to talent management that takes into account the great uncertainty businesses face today. By borrowing lessons from operations and supply chain research, firms can forge a new model to make talent management better suited to today's realities (Cappelli, 2008, p. 76). Cappelli's definition fits with the third perspective on talent management because of the focus on (the management of) talented human capital.

Another example that fits the third stream is provided by Frank and Taylor (2008). These authors acknowledge the evolutionary changes that will permanently affect how we approach talent management. 'Workplaces everywhere are facing an increasingly complex and ever-changing landscape in their efforts to acquire, retain, motivate and develop the talent needed to keep their organizations operating efficiently and competitively' (Frank and Taylor, 2008, p. 34). This definition also acknowledges the need for talent and therefore their definition of talent management also fits in the third stream of thought regarding the concept of talent management as identified by Lewis & Heckman (2006). However, because of their focus on human resource practices such as recruitment and development of employees and because of the emphasis on strategic goals ('operate efficiently and competitively'), this definition adds elements of the first perspective on talent management: 'talent management as a substitute for strategic human resource practices'.

A third example, also within the third stream, can be found in Fishman (1998). According to this author, talent management refers to the skills of attracting highly skilled workers, of

Talent Management in Knowledge-Intensive Organizations 359

be perceived and designed as means to stimulate organizational success via these talents. This allows us to conceive of the conceptual unity that binds the four streams on talent management that have been distinguished. These four streams are: 'talent management as HR practices', 'talent pools', 'the management of talented people' and the 'identification of key positions'. The latter two appear as the home base for coming to grips with the concept of talent as a domain for management, with the first two as extensions to allow the

The second question identified in the introduction concerns the reasons for linking talent management to knowledge management and organizational learning. To answer this question, an inspection of the knowledge management field is called for. Two main streams can be discerned in the development of the knowledge management field (e.g. Hislop, 2009; Chiva & Alegre, 2005; Schultze & Stabell, 2004). One stream approaches knowledge as a functional resource, and provides a perspective for how that resource can be approached to identify its unique strategic potential (Zack, 1999) as a starting point for drafting management programmes for achieving that potential by knowledge management programmes and tools. Historically, especially the class of ICT tools has attracted much attention but within this functionalist approach to KM also several authors discuss the possibilities of HR programmes. A second stream has emerged, which can now be seen as an integral element of the knowledge management perspective, adopting a critical stance with regard to the functionalist perspective (e.g. Alvesson, 2004; Tsoukas, 2005; Brown & Duguid, 1998; Cook & Brown, 1999). This stream challenges the potential of knowledge as a functionalist resource, because thinking of knowledge as a resource would involve a conceptual impoverishment in our understanding of the very nature of knowledge (e.g. the way functionalist KM thinkers treat the fundamental category of tacit knowledge leads Tsoukas, 2003, to ask the question of 'Do we really understanding tacit knowledge?' – needless to say that his answer is 'no', not the way it was intended by Michael Polanyi, the intellectual father of the concept). These authors stress the importance of social processes and social context in which knowledge is created, and recreated. When divorced from social context, as happens when only the content side to knowledge is recognized as the basis for 'knowledge' storage in ICT systems or when knowledge domains are specified in HR development programmes, knowledge is considered to be void of meaning. Within that second stream, knowledge management is considered by many authors as a vague and ambiguous field of study. Knowledge management is a term which is difficult to

**3. Why look for linkages between talent management and knowledge** 

understand because knowledge is something which cannot really be managed.

Several authors, including Alvesson (1993, 2001), Becker (2001), Sewell (2005) and Tsoukas (1996), identify a focus on 'ambiguity' when describing the dominance and understanding of the nature and significance of 'knowledge' in contemporary companies and in particular in knowledge-intensive firms. These authors emphasize the ambiguity of knowledge work and the struggle knowledge-intensive organizations have with it. Not only the concept of knowledge is ambiguous, but also the role of knowledge in a knowledge-intensive company is ambiguous. "Ambiguity, (involving uncertainty, contradictions that cannot be resolved or reconciled, absence on agreement on boundaries, clear principles or solutions), then is seen as a crucial element in work and organization" (Alvesson, 1993, p. 1002). Ambiguity is

specification of management programmes and approaches.

**management?** 

integrating new workers, and developing and retaining current workers to meet current and future business objectives. This process of attracting and retaining profitable employees in order to strive for competitive and strategic advantage has come to be known as 'the war for talent'. Because it acknowledges the need for talent in order to achieve business objectives, the definition of Fishman (1998) is consistent with the third perspective on talent management which emphasizes the management of talented people. But here too this is combined with the first perspective on talent management, given the focus on human resource practices.

Several other authors emphasize the interests and strategic objectives of the organization in implementing talent management practices when defining talent management. For example, Van Aken (1991) defines talent management as 'the way in which managers manage their employees in order to deploy their talents as much as possible for the benefit of the success of the organization'. The success and competitive advantage of the organization is also emphasized in the following definition of Mensink (1991). According to Mensink (1991), 'talent management is the stimulation of people/employees to perform as well as possible to shed light upon the success of the organization'. Also Van der Sluis (2009) recognizes the importance of talent in achieving organizational objectives: 'Talent means all people in an organisation that contribute to its goals and competitive advantage' (Van der Sluis, 2009). Because of the focus on strategic objectives, these definitions too fit the third, general perspective on talent management in which there is a clear focus on the management of talent in general in order to strive for competitive advantages.

Next to the two remarks regarding Lewis and Heckman's (2006) triplet of talent management approaches made above, a third remark has to be that the three streams identified by these authors do not cover the full breadth of the talent management debates. Collings & Mellahi (2009) add an emerging fourth stream of thought regarding talent management to these three key streams. These authors define *strategic talent management* as: 'activities and processes that involve the systematic identification of key positions which differentially contribute to the organization's sustainable competitive advantage, the development of a talent pool of high potential and high performing incumbents to fill these roles, and the development of a differentiated human resource architecture to facilitate filling these positions with competent incumbents and to ensure their continued commitment to the organization' (Collings & Mellahi, 2009, p. 9). They recognize an emphasis on the identification of key positions rather than talented individuals per se (Collings & Mellahi, 2009, p. 6). This emphasis is not present in any of the other three streams, which justifies assigning definitions of talent management in terms of key positions to a fourth stream.

In summary, it can be concluded that a clear, broadly accepted definition of talent management is lacking in the literature. Because of this, an integrated definition of talent management cannot simply be derived from the extant literature but needs to be constructed. What the assorted definitions show is that a key element involves a focus on the talent of employees in order to enhance the organizational performance. The concept of talent should be read as a combination of (1) people ('A-performers'), (2) the specific skills and competencies of these individuals (the talents of the A-performers) and (3) key positions within the firm to address the linkage between these talented individuals and their organizational role (in the talent management domain, someone is not to be considered a talent because of her individual traits in isolation but always in connection to organizational processes and objectives). Human resource practices and talent pool programmes can then

integrating new workers, and developing and retaining current workers to meet current and future business objectives. This process of attracting and retaining profitable employees in order to strive for competitive and strategic advantage has come to be known as 'the war for talent'. Because it acknowledges the need for talent in order to achieve business objectives, the definition of Fishman (1998) is consistent with the third perspective on talent management which emphasizes the management of talented people. But here too this is combined with the first perspective on talent management, given the focus on human

Several other authors emphasize the interests and strategic objectives of the organization in implementing talent management practices when defining talent management. For example, Van Aken (1991) defines talent management as 'the way in which managers manage their employees in order to deploy their talents as much as possible for the benefit of the success of the organization'. The success and competitive advantage of the organization is also emphasized in the following definition of Mensink (1991). According to Mensink (1991), 'talent management is the stimulation of people/employees to perform as well as possible to shed light upon the success of the organization'. Also Van der Sluis (2009) recognizes the importance of talent in achieving organizational objectives: 'Talent means all people in an organisation that contribute to its goals and competitive advantage' (Van der Sluis, 2009). Because of the focus on strategic objectives, these definitions too fit the third, general perspective on talent management in which there is a clear focus on the management of

Next to the two remarks regarding Lewis and Heckman's (2006) triplet of talent management approaches made above, a third remark has to be that the three streams identified by these authors do not cover the full breadth of the talent management debates. Collings & Mellahi (2009) add an emerging fourth stream of thought regarding talent management to these three key streams. These authors define *strategic talent management* as: 'activities and processes that involve the systematic identification of key positions which differentially contribute to the organization's sustainable competitive advantage, the development of a talent pool of high potential and high performing incumbents to fill these roles, and the development of a differentiated human resource architecture to facilitate filling these positions with competent incumbents and to ensure their continued commitment to the organization' (Collings & Mellahi, 2009, p. 9). They recognize an emphasis on the identification of key positions rather than talented individuals per se (Collings & Mellahi, 2009, p. 6). This emphasis is not present in any of the other three streams, which justifies assigning definitions of talent management in terms of key positions

In summary, it can be concluded that a clear, broadly accepted definition of talent management is lacking in the literature. Because of this, an integrated definition of talent management cannot simply be derived from the extant literature but needs to be constructed. What the assorted definitions show is that a key element involves a focus on the talent of employees in order to enhance the organizational performance. The concept of talent should be read as a combination of (1) people ('A-performers'), (2) the specific skills and competencies of these individuals (the talents of the A-performers) and (3) key positions within the firm to address the linkage between these talented individuals and their organizational role (in the talent management domain, someone is not to be considered a talent because of her individual traits in isolation but always in connection to organizational processes and objectives). Human resource practices and talent pool programmes can then

talent in general in order to strive for competitive advantages.

resource practices.

to a fourth stream.

be perceived and designed as means to stimulate organizational success via these talents. This allows us to conceive of the conceptual unity that binds the four streams on talent management that have been distinguished. These four streams are: 'talent management as HR practices', 'talent pools', 'the management of talented people' and the 'identification of key positions'. The latter two appear as the home base for coming to grips with the concept of talent as a domain for management, with the first two as extensions to allow the specification of management programmes and approaches.

#### **3. Why look for linkages between talent management and knowledge management?**

The second question identified in the introduction concerns the reasons for linking talent management to knowledge management and organizational learning. To answer this question, an inspection of the knowledge management field is called for. Two main streams can be discerned in the development of the knowledge management field (e.g. Hislop, 2009; Chiva & Alegre, 2005; Schultze & Stabell, 2004). One stream approaches knowledge as a functional resource, and provides a perspective for how that resource can be approached to identify its unique strategic potential (Zack, 1999) as a starting point for drafting management programmes for achieving that potential by knowledge management programmes and tools. Historically, especially the class of ICT tools has attracted much attention but within this functionalist approach to KM also several authors discuss the possibilities of HR programmes. A second stream has emerged, which can now be seen as an integral element of the knowledge management perspective, adopting a critical stance with regard to the functionalist perspective (e.g. Alvesson, 2004; Tsoukas, 2005; Brown & Duguid, 1998; Cook & Brown, 1999). This stream challenges the potential of knowledge as a functionalist resource, because thinking of knowledge as a resource would involve a conceptual impoverishment in our understanding of the very nature of knowledge (e.g. the way functionalist KM thinkers treat the fundamental category of tacit knowledge leads Tsoukas, 2003, to ask the question of 'Do we really understanding tacit knowledge?' – needless to say that his answer is 'no', not the way it was intended by Michael Polanyi, the intellectual father of the concept). These authors stress the importance of social processes and social context in which knowledge is created, and recreated. When divorced from social context, as happens when only the content side to knowledge is recognized as the basis for 'knowledge' storage in ICT systems or when knowledge domains are specified in HR development programmes, knowledge is considered to be void of meaning. Within that second stream, knowledge management is considered by many authors as a vague and ambiguous field of study. Knowledge management is a term which is difficult to understand because knowledge is something which cannot really be managed.

Several authors, including Alvesson (1993, 2001), Becker (2001), Sewell (2005) and Tsoukas (1996), identify a focus on 'ambiguity' when describing the dominance and understanding of the nature and significance of 'knowledge' in contemporary companies and in particular in knowledge-intensive firms. These authors emphasize the ambiguity of knowledge work and the struggle knowledge-intensive organizations have with it. Not only the concept of knowledge is ambiguous, but also the role of knowledge in a knowledge-intensive company is ambiguous. "Ambiguity, (involving uncertainty, contradictions that cannot be resolved or reconciled, absence on agreement on boundaries, clear principles or solutions), then is seen as a crucial element in work and organization" (Alvesson, 1993, p. 1002). Ambiguity is

Talent Management in Knowledge-Intensive Organizations 361

critical, social-constructivist stream of social-practice approaches to knowledge management and organizational learning aims at building a more fully-fledged conceptual image of knowledge, yet at the expense of sidestepping a systematic analysis of the management side. Building a meaningful combination of the two – knowledge ánd management – appears hard, simply because the realm of management stops when ambiguity enters. Or, as Ten Bos (2002) puts it: "The urge to manage knowledge stems from the need to offer management professionals what we know in a neat and well-structured fashion. I believe, however, that knowledge that has been structured and arranged this way, in a certain sense no longer qualifies as knowledge. To put it differently, whoever manages, gives up every claim of knowledge. […] Management necessarily involves the exclusion of many contents and the attempt to capture, document and clarify what cannot be excluded. The price you pay is that knowledge is no longer subversive, revealing, creative or even exciting." Ambiguity and critical thinking are crucial in the complex situations knowledge-intensive firms face nowadays (Alvesson, 2004). In addition to this focus on ambiguity when describing knowledge and learning in organizations, Alvesson (2004) also claims the label of knowledge management is sometimes overstretched and that it should be used with a

The same applies to the concepts of 'organizational learning' and the 'learning organization', critics also have suggested that the learning organization can be construed as an ideology which is far from reality in organizations as we know them today (e.g. Driver, 2002). Therefore, concepts like knowledge management and learning organizations are frequently

What is argued here is that one way of bridging this ambiguity and vagueness of knowledge and associated learning processes and the legitimate desire to intentionally regulate organizational matters is to insert a focus on talent management to establish a relation between knowledge management and performance. Talent and knowledge are closely related subjects (e.g. Arab & Plucker, 2002). What makes talent management an attractive candidate for managing in knowledge-intensive situations relates to the triplet identified above of talent as a specific class of individuals ('A-performers'; these would become knowledge workers or knowledge subjects when approached from a knowledge perspective), a specific content (talent as high-level skills involves a key element of potential, and is meaningless without some domain that the talent applies to) and organizational positions (key positions refer to the organizational perspective, and thus may be used to step beyond the individual focus on people with their personal knowledge). Talent management can thus be used to avoid a limited functionalist approach to knowledge. By focusing on the talents of the workforce and by specifying these talents in knowledge related terminology (e.g. the content side to talent specified in relation to specific knowledge domains, the dynamic aspects of talents explored with respect to such processes as knowledge sharing and knowledge creation), knowledge enters the management domain in a way that avoids the risks of conceptual erosion of the knowledge concept. Knowledge functions as a gauge to select and specify talents considered crucial for meaningful persistence of the organization; it does not become the direct object of management. Also the concepts of talent management can function as a suited selection and specification vehicle within the broader HRM domain. Obviously, the social-practice sides to knowledge and learning processes call for a management focus on individuals and groups of individuals in connection to their organizational tasks and roles. Yet simply thinking of knowledge management as incomplete without human resource management would provide a not

seen as 'management trends' for which the effectiveness is difficult to demonstrate.

greater sense of its drawbacks.

different from uncertainty, because more information does remove the uncertainty, but does not delete ambiguity. Ambiguity refers to the reduction of the ability to make a qualified judgement on a certain situation (Alvesson, 1993; Becker, 2001; Tsoukas, 1996).

Institutionalized myths are a way of claiming to be knowledge-intensive. Beliefs that are taken for granted bridge the gap between claims of rationality and the ambiguity within the organization. Hence, the focus changes from the formal knowledge to the strategies that persuade all stakeholders involved to convince them of the expertise and knowledge that is employed by the organization (Alvesson, 1993). KIFs are typically more concerned with being socially recognized as being an expert than ultimately being one. Consequently, various rhetorical strategies are employed to create a rhetoric that stresses the personal qualities, besides the knowledge base that knowledge workers are claimed upon, that knowledge workers must possess to appear qualified. In this myth perspective, knowledge has other roles such as:

"a) a means for creating community and social identity through offering organizational members a shared language and promoting their self-esteem, b) a resource for persuasion in, for example, PR work and interactions with customers, c) providing the company with a profile (an intended image targeted at the market), d) creating legitimacy and good faith regarding actions and outcomes, and e) obscuring uncertainty and counteraction reflection" (Alvesson, 1993, p. 1011).

The expertise of the knowledge worker is not only expressed by an objective result, but also symbolizes rationality, intelligence, quality etc. Knowledge can hence not be isolated and be seen as a particular that is in itself important and the success of knowledge-intensive work is contingent upon beliefs about knowledge workers offering something specific (Alvesson, 2000). Knowledge does not exist separate from the social processes of interpretation and meaning creation (Alvesson, 2000). Ambiguity involved in meaning creation processes is the foundation for the 'quality' of knowledge.

Alvesson (1993; 2000; 2001) proposes a new theoretical framework for the concepts of knowledge and knowledge work, involving three kinds of ambiguity: 1) ambiguity of knowledge, 2) ambiguity of the significance of knowledge, and 3) ambiguity of results claimed to be contingent upon knowledge work. The ambiguity of knowledge refers to the claimed core product and the varying definitions on what knowledge is claimed to be in knowledge-intensive firms. Second, knowledge is not necessarily significant in work, because it is connected to flexibility, motivation, social skills, ways of operating, and other elements that are involved in doing knowledge-intensive work. Finally, the work results of knowledge work are very hard to evaluate, while knowledge work is a very intangible and complex 'product'. The work results are often subject to uncertainty, because criteria for evaluating the quality are lacking. They are more based on the perception of the client about the degree to which their problem is solved or the outcomes meet the expectations. "Institutionalized assumptions, expectations, recognitions, reputation, images etcetera are important to how the products of KIFOWs [KIFs] are perceived" (Alvesson, 1993, p. 1007). As a result, KIFs can be defined as being very 'ambiguity-intensive', as Alvesson (1993) calls it.

As Alvesson & Karreman (2001) argue, the term knowledge management has the threat of falling into pieces when both knowledge and management are taken seriously. The functionalist stream with its focus on knowledge as strategic resource and the deployment of knowledge management tools takes management very seriously, which results in an impoverished understanding of knowledge which is hardly different from information. The

different from uncertainty, because more information does remove the uncertainty, but does not delete ambiguity. Ambiguity refers to the reduction of the ability to make a qualified

Institutionalized myths are a way of claiming to be knowledge-intensive. Beliefs that are taken for granted bridge the gap between claims of rationality and the ambiguity within the organization. Hence, the focus changes from the formal knowledge to the strategies that persuade all stakeholders involved to convince them of the expertise and knowledge that is employed by the organization (Alvesson, 1993). KIFs are typically more concerned with being socially recognized as being an expert than ultimately being one. Consequently, various rhetorical strategies are employed to create a rhetoric that stresses the personal qualities, besides the knowledge base that knowledge workers are claimed upon, that knowledge workers must possess to appear qualified. In this myth perspective, knowledge

"a) a means for creating community and social identity through offering organizational members a shared language and promoting their self-esteem, b) a resource for persuasion in, for example, PR work and interactions with customers, c) providing the company with a profile (an intended image targeted at the market), d) creating legitimacy and good faith regarding actions and outcomes, and e) obscuring uncertainty and counteraction reflection"

The expertise of the knowledge worker is not only expressed by an objective result, but also symbolizes rationality, intelligence, quality etc. Knowledge can hence not be isolated and be seen as a particular that is in itself important and the success of knowledge-intensive work is contingent upon beliefs about knowledge workers offering something specific (Alvesson, 2000). Knowledge does not exist separate from the social processes of interpretation and meaning creation (Alvesson, 2000). Ambiguity involved in meaning creation processes is the

Alvesson (1993; 2000; 2001) proposes a new theoretical framework for the concepts of knowledge and knowledge work, involving three kinds of ambiguity: 1) ambiguity of knowledge, 2) ambiguity of the significance of knowledge, and 3) ambiguity of results claimed to be contingent upon knowledge work. The ambiguity of knowledge refers to the claimed core product and the varying definitions on what knowledge is claimed to be in knowledge-intensive firms. Second, knowledge is not necessarily significant in work, because it is connected to flexibility, motivation, social skills, ways of operating, and other elements that are involved in doing knowledge-intensive work. Finally, the work results of knowledge work are very hard to evaluate, while knowledge work is a very intangible and complex 'product'. The work results are often subject to uncertainty, because criteria for evaluating the quality are lacking. They are more based on the perception of the client about the degree to which their problem is solved or the outcomes meet the expectations. "Institutionalized assumptions, expectations, recognitions, reputation, images etcetera are important to how the products of KIFOWs [KIFs] are perceived" (Alvesson, 1993, p. 1007). As a result, KIFs can be defined as being very 'ambiguity-intensive', as Alvesson (1993)

As Alvesson & Karreman (2001) argue, the term knowledge management has the threat of falling into pieces when both knowledge and management are taken seriously. The functionalist stream with its focus on knowledge as strategic resource and the deployment of knowledge management tools takes management very seriously, which results in an impoverished understanding of knowledge which is hardly different from information. The

judgement on a certain situation (Alvesson, 1993; Becker, 2001; Tsoukas, 1996).

has other roles such as:

(Alvesson, 1993, p. 1011).

calls it.

foundation for the 'quality' of knowledge.

critical, social-constructivist stream of social-practice approaches to knowledge management and organizational learning aims at building a more fully-fledged conceptual image of knowledge, yet at the expense of sidestepping a systematic analysis of the management side. Building a meaningful combination of the two – knowledge ánd management – appears hard, simply because the realm of management stops when ambiguity enters. Or, as Ten Bos (2002) puts it: "The urge to manage knowledge stems from the need to offer management professionals what we know in a neat and well-structured fashion. I believe, however, that knowledge that has been structured and arranged this way, in a certain sense no longer qualifies as knowledge. To put it differently, whoever manages, gives up every claim of knowledge. […] Management necessarily involves the exclusion of many contents and the attempt to capture, document and clarify what cannot be excluded. The price you pay is that knowledge is no longer subversive, revealing, creative or even exciting." Ambiguity and critical thinking are crucial in the complex situations knowledge-intensive firms face nowadays (Alvesson, 2004). In addition to this focus on ambiguity when describing knowledge and learning in organizations, Alvesson (2004) also claims the label of knowledge management is sometimes overstretched and that it should be used with a greater sense of its drawbacks.

The same applies to the concepts of 'organizational learning' and the 'learning organization', critics also have suggested that the learning organization can be construed as an ideology which is far from reality in organizations as we know them today (e.g. Driver, 2002). Therefore, concepts like knowledge management and learning organizations are frequently seen as 'management trends' for which the effectiveness is difficult to demonstrate.

What is argued here is that one way of bridging this ambiguity and vagueness of knowledge and associated learning processes and the legitimate desire to intentionally regulate organizational matters is to insert a focus on talent management to establish a relation between knowledge management and performance. Talent and knowledge are closely related subjects (e.g. Arab & Plucker, 2002). What makes talent management an attractive candidate for managing in knowledge-intensive situations relates to the triplet identified above of talent as a specific class of individuals ('A-performers'; these would become knowledge workers or knowledge subjects when approached from a knowledge perspective), a specific content (talent as high-level skills involves a key element of potential, and is meaningless without some domain that the talent applies to) and organizational positions (key positions refer to the organizational perspective, and thus may be used to step beyond the individual focus on people with their personal knowledge). Talent management can thus be used to avoid a limited functionalist approach to knowledge. By focusing on the talents of the workforce and by specifying these talents in knowledge related terminology (e.g. the content side to talent specified in relation to specific knowledge domains, the dynamic aspects of talents explored with respect to such processes as knowledge sharing and knowledge creation), knowledge enters the management domain in a way that avoids the risks of conceptual erosion of the knowledge concept. Knowledge functions as a gauge to select and specify talents considered crucial for meaningful persistence of the organization; it does not become the direct object of management. Also the concepts of talent management can function as a suited selection and specification vehicle within the broader HRM domain. Obviously, the social-practice sides to knowledge and learning processes call for a management focus on individuals and groups of individuals in connection to their organizational tasks and roles. Yet simply thinking of knowledge management as incomplete without human resource management would provide a not

Talent Management in Knowledge-Intensive Organizations 363

activities, a proper learning and working climate needs to be at hand (Christaensen et al., 2009). Therefore, without an existing learning climate, talent management activities cannot

To further elaborate on how a perspective on knowledge-related talent management provides an insight into possible management programmes and tools, attention needs to be paid to how objectives of talent management are to be specified. This concerns a necessary preparation for answering the third question posed in the introduction regarding the management practices of what can be labelled as 'knowledge-intensive talent management'. According to Van Beers (2005), the objectives of talent management are 'the optimal obtaining, mobilizing, developing and retaining of the talents which are needed for organizations to distinguish themselves on the market and in their provision of services'. This definition identifies two classes of objectives. Firstly, external objectives are included that concern distinguishing the organization from competitors or establishing its external identity (talents as vehicles for strategic positioning). These objectives link to the strong relation that exists between talent management and the strategic organizational objectives of the organization (Mensink, 1991; Van der Sluis, 2009). Thus the objectives of talent management can be described in terms of achieving competitive advantages and increased organizational performance. As signalled above, what talents are from a knowledge perspective is exactly those organizational knowing and learning capabilities that can be used to gain a competitive edge. To identify what strategic talents are, the knowledge management literature offers suited support in the processes of defining a knowledge strategy (e.g. the approach developed by Zack, 1999) that could be used in connection with a focus on talent to around knowledge domains, A-performers on these domains and key

be launched in knowledge-intensive organizations.

**4. On how to manage talent as knowledge management** 

positions associated with the processing of these knowledge domains.

der Sluis (2009) distinguishes the following three steps:



Next to these strategic objectives in Van Beers' definition, it also refers to the 'optimal obtaining, mobilizing, developing and retaining of the talents'. These objectives refer to organization-internal prerequisites for effective external positioning via talents. We will label this second class of objectives as infrastructural objectives: the objective of the organizational infrastructure will be to make sure that talents are and remain indoor that are indispensible for meeting the strategic objectives. A further specification of these infrastructural objectives is provided by Van der Sluis (2009) who states that 'talent management is about the finding, binding, captivating and flourishing of people in organizations with the goal of optimizing the labour productivity of their workforce'. Van

When combining goals of talent management as presented by Van der Sluis (2009) and Van


Beers (2005) the following list of infrastructural goals of talent management emerges:



well-informed guide into the HRM field. Talent management is proposed here as a highly suited candidate for providing the missing link between the people side to management and knowledge-related challenges and problems within organizations.

Knowledge and learning are of fundamental importance in understanding organizations as adaptive systems. Regarding the strategic domain (viz. the discussion couched in terms of knowledge as a strategic resource or strategic capability) the use of talent management offers an attractive option to establish a positive relation between knowledge and learning on the one hand and the performance of organizations on the other. A reformulation and elaboration of knowledge-related talent management in strategic knowledge management terminology involves honouring the distinctive position that specific knowledge and learning capabilities may entail in a way that enables us to avoid a functionalist, objectivist perspective on knowledge without losing sight of the potential strategic boons of a knowledgeable workforce. Thus, a combined talent-knowledge focus on strategic positioning involves a potentially rich elaboration of *strategic* human resource management. At the infrastructural level, talent management with a focus on the knowledge-related talents of employees also provides a powerful perspective on potentials and limitations of management in knowledge-intensive environments. Alvesson (2004) defines 'knowledgeintensive firms' as follows: 'organizations that offer to the market the use of fairly sophisticated knowledge or knowledge-based products. The core activities in these companies are based on the intellectual skills of a very large proportion of the labour force deployed in development, and often also in the sale of products and in service work' (Alvesson, 2004, p. 17). In these kinds of organizations, there is a strong focus on knowledge and on attracting and retaining knowledge workers who possess this knowledge. Therefore, within knowledge-intensive organizations, talent management can be significant in recruiting, developing and retaining talent. Within knowledge-intensive organizations, talented employees and their knowledge are considered important in producing those goods and services that yield and maintain competitive advantage. Connecting talent management to knowledge processes allows envisioning knowledge-related objectives as manageable entities. As examples of these knowledge processes and the way these would perceived via their relation to talent management, consider the processes of knowledge retention, knowledge sharing and knowledge creation. The first of these, knowledge retention, translates into identifying the key domains of knowledge that should not get lost into specific talents attached to these domains without modelling these domains (cf. the risks involved in knowledge modelling as identified by Ten Bos), and opens the door to specifying which A-performers, which talents and which key positions are pivotal in maintaining appropriate levels of organizational knowledge. Knowledge sharing as a talentrelated theme allows focusing on the tacit and explicit sides to knowledge without unduly treating these as separate categories. Perceiving of knowledge creation as a talent-related process allows focusing management attention not so much on the current knowledge per se, but on the potential current insight and associated reflection have for future insights that develop because of current knowledge yet deviate from it. The ambiguity and intransparancy of exactly this knowledge creation process thus remains centre stage in management efforts aimed at enhancing the creativity of the organization. Also broader conditions for these knowledge processes, such as the culture of the organization or shared worldviews among groups of personnel, may earn their appropriate place on the management agenda. The infrastructure of organizations needs to be regulated in a way that talent management can be established. When organizations launch talent management

well-informed guide into the HRM field. Talent management is proposed here as a highly suited candidate for providing the missing link between the people side to management and

Knowledge and learning are of fundamental importance in understanding organizations as adaptive systems. Regarding the strategic domain (viz. the discussion couched in terms of knowledge as a strategic resource or strategic capability) the use of talent management offers an attractive option to establish a positive relation between knowledge and learning on the one hand and the performance of organizations on the other. A reformulation and elaboration of knowledge-related talent management in strategic knowledge management terminology involves honouring the distinctive position that specific knowledge and learning capabilities may entail in a way that enables us to avoid a functionalist, objectivist perspective on knowledge without losing sight of the potential strategic boons of a knowledgeable workforce. Thus, a combined talent-knowledge focus on strategic positioning involves a potentially rich elaboration of *strategic* human resource management. At the infrastructural level, talent management with a focus on the knowledge-related talents of employees also provides a powerful perspective on potentials and limitations of management in knowledge-intensive environments. Alvesson (2004) defines 'knowledgeintensive firms' as follows: 'organizations that offer to the market the use of fairly sophisticated knowledge or knowledge-based products. The core activities in these companies are based on the intellectual skills of a very large proportion of the labour force deployed in development, and often also in the sale of products and in service work' (Alvesson, 2004, p. 17). In these kinds of organizations, there is a strong focus on knowledge and on attracting and retaining knowledge workers who possess this knowledge. Therefore, within knowledge-intensive organizations, talent management can be significant in recruiting, developing and retaining talent. Within knowledge-intensive organizations, talented employees and their knowledge are considered important in producing those goods and services that yield and maintain competitive advantage. Connecting talent management to knowledge processes allows envisioning knowledge-related objectives as manageable entities. As examples of these knowledge processes and the way these would perceived via their relation to talent management, consider the processes of knowledge retention, knowledge sharing and knowledge creation. The first of these, knowledge retention, translates into identifying the key domains of knowledge that should not get lost into specific talents attached to these domains without modelling these domains (cf. the risks involved in knowledge modelling as identified by Ten Bos), and opens the door to specifying which A-performers, which talents and which key positions are pivotal in maintaining appropriate levels of organizational knowledge. Knowledge sharing as a talentrelated theme allows focusing on the tacit and explicit sides to knowledge without unduly treating these as separate categories. Perceiving of knowledge creation as a talent-related process allows focusing management attention not so much on the current knowledge per se, but on the potential current insight and associated reflection have for future insights that develop because of current knowledge yet deviate from it. The ambiguity and intransparancy of exactly this knowledge creation process thus remains centre stage in management efforts aimed at enhancing the creativity of the organization. Also broader conditions for these knowledge processes, such as the culture of the organization or shared worldviews among groups of personnel, may earn their appropriate place on the management agenda. The infrastructure of organizations needs to be regulated in a way that talent management can be established. When organizations launch talent management

knowledge-related challenges and problems within organizations.

activities, a proper learning and working climate needs to be at hand (Christaensen et al., 2009). Therefore, without an existing learning climate, talent management activities cannot be launched in knowledge-intensive organizations.
