The influence of talent management on personal growth initiative
and the mediating role of perceived organizational support and
the moderating role of culture
Author:
Anne de Roover
Boksdoornerf 675
5038 KC Tilburg
ANR: 349252
E-mail: a.m.deroover@uvt.nl
1st Supervisor: Christina Meyers
2nd Supervisor: Renee de Reuver
Project Theme: Talent Management
Date of defense: 13-05-2015
Abstract
Nowadays many organizations are implementing talent management programs in order to
develop promising employees for future key roles in the organization. These programs take
place on national level and international level. Nevertheless, not much empirical research is
done yet regarding the effects of talent management (TM) programs on individuals as well as
to the role of culture within these effects. It is argued that those programs affect organizational
outcomes, which may be a result of individual outcomes. One of those individual outcomes is
personal growth initiative (PGI), which represents the active and intentional desire to grow as
a person.
This research examines whether participating in a TM program has a significant
influence on PGI of the participant. Furthermore the mediating role of perceived organizational
support (POS) in this relationship is investigated. In addition, the moderating role of
individualism/collectivism (I/C) on the relationships between TM and PGI as well as the
relationship between TM and POS is examined. This thesis will use theory about PGI, the
organizational support theory, theory concerning I/C as well as empirical evidence to explain
these relationships.
Survey data of 172 employees from one organization were gathered. 59 of those
respondents are participating in a TM program. Multiple hierarchical regression analyses were
conducted to test the hypotheses. It was found that TM programs indeed significantly influences
the PGI of the participants and that POS mediates this relationship. No significant effects were
found for the moderating role of culture. Nonetheless it was found that culture directly
influences POS, meaning that POS also mediates the relationship between culture and PGI.
It can be concluded that TM programs have indeed positive effects on participants. In
other words, they can cause an increase in the PGI of participants, through POS. This is very
beneficial for organizations since it can heighten the return on investment of TM programs.
Keywords: Talent Management; Personal Growth Initiative; Perceived Organizational Support;
Culture; Individualism; Collectivism.
Introduction
Since McKinsey introduced the term “war for talent” in 1998, many large organizations
introduced talent management programs as a solution for today’s labor market challenges
(Bethke-Langenegger, Mahler & Staffelbach, 2011). With these programs organizations are
trying to attract, develop and retain talented employees (Meyers & Paauwe, forthcoming). This
has as aim to develop those talents in order to successfully perform at key positions in the
organization, now or in the future (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). It is argued that applying talent
management programs in an organization has effects on organizational performance. For
example, it is assumed that organizations with talent management programs achieve higher
profits, higher productivity and that it contributes to the organizations competitive advantage
(Dries, 2013; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014). In this way, talent
management has an effect on organizational outcomes. These organizational-level effects are
likely to be caused by outcomes of talent management on employee level (Bethke-Langenegger
et al., 2011).
A relatively new concept on employee level is Personal Growth Initiative (PGI). PGI
can be described as the intentional and active desire to grow in areas that are salient for a person
(Robitschek, 1998). This concept is becoming more important in the organizational literature,
since research has proven that individuals with high levels of PGI are better in mastering new
skills and at managing stressors and challenges (Robitschek et al., 2012). This is especially
relevant for talent management, since one of the aims of talent management is to develop
employees for future positions (Gelens, Dries, Hofmans & Pepermans, 2013; Thunnissen,
Boselie & Fruytier, 2013). If talent management increases the PGI of those talents, than this
means that those talents are not only developed by the company, but also seek for other ways
to develop themselves even further and invest in their own development as well. In this way
talent management will be even more effective.
Earlier evidence suggests that specific development programs can indeed influence the
PGI of individuals (Thoen & Robitschek, 2013). In this research it will be investigated if this is
also the case for talent management programs.
This relationship can be examined as a direct effect, but can also be influenced via a
third variable. Therefore, the role of Perceived Organizational Support (POS) will be
investigated. POS can be described as an employee’s belief about the extent to which the
organization cares about their well-being and values their contribution (Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchison & Sowa, 1986). According to the organizational support theory,
employees with a high degree of POS feel a need to repay the organization’s investments by
showing beneficial attitudes and behavior (Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2010). In this case, POS plays a
mediating role, since POS is especially relevant for talent management. It translates investments
of the organization in employees, for example talent management, to favorable attitudes and
behaviors of those employees. PGI can be seen as an example of those beneficial attitudes and
behavior, as will be explained below. Therefore, the role of POS in the relationship between
talent management and PGI will be examined.
Talent management is not only carried out on national level, but increasingly on a global
level. Especially internationally operating firms are trying to attract and retain talent across the
globe. With the aim to find that scarce talent that will benefit the competitive advantage of the
firm (Farndale, Pai, Scullion & Sparrow, 2010; Scullion, Collings & Caligiuri, 2010). For this
reason global talent management is becoming more popular these days (Farndale et al., 2010;
Scullion et al., 2010; Tarique & Schuler, 2010). This means that many different cultures are
represented in talent management programs. Most research on talent management is done in
western countries, which generated positive results (Thunnissen et al., 2013). This has as
consequence that not much is known yet about the effects of talent management in other
cultures, which may be different. Therefore culture is incorporated within this research. Culture
is mostly described according to the dimensions of Hofstede (1980), for example power
distance and uncertainty avoidance. However, the dimension individualism/collectivism is
found to be the dimension with the greatest influence on employee’s attitudes and behavior
(Noordin, Williams & Zimmer, 2002). Therefore, the role of individualism/collectivism will be
incorporated in this research as a moderating variable. In a way that it is expected that the
strengths of the effects of talent management programs on POS and PGI differ with regard to
the individualistic/collectivistic orientation of employees.
The aim of this study is to make a contribution to the existing literature by investigating
the effects of participating in a talent management program on employees. Specifically, on
personal growth initiative and perceived organizational support, as well as examine the role that
culture may play within these effects. Together this leads to the following research question:
To what extent does participating in a talent management program influence the personal
growth initiative of participants? What are the roles of perceived organizational support and
culture within this relationship?
This research is interesting for scientific purposes, since research on talent management
is still growing (Bethke-Langenegger et al., 2011). Most of the talent management research is
carried out at macro level, much less is done on employee level, for example on employees
attitudes and behavior (Gelens, Dries, Hofmans & Pepermans, in press). Moreover, only a few
studies have compared the effects of talent management for employees who are included or
excluded within a talent pool (Gelens et al., in press). In addition, most of the research with
regard to talent management is carried out in the USA or other western countries, which makes
it difficult to examine the role of culture (Bethke-Langenegger et al., 2011; Thunnissen et al.,
2013). Besides, PGI is relatively new within the literature, only a few studies have done research
to the effects of training programs on PGI. Likewise, PGI is not linked to talent management
before.
The outcomes of this research are interesting for organizations as well. Organizations
invest a lot of money on talents and expect a return on investment. If talent management
increases PGI, this can heighten their return on investment. Considering that PGI is voluntary
behavior of employees, which triggers them to develop themselves even further. This can boost
their growth and performance (Robitschek, 1999; Robitschek & Kashubeck, 1999; Weigold,
Porfeli & Weigold, 2013).
If talent management improves POS, this will have positive effects as well. Earlier
research has proven that POS is also positively related to performance and retention. This
means that employees with high POS are less likely to leave the firm, which reduces
replacement costs (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Moreover, if POS increases PGI, employees
will try to improve themselves. As mentioned before, this is also very beneficial for the
organization (Benson, Finegold, & Mohrman, 2004; Lee & Bruvold, 2003). It is also interesting
for organizations to know the effect of culture in this relationship, in order to anticipate on this
within talent management.
The research question will be further examined in the theoretical framework, where
empirical evidence is presented and hypotheses are formulated. First talent management will
be described, followed by PGI. After that the roles of perceived organizational support and
culture will be examined.
Theoretical framework
Talent management
After the introduction of talent management within the academic management literature,
a lot of debate is going on about the right definition of talent management (Collings, 2014). As
a result different definitions of talent management are given in the literature (Dries, 2013). One
of the most cited definitions is the one from Collings and Mellahi (2009). They describe Talent
Management (TM) 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. 304).
The definition of Collings and Mellahi (2009) is based on the Resource Based View
(RBV) of an organization. This approach states that resources that are rare, valuable and
difficult to imitate are essential for high performance and an organization’s sustained
competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Wright, Smart & McMahan, 1995). Talents are one of
those above mentioned resources that contribute to an organization’s sustained competitive
advantage (Vance & Vaiman, as cited in Festing & Schäfer 2014).
In summary, TM is focused on employees that are suitable, now or in the future, for
strategically important positions. Therefore those employees get a special treatment, which
accelerates their development and performance. This is also known as a talent management
program (Gelens et al., 2013; Thunnissen et al., 2013). However, not every employee fits within
a talent pool, consequently not all employees are included. According to Gallardo-Gallardo,
Dries and González-Cruz (2013) organizations can make this distinction between ordinary
employees and talents on the basis of prior performance or on potential. Moreover, Meyers and
Paauwe (forthcoming) add that talents can also be selected based on the employee’s ability to
learn and grow or the cultural fit with the organization. This is part of the exclusive approach
of TM. This exclusive approach assumes that not all employees contribute equally to the
organization’s performance or have the same strategic value (Collings & Mellahi, 2009).
By contrast, the inclusive approach assumes that every employee has certain talents,
which are also known as strengths (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013). Furthermore, this approach
assumes that every employee has potential to add value to the organization (Buckingham &
Vosburgh, 2001). However this paper will only focus on the exclusive approach, due to the fact
that this is mostly used in practice and this paper examines individual effects of participating in
within talent management programs (Collings & Mellahi, 2009).
In order to achieve a competitive advantage through talent, Collings and Mellahi (2009)
stress the importance of identifying a talent pool to fill pivotal positions. Moreover, an
organization should attract and develop the employees within those talent pools in order to
prepare them for these pivotal positions (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). For this reason
organizations need to use TM systems which consist of bundles of strategically aligned TM
practices (Lewis & Heckman, 2006; Stahl et al., 2007). Those TM practices can be divided in
six different facets: attraction, identification and selection, development, succession planning,
performance management and retention (Meyers & Paauwe, forthcoming).
Earlier research argues that firms that use an exclusive approach to TM will generate a
higher profit, higher productivity, will be more cost-effective and efficient and in the end TM
will contribute to the organization’s competitive advantage (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Dries,
2013; Meyers & van Woerkom, 2014).
The organizational outcomes mentioned above are mostly supposed to be an effect of
changes in individual attitudes and behavior, which are provoked by TM practices (BethkeLangenegger et al., 2011). For example, TM practices can enhance an employee’s motivation
and commitment. In turn, these employees will be less likely to leave the firm, which reduces
replacement costs (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Lepak & Snell, 1999). In addition, individuals
who perceive that they are in a talent pool are likely to feel obligated to develop companyspecific competencies by seeking out developmental job experiences (De Pater, Van Vianen,
Bechtoldt, & Klehe, 2009; McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988). This can also be translated
to Personal Growth Initiative as will be explained below.
Personal Growth Initiative
Personal Growth Initiative (PGI) can be described as: “the intentional and active desire
to grow in areas that are salient for a person” (Robitschek, 1998; Robitschek et al., 2012). PGI
consists of general skills for personal growth. Moreover, these skills are transferable to different
growth opportunities and life stages (Robitschek, 1999; Robitschek & Kashubeck, 1999).
PGI consists of cognitive and behavioral components. The cognitive component
generally entails beliefs, values and attitudes that support personal growth (Robitschek, 1997).
More specifically, this component exists of two dimensions. The first dimension is Planfullness,
which concerns the planning of the specific change process by the individual. The second
dimension is Readiness for Change, which means one knows when one is ready to change
(Robitschek et al., 2012).
However, the cognitive component is not sufficient to attain personal growth. This
requires the behavioral component, which puts the cognitive component into action
(Robitschek, 1998; Robitschek et al., 2012). The behavioral component consists of two
dimensions as well. The first dimension is Using Resources, which means that the individual is
actively seeking and is using external sources to grow. The second dimensions concerns
Intentional Behavior, which is about engaging in specific behaviors that help the individual to
grow (Robitschek et al., 2012).
PGI drives individuals to continuously seek challenges for self-improvement
(Robitschek et al., 2012). Furthermore, individuals with a high level of PGI have a desire to
attain personal growth in order to achieve life goals and personal fulfillment (Robitschek, 1997;
Robitschek et al., 2012). In turn, it is found that individuals who experience higher levels of
PGI are likely to have high levels of emotional, social and psychological well-being and low
levels of distress, depression, and anxiety (Robitschek & Kashubeck, 1999; Robitschek &
Keyes, 2009). Moreover, PGI is found to be very important to master new skills, manage
stressors and challenges (Robitschek et al., 2012). Taken together, personal growth can thus be
seen as an important outcome of TM for organizations.
PGI is not a stable personality trait, but can be seen as individual skills for selfimprovement that can be developed (Robitschek et al., 2012). Therefore PGI can be influenced
by different factors. For example, Robitschek (1997) demonstrated that PGI increased
significantly by adults who had participated in a multiple days lasting outdoor course in which
the central topic was life/career renewal. In another study students participated in an interactive
training, which was called the ‘Intentional growth training’. This training significantly
increased the PGI of the participants (Thoen & Robitschek, 2013). It can be concluded that
interventions can be really effective in increasing PGI. Since participants are actively engaged
in the process of personal growth (Robitschek, 1997).
However, not only interventions can increase PGI. It was also found that recognition
and praise indirectly increased PGI through life satisfaction (Stevic & Ward, 2008). This can
be explained by the ‘broaden and build’ theory. This theory states that positive emotions, in this
case life satisfaction caused by recognition and praise, broadens people’s thought action
repertoire. In turn, this encourages these people to discover new ways to think or to take action
(Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002; Stevic & Ward, 2008).
In this way, it can be concluded that PGI can indeed be influenced by different programs
and other factors. These results can also be translated to TM because employees within a TM
program also experience recognition due to the fact that they are seen as a talent or high
potential. In turn, this will activate them to think in new ways and take action, which eventually
will positively influence their PGI. Moreover, Bjӧrkman, Ehrnrooth, Mӓkelӓ, Smale and
Sumelius (2013) argue that individuals who perceive that they are in talent pool are expected
building company-specific competencies by seeking out developmental job experiences, asking
feedback from colleagues and striving to develop their knowledge and skills in other ways. It
was found that employees who perceived that they are identified as talents were indeed more
committed to building competencies than employees who perceive that they are not identified
as talent (Bjorkman et al., 2013). This is comparable to personal growth initiative, since
employees identified as talents take initiative themselves to develop themselves.
As mentioned before, it is expected from talents to show personal growth. This can lead
to self-fulfilling prophecies, which means that talents will try to live up to those expectations
(McNatt, 2000). Moreover, they know that they are recognized as talents. In turn, they start to
believe in themselves as high potentials and act in this way (Dries, 2013). Thus it encourages
them to try to reach their full potential, which is also a characteristic of individuals with high
PGI. Therefore, it is likely that talents will seek for other opportunities and resources to attain
growth. In turn, talents will engage in activities that enhance personal growth.
All in all, it is expected that participating in a TM program stimulates talents to take
initiative regarding their own development. In turn, as previous results suggests, this will
increase the level of PGI of those talents. Therefore, it is expected that being in a TM program
will positively influence PGI of those employees, which is not the case for employees who are
not in a TM program. This can be formulated in the following hypotheses.
H1: Participating in a TM program will significantly increase the PGI (readiness to change;
planfullness; use of resources; intentional behavior) of the participant.
The mediating role of perceived organizational support
As mentioned before, it is expected that perceived organizational support will play a
role in the relationship between TM and PGI. For example, earlier research found that
employees that were in a formal talent pool, as high potentials or as management trainees
experienced an increased POS and in turn this positively influenced affective commitment
(Gelens et al., in press). The role of perceived organizational support will be explained in the
next two paragraphs.
Perceived Organizational Support (POS) can best described as an employee’s belief
about the extent to which the organization values their contribution and cares about their wellbeing (Eisenberger et al., 1986). It was found that POS can be influenced by for example
training, favorable reward opportunities and promotions (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). This
can be declared by the organizational support theory, which is derived from the social exchange
theory.
In the social exchange theory a social exchange is described as an exchange of an
activity, which can be tangible or intangible, that can be rewarding or costly, between at least
two individuals (Homans, as cited in Cook & Rice, 2003). The social exchange theory states
that social exchanges are based on the trust that the other party will reciprocate gestures of
goodwill in the future (Blau, 1964).
Within the management literature the social exchange theory can be divided in two main
sub streams. On the one hand the leader-member exchange theory, which focusses on the dyadic
relationship between subordinates and their supervisor. On the other hand the exchange
relationship between employees and the organization (Settoon, Bennet & Liden, 1996). This
last approach is also called the Organizational Support Theory (OST) (Aselage & Eisenberger,
2003).
The OST implies that employees form a global belief with regard to the extent to which
the organization appreciates their input and concerns about their well-being (Eisenberger et al.,
1986). This is earlier described as POS. POS tends to be even higher when favorable job
conditions are a result of voluntary actions of the organization, instead of consequences of
external constraints, for example union negotiations (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Favorable
job conditions signal investments in the employee, which positively influences POS as well
(Eisenberger et al., 1986; Shore & Shore, 1995). This can be translated to TM.
By using TM programs organizations invest in their talented employees. Since not all
employees are included, the organization signals that the employee is important for the
organization and that the organization has plans with the talent in future. An example can be a
promotion to a more pivotal position (Dries & Pepermans, 2008). Thus, these talented
employees receive attention and appreciation (Bethke-Langenegger et al., 2011). In turn,
talented employees will feel valued and supported by the organization (Meyers & Paauwe,
forthcoming). Moreover, TM comes from a voluntary action, which heightens POS even more.
In this way, talents will experience an increased POS.
Earlier research found positive relationships between promotions, developmental
opportunities and POS (Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997). This is also confirmed by Tansky and
Cohen (2001), who found that managers who were satisfied with employee development
perceived more organizational support, than managers who were not satisfied. Thereby, Allen,
Shore and Griffeth (2003) found that growth opportunities significantly increased POS. In
addition, Gelens et al., (in press) found that employees that were in a formal talent pool, as high
potentials or as management trainees, experienced an increased POS.
In sum, it is expected that being part of a TM program will give talents the feeling that
their contribution is appreciated and that the organization cares about their well-being.
Moreover, being part of a TM program signals that the organization is investing in the employee
on a voluntary basis. Consequently, this will positively influence the POS of the concerned
employee. This leads to the following hypothesis.
H2: Participating in a TM program will significantly increase the POS of the participant.
The relationship between POS and PGI
As mentioned before, the social exchange theory and OST is based on the norm of
reciprocity (Blau, 1964; Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch & Rhoades, 2001). This norm
assumes that an actor provides a favor to another actor with the expectation that it will be paid
back with resources that the donor desires in the future (Gouldner, 1960). In addition,
Corpanzano and Mitchell (2005) argue that when organizations invest in their employees, those
employees are likely to reciprocate these investments in positive ways. The OST implies that
these employees who experience a high level of POS will feel a need to repay the organization
by increasing their efforts (Eisenberger et al., 1986). This can be an increase in commitment or
motivation, but it can also be that employees will show more PGI.
As explained before, employees within a talent program will experience an increase in
POS. These employees will experience an obligation to reciprocate this investment with
beneficial attitudes and behavior (Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2010). Earlier research found that this
results in higher levels of job satisfaction, performance, motivation and commitment (BethkeLangenegger et al., 2011). It is not investigated before if this also holds for PGI. As mentioned
before, employees within a talent program are developed and expected to learn in order to fill
a future position in the company (Dries & Pepermans, 2008). Therefore, showing PGI is a very
beneficial for the organization. In this way it is likely that employees with high POS can also
increase their efforts by seeking for personal growth in order to live up to the expectations of
the organization.
Earlier evidence found that employees who are identified as high potential feel obligated
to positively strengthen their work behavior as a reaction to the investment made by the
organization (Höglund, 2012). Moreover, employees who perceive that they are identified as
talent are more committed to building competencies than employees who perceive they are not
identified as talent as is mentioned before (Bjorkman et al., 2013). In this way, it can be argued
that TM programs expect development of the employees. In turn, it is likely that those
employees are supposed to learn even more than is required from them. Since they will actively
try to develop themselves even further and therefore will experience an increase in PGI.
In sum, employees with a high POS will feel valued and supported by the organization
(Eisenberger et al., 1986). Based on the OST, the employee will feel the need to repay the
organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986). In this case by seeking for self-improvement and trying
to attain personal growth, with the aim to meet the expectations of the organization (Robitschek,
1999; Robitschek & Kashubeck, 1999; Weigold et al., 2013). In order to attain personal growth
the employee will plan the change process and will feel ready to change. Thereby, the employee
will actively seek resources to grow and will engage in behavior that benefits the growth
process. As a result, the employee will score higher on PGI. This leads to the following
hypothesis:
H3: A higher degree of POS will increase Personal Growth Initiative (e.g., planfullness,
readiness to change; use of resources; intentional behavior).
As explained before, it is expected that TM programs will positively influence the POS of the
participant of the talent program. In turn, it is expected that POS will increase the PGI of this
talent. Together these hypotheses imply that POS will serve as a mediator in the relationship
between TM and PGI. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H4: The relationship between TM and PGI is mediated by POS.
The moderation role of individualism/collectivism
As mentioned before, the effects of talent management may vary for different cultures,
since culture influences the psychological response of the individual to the environment
(Noordin et al, 2002). Earlier results prove that preferences for human resource management
practices differ per culture (Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998). For example, it was found that
employees who have a collectivistic orientation are positively related to equality in reward
allocation and negatively related to formal appraisal. This suggests that culture might also
influence the effects of talent management. This relationship will be explained below.
In the Oxford Dictionary culture is defined as: “The ideas, customs, and social behavior
of a particular people or society”. Culture can be divided in different dimensions, for instance
power distance, uncertainty avoidance and individualism/collectivism (Hofstede, 1980). This
last dimension Individualism/Collectivism (I/C) is widely used to explain differences in work
attitudes and has been related to various aspects of human behavior (Noordin, et al., 2002;
Triandis, 1995). Moreover, I/C causes the most differences across cultures (Triandis, 1996).
Accordingly, this research will focus on the cultural dimension individualism/collectivism.
On the one hand, the I/C dimension can be seen as a one-dimensional construct that
differs between national cultures (Hofstede, 1980). For example, most research suggests that
people who live in western countries, like Europe and the United States are mostly
individualistic, while people who live in Asian, African and South American countries tend to
be more collectivistic (Oyserman, Coon & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Triandis, Brislin & Hui, 1988).
On the other hand, research suggests that I/C at individual level can also be seen as a
multidimensional individual difference variable (Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998). In this way
I/C consists of five dimensions, namely; competiveness, solitary work preference, self-reliance,
supremacy of group interests and supremacy of group goals (Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998).
Moreover, this individual difference is adaptable to situational demands, since individuals can
be individualist at work, but collectivistic at home (Triandis, 1995). This research will be
carried out on the individual level, so that I/C will be conceptualized as an individual difference
variable.
People with a high individualistic orientation (individualists) see themselves as
independent from others and base their identity on one’s personal achievements. Furthermore,
they emphasize their personal goals and interests over group goals and interests (Hofstede,
1980). Those personal goals are mostly related to achievement, success and self-reliance
(Triandis, 1995). Likewise, their focus is on self-autonomy and self-fulfillment and they are
trying to live up to one’s full potential (Waterman, 1984).
On the contrary, individuals with a high collectivistic orientation (collectivists)
prioritize the group goals and interests over their personal goals and interests. They behave
towards the norms of the group.
Moreover, collectivists base their identities on group
memberships (Hofstede, 1984). They consider their organization as an extended family and are
therefore very loyal to the organization (Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998).
The focus of collectivists is on maintaining harmonious relationships, where
individualists look at the cost and benefits of relationships. When the costs exceed the benefits
of a relationship the individualist will leave the relationship (Oyserman et al., 2002; Triandis,
2001). Another difference is that individualism encourages competitiveness, while collectivism
encourages cooperation (Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998). Thereby, Fitzsimmons and Stamper
(2014) propose that individualists are more motivated by a desire to matter to the organization,
while collectivists are more motivated by a desire of belonging to the organization. Besides,
collectivist value equality, which means that everybody deserves the same rewards, regardless
of relative contributions (Gelfand, Erez & Aycan, 2007; Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998) In
contrast, individualists value equity, which means one’s reward should be dependent of one’s
relative contribution (Gelfand et al., 2007; Ramamoorthy & Flood, 2002). With all this in mind,
it is expected that individualists react differently participating or not participating than
collectivists as will be explained below.
As mentioned earlier, this research focusses on the exclusive paradigm of TM, whereby
selection depends for instance on potential or past performance (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013).
In this way TM programs can be seen as an equity based program. This is in line with values of
individualists who also value equity. Moreover, Eisenberg (1999) argues that individualists are
more motivated and perform better when rewards are allocated individually than collectively.
Therefore, it is expected that employees with an individualistic orientation, who are
selected for a TM program, will show a large increase in PGI. Since TM is in line with their
values (e.g. equity), which causes that they are more committed, more motivated and will
increase their effort. In addition, individualistic employees who are in a TM program will feel
that their contribution is recognized. Furthermore, individualist value personal achievements
and want to reach their full potential (Triandis, 1995; Waterman, 1984). Therefore, being part
of TM program can trigger them to work even harder to reach those goals. Consequently, they
will score higher on PGI since they are more likely to seek challenges for self-improvement
and want to achieve life goals and personal fulfilment. In this way, individualistic employees
within a talent program will use this opportunity to reach their personal goals (e.g. reach one’s
full potential). Likewise, they will feel that the organization is supporting their personal goals
and is trying to achieve the talent’s full potential. As a result, these individualists will
experience a high level of POS.
The opposite is true for individualists who are not selected for the program. As
mentioned before individualist want to reach their full potential (Triandis, 1995; Waterman,
1984). Since they are not selected for the program they will perceive that the organization does
not support their personal goals (e.g. reaching their full potential). Moreover, the individualists
will perceive that the organization does not recognize their potential. Therefore they will
perceive less organizational support. They will still try to reach their personal goals even if they
are not in the program. Since they are not in a TM program PGI is still expected to be lower
than individualists in a TM program, as is explained in the previous paragraphs.
It is expected that the relationship between being part of a TM program and PGI as well
as the relationship between being part of a TM program and POS will be weaker for employees
with a collectivistic orientation. As mentioned before, TM programs are in conflict with their
values of equality. Consequently they may exhibit lower commitment and are less motivated.
Thereby the focus of collectivistic employees is on group goals and maintaining harmonious
relationships and not at personal goals, like career advancement and personal growth (Hofstede,
1984; Triandis, 2001). This causes that collectivists, participating or not participating in a TM
program, may not experience the intentional and active desire to grow.
In addition, it can be argued that collectivists in a TM program do not experience the
same amount of increase in POS as individualists in a TM program. Aselage and Eisenberger
(2003) argue that collectivism moderates the relationship between favorable work experiences
and POS. In a way that collectivists incorporate the fair treatment of co-workers by determining
how much the organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being
(Eisenberger et al., as cited in Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003). As mentioned before, TM is not
in line with the values of equality. This results that collectivists within the program will perceive
an increase in organizational support, as is explained in previous sections. However, it will not
be as much as individualist, due to the fact that the treatment of other co-workers is not seen as
fair regarding to their values of equality.
It is also expected that collectivistic employees who are not selected for the TM program
will perceive more organizational support than individualistic employees who are not selected
for the TM program. As described before, collectivists are very loyal to the organization and
see the organization as an extended family (Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998). They develop
strong ties with the organization and want to safeguard the welfare of the organization (Cohen
& Avrahami, 2006). This also means that they want to stay at their current organization
(Ramamoorthy & Caroll, 1998). In addition, it is found that collectivists stay longer at an
organization than individualists (Parkes, Bochner & Schneider, 2001). In this way it can be
argued that they perceive more organizational support, since tenure is positively related to POS
(Wayne et al., 2007). Resulting that collectivists perceive organizational support even if they
are not selected for the program. Together this means that the differences in scores on POS
between employees in the TM program and not in the TM program will be smaller for
employees who are collectivistic oriented than employees who are individualistically oriented.
Earlier research found that collectivism moderates between perceptions of fair treatment
of other co-workers and POS. In a way that this relationship was stronger for highly
collectivistic employees (Eisenberger et al., as cited in Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003).
Other
research found that a self-focused training resulted in more self-efficacy and high performance
in the United States (individualistic). On the contrary it was less effective in China
(collectivistic). However a group-focused training in China was more effective, and led to high
self-efficacy and high performance (Earley, 1994). In addition, Ramamoorthy and Flood (2002)
found that equitable reward systems are in line with the values of individualists, which causes
that they work harder, feel more obligations to contribute to teamwork and exhibit a greater
intention to stay, which was the opposite by collectivists. In addition, it was found that
satisfaction with work and promotion was the primary factor that caused affective commitment
for highly individualistic employees, while for collectivist this was satisfaction with their
supervisor (Wasti, 2003).
Other research found that individualistic people performed better at self-directed
learning course, which means that individualistic employees will perform better with regard to
planning and using resources to learn (Hudson & Ramamoorthy, 2009). Moreover, Brutus &
Cabrera (2000) found that employees who value self-enhancement, achievement and
independence perceive the cost of feedback significantly lower than people with other personal
values.
In sum, it is expected that the relationship between being in a TM program and PGI is
stronger for individualists. This is also predicted for the relationship between being in a TM
program and POS. Since TM is consistent with the values of equity of individualists. This
causes them to put in more effort and commitment. Individuals within the talent program will
feel that their contribution is appreciated and the organization supports their personal goals,
consequently, individualists will use this opportunity to reach their own personal goals and will
show more PGI and POS.
The opposite is true for collectivists. Since TM is in contradiction with their value of
equality. They will not perceive that the organization appreciates them and cares about their
well-being equally. Moreover, they will not experience the intentional and active desire to grow,
whether they are in a TM program or not. Therefore, it is expected that the I/C dimension will
moderate the relationships between being in a TM program and PGI as well as the relationship
between being in a TM and POS. This can be formulated in the following hypotheses:
H5: The positive relationship between being part of a TM program and PGI will be moderated
by individualism/collectivism, in such a way that the relationship is stronger for employees with
an individualistic orientation.
H6: The positive relationship between being part of a TM program and POS will be moderated
by individualism/collectivism, in such a way that the relationship is stronger for employees with
an individualistic orientation.
All together this leads to the following conceptual model, which is displayed in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Method
Sample
In this research an online survey was used to collect data for testing the hypotheses. The
data was gathered at one organization with an official TM program for highly promising
employees. The program lasts three years and aims to develop the talents for a future leadership
role. The organization’s headquarter is based in the Netherlands. The firm is internationally
operating in the technical sector.
In total 66 employees are participating in the TM program. This is based on official
records. Of those employees, one third worked in Europe, one third in Asia and one third in the
United States. All those 66 employees who participate in the TM program were asked to fill in
the survey. In total 59 employees filled in the survey, which generates a response rate of 89,4%.
The aim of this research is to measure the effects of being in TM program. Therefore
employees who are in the program are compared to employees who are not in the program
(control group). In order to exclude any other influencing variables, a control group was
randomly selected of employees with the same characteristics (e.g. age, education, tenure,
function and continent of working) as the employees in the talent group. However, this means
that the sample may not be representative for the whole organization. In total 100 employees
who worked in Europe, 100 employees who worked in Asia and 100 employees who worked
in the United States were asked to fill in the survey. Together 300 employees were asked to fill
in the survey. In total 113 employees filled in the survey completely. Therefore the response
rate of this group equals 37,6%.
In total 366 employees were asked to fill in the survey. 172 employees completed the
survey, which causes a response rate of 47,0%. The survey was in English, since employees
from different locations all over the world were asked to fill in the survey.
The mean age of the respondents is 35,1 years (SD = 3,88 ). 94,8% of the respondents
is male and 5,2% is female. Most of the respondents (63,4%) have an academic master degree
or higher, 33,7% have an academic bachelor degree and 2,9% have an higher vocational degree
or lower. On average the respondents have been working for 7,6 years at their current
organization (SD = 3,87). 34,3% of the respondents have a European nationality, 44,2% have
an Asian nationality, 16,9% have an American nationality. The remaining 4,6% have another
nationality. At last, 35,5% of the respondents work in Europe, 34,9% work in Asia and 29,6%
work in America. In Table 1, the differences between the two groups (e.g. employees within
the TM program versus other employees) are further explained.
Procedure
The survey was sent to the participants by e-mail. Within the introductory e-mail, it was
explained that the survey is about how employees perceive their employer and their job.
Employees were informed that participation in the research is voluntary and that answers are
processed in an anonymous manner. Respondents were asked to fill in the questionnaire within
a period of three weeks. After one week, a reminder was send to the employees who did not fill
in the survey yet. This was repeated in the second week and two days before the survey was
closed.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics per group: age, gender, education, tenure, nationality and country of
work.
Employees within a TM
Employees not in a TM
program (N= 59)
program (N=113)
34,2 years (SD= 4,66)
35,5 years (SD = 3,32).
Male
93,2%
95,6%
Female
6,8%
4,4%
degree or lower
1,7%
3,5%
Academic bachelor
30,5%,
35,4%
Academic Master or higher
67,8%
61,1%
7,3 years (SD = 4,14).
7,8 years (SD = 3,73).
European
32,2%
35,4%
Asian
44,1%
44,2%
American
16,9%
16,8%
Other
6,8%
3,5%
Europe
33,9%
36,3%
Asia
28,8%
38,0%
America
37,3%
25,7%
Mean age
Gender
Educational degree
Higher vocational
Mean tenure
Nationality
Continent of work
Measurements
As mentioned before, all variables are measured by a survey except the independent variable
talent management. In order to test the construct validity of the scales, a factor analysis was
used. All scales had a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Index which was higher than the criterion of .6.
Moreover, at all scales the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was significant (p < .05).
Talent management - A list with participants of the talent management program was
provided by the talent manager of the organization. The talent management program lasts for
three years with the aim to develop the high potentials for a future management position. The
participants follow a training together every quarter. In addition, every participant gets personal
mentoring and coaching.
A control group was randomly selected of employees with the same characteristics as
the talent group (e.g. age, education, tenure, function and continent of working). In Table 1, the
differences between the talent group and the control group are further explained. Additional
analyses (e.g. chi-square test and one-way anova) were done to check whether the talent group
and the control group significantly differ on one of these characteristics. It was found that the
groups do not significantly differ on gender (χ2 = .433 p > .05), education (χ2 = 6.001 p > .05),
tenure (F = 0.719 p > .05), nationality (χ2 = 16.301 p > .05) and continent of working (χ2 = 3.761
p > .05). However, the groups did significantly differ on age (F = 4.553 p < .05). This indicates
that employees who are participating in the TM program were significantly younger.
The participants of the TM program got a different electronic link to the survey than the
respondents who are not in the TM program. In this way two datasets existed; one with data
from the control group and one with data from the experimental group. A new variable was
manually added to both datasets, whereby zero means that the respondent does not participate
in a TM program and one means that the respondent is participating in a TM program. After
that the data sets were merged.
Personal Growth Initiative - PGI was measured with the Personal Growth Initiative
Scale developed by Robitschek et al. (2012). This scale consisted of 16 items. An example item
is: “I set realistic goals for what I want to change about myself”. The answer category of the
PGI scale was based on a six-point Likert scale. The response categories varied from “0 =
strongly disagree” to “5 = strongly agree”. As mentioned before, PGI consists of four subfactors (e.g. planfullness; readiness to change; use of resources; intentional behavior). The scale
of Robitschek et al. (2012) can be divided in four parts which each measure a different sub
factor. Contrary to theory, only three components had an Eigenvalue which was higher than
one. The Scree test of Catell showed clearly that one component peaked above the others. In
turn, another factor analysis was done with a one-factor forced solution. This analysis indicated
that all items loaded high (loadings >.599) on one factor. With all this in mind it was decided
to measure PGI as a whole and not the different sub factors. Finally, the Cronbach’s alpha of
the scale was α = .938.
Perceived Organizational Support - A shortened version of the questionnaire from
Eisenberger et al. (1986) was used to measure the variable perceived organizational support.
This scale included eight items with answer categories that were based on a seven point Likert
scale. These answer categories ranged from “0 = strongly disagree” to “6 = strongly agree”.
An example item is: “The organization values my contribution to its well-being”. According to
the factor analysis, POS can be measured as one component with a Cronbach’s alpha of .869.
Individualism/Collectivism – Individualism/collectivism orientation was measured with
the scale of Ramamoorthy and Carroll (1998). This scale measures I/C as individual difference
variable, rather than a culturally determined variable. The scale consisted of twenty items.
Answers could be given on a five point Likert scale. This scale varied between “1 = strongly
disagree” to “5 = strongly agree”. An example question is: “People in a group should be
willing to make sacrifices for the sake of the group’s well-being”. Although the initial factor
analysis showed that I/C consists of six components (based on the Eigenvalue criterion), it was
chosen to only maintain one factor. Since the purpose of this research is to draw conclusions
about I/C as whole and not about the different sub dimensions. Therefore, an extra factor
analysis was done with a forced one-factor solution. This causes that seven items were removed
that did not load on the first factor (loadings < .300). These seven items can be found in the
Appendix C. All five sub factors (competiveness, solitary work preference, self-reliance,
supremacy of group interests and supremacy of group goals) were still measured, except
supremacy of group interest. An extra analysis was done to check the reliability of this
dimension, which was equal to .640. This is not sufficient according to the rule of thumb (α >
.70) (Ramamoorthy & Flood, 2002). Therefore this dimension is excluded from further analysis.
The Cronbach’s alpha of the remaining scale of the 13 items was α = .798. Items were coded in
a way that a higher score represents a higher degree of individualistic orientation and lower
degree of collectivistic orientation.
Control variables
To examine whether the results are influenced by other variables, control variables were
added to the model. Earlier research on PGI suggests that it is useful to include demographic
variables, like gender, age and education (Weigold & Robitschek, 2011; Yakunina, Weigold &
Weigold, 2013). Age and education are important to include since earlier evidence proves that
students scored significantly higher on PGI than adults in their midlife career (Robitschek,
1998).
In addition, it is found that women scored significantly higher on PGI than men
(Robitschek & Cook, 1999). Therefore, these control variables were added. Regarding the
control variable gender, woman is recoded in zero and man is recoded in one.
Analysis
The statistical analyses were done with the statistical program SPSS. At first descriptive
statistics were derived (i.e. means, standard deviations). Subsequently, Pearson correlations
were generated and analyzed in order to gain an initial overview of the relationships between
the variables. A significance level of p < .05 is applied to all analyses within this thesis.
First, it was checked whether the assumptions of regression analysis, for example the
normal distribution of variables, are applicable to the variables. At second, a hierarchical
regression analysis was executed to test the hypotheses. In this analysis the enter method was
used, whereby PGI was entered as the dependent variable. Consequently, this analysis consists
of three blocks. In the first block, the control variables were added and in the second block TM
was added (Hypothesis 1). In the last block, the mediator (POS) was added (Hypothesis 3). In
order to test for the mediation of POS the rules of MacKinnon, Fairchild and Fritz (2007) are
applied. They argue to do first a hierarchical regression analysis in order to test if TM programs
significantly influence POS (Hypothesis 2) (MacKinnon et al., 2007). After that another
regression analysis was done in order to assess whether POS has a significant effect on PGI
(Hypothesis 3), which is described before. In addition, bootstrapping was used to check whether
the mediation is significant (Hypothesis 4). In all analyses, control variables were added in the
first block. This is done to test for any spurious relationships after that the predictor variables
were added.
In order to test the moderation effect of I/C on the relationship between TM and PGI,
(Hypothesis 5) an interaction variable was created where TM is multiplied with I/C orientation.
Since TM is coded with zero (not in the TM program) and one (participant within the TM
program), a grand-mean centering was done first. This was applied to the variable TM as well
as I/C orientation. After that a hierarchical regression analyses was done on PGI. In the first
block, the control variables were included to test for any false relationships. In the second block,
the variables TM and I/C were added. The interaction variable was added in the third block.
The same steps were repeated to test for an interaction effect for I/C on POS (Hypothesis 6).
Within these steps PGI was replaced by POS. Additionally, the slopes were plotted and simple
slopes test were performed to test for significant effects of the moderators.
At last the model as a whole was tested with conditional process analysis. This analysis
takes a closer view at the direct and the indirect effect. Likewise, the analysis tests whether the
mediation is moderated as is suggested in Hypothesis 6. This analysis applies the Pick-a-Point
approach, which means that the direct effect and indirect effect are calculated for various values
of the moderator. This is also called the conditional direct and indirect effect (Hayes, 2013). In
this analysis, one standard deviation below the mean, the mean and one standard deviation
above the mean of I/C are used as values for the moderation. In this way the conditional direct
and indirect effect were generated for collectivistic employees, neither collectivistic nor
individualistic employees and individualistic employees. In order to calculate these conditional
direct and indirect effects bootstrapping was used (N=5000). In addition, the control variables
gender, age and education were included as well. Furthermore, TM and I/C were mean centered
before the interaction term was computed as is the same in the previous analyses.
Results
In order to do a valid analysis, it was first checked whether there were missing values
or extreme outliers. It turned out that only two values were missing. It was chosen to exclude
these values pairwise in all further analyses. Since regression analysis is very sensitive for
outliers, an analysis was done to detect outliers (Pallant, 2007). There were two cases that
produced outliers on several variables. A closer look revealed that one respondent chose the
same answer every time, even when it concerned a reversed item. This questions the reliability
of the answers of this respondent. Therefore this case was excluded from further analysis, which
resulted that the control group was reduced from 113 to 112 respondents.
Correlation matrix
The correlation matrix is presented in Table 2. The matrix shows the means, standard
deviations, Cronbach’s alphas and correlations of the included variables and the control
variables. As can be derived from Table 2, talent management has a significant correlation with
PGI (r =.172 p < .05), POS (r = .214, p < .05) and I/C (r = -.153, p < .05). PGI has a significant
correlation with POS as well (r = .262, p < .05), but not with I/C (r = -.042, p > .05). I/C
correlates significantly with POS as well (r = -.353, p < .05).
TM and POS both correlate significantly with age (TM, r =-.165, POS r = -.208,
p < .05). For TM this is explainable since the age of employees in the TM program is
significantly lower than employees who are not in the TM program, as is described above. In
the regression analysis, it will be further analyzed whether age really has an effect on perceived
organizational support.
Table 2
Correlation Matrix: means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities.
Mean
SD
1.
2.
3.
3.525
.663
(.938)
.350
.477
.172*
4.217
.962
.262**
.214**
(.869)
2.674
.521
-.042
-.153*
-.353**
(.798)
5. Gender (1=Man)
1.050
.224
.135
.049
-.026
-.081
6. Age
35.077
3.885
-.034
-.165*
-.208**
.140
-.093
7. Education (1 =
5.780
.808
-.010
.058
.032
-.108
.063
1. Personal Growth
4.
5.
6.
Initiative
2. Talent
Management (1=talent)
3. Perceived Organizational
Support
4. Individualism/
Collectivism
.250**
Lower education)
* p: < .05
**p: < .01
(…) = Cronbach’s alpha
Regression analysis
Table 3 displays the results of the regression analyses for the direct and mediating
effects. It shows the standardized regression coefficients, standard errors, proportion of
explained variance and the corresponding F-values. The same information is presented in Table
4 for the moderating analyses.
In the first hypothesis, it was stated that being in a talent program should increase the
PGI of the employee. As can be derived from Table 3, being in a talent management program
significantly influences the PGI of the talent in Model 2 (β = .168, p < .05). It explains an
additional 2,7% of the variance in PGI (F change = 4.690, p < .05), while controlling for gender,
age, and education (Model 1). Therefore Hypothesis 1 is confirmed.
In Hypothesis 2, it was stated that being part of the TM program would significantly
increase the POS of the talent. As can be derived from Table 3, this is indeed the case (β = .187,
p < .05). It explains 3,4% of the variance within POS (F change = 6.034, p < .05), while
controlling for the variables gender, age and education. Therefore Hypothesis 2 is approved. In
Hypothesis 3, it was argued that an increase in POS should lead to an increase in PGI. As can
been seen in Table 3, this relationship is significant (β = .250, p < .05). It increases the explained
variance of PGI with 5,8% (F change = 10.468, p < .05) In turn, Hypothesis 3 is confirmed.
According to the rules of MacKinnon et al. (2007), POS seems to mediate the
relationship between being in a TM program and PGI, since Hypotheses 2 and 3 are both
significant. In this research, bootstrapping (N=5000) is used to test the significance of this
indirect effect. The results showed that the 95% confidence interval is between .014 (LL) and
.146 (UL). As the confidence interval does not include a zero, it can be stated that the mediating
effect is significant (Hayes, 2013). This means that POS mediates the relationship between TM
and PGI. Therefore Hypothesis 4 is approved. It was mentioned before that age correlates
significantly with POS. As can be seen in Table 3, age does have a significant influence on
POS. However this effect is really small, since Model 1 does not significantly differ from the
null model (F = 2.642, p <.05).
Table 3
Results Regression Analysis for direct effect of TM on PGI and the mediation of POS:
standardized regression coefficients, proportion explained variance (R2 and R2 Change) and
the corresponding F-values (F and F change).
Perceived organizational support
Variables
Personal growth initiative
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Std.
Std.
Std.
Std.
Std.
β
Error
TM
β
Error
.187*
.153
β
Error
β
Error
β
Error
.168*
.108
.121
.106
.250**
.053
POS
Gender
-.045
Age
-.051
.324
.134
.229
.128
.227
.141
.221
-.217** .020
-.188*
.019
-.027
.014
-.001
.014
.046
.013
Education
-.019
-.022
.092
-.025
.065
-.028
.065
-.022
.063
R2
.046
F
2.642
2
.328
.094
.948
0.080
.019
3.553** .934
1.075
.046
.662
1.996
.104
.655
3.783** .637
R Change
.034
.027
.058
F Change
6.043*
4.690*
10.468**
* p: < .05
**p: < .01
In Hypothesis 5, is stated that I/C moderates the relationship between TM and PGI. As
can be seen in Table 4 (Model 2), TM does have a significant direct effect on PGI (β = .166, p
< .05), but this is not the case for I/C (β = -.010, p >.05). Moreover, the additional 2,7%
explained variance in PGI is not significant (F change = 2.339, p > .05). In Model 3, it is shown
that the interaction variable does not significantly influence PGI (β = -.111, p > .05). It does
not explain more significant variance in PGI as well (R2 change = .011, F change = 1.836, p >
.05). The slope test, which is displayed in Figure 2, shows that individualists in a TM program
score lower on PGI than individualists who are not in the TM program.
An additional t-test was done to check whether the mean score on PGI of individualists
in the TM program was significantly different from the mean score on PGI of individualists
who were not in the TM program. In order to do this test, a new variable was created which
makes a difference between individualists and collectivist. This means that employees who
scored lower than the mean of I/C (e.g. 2.674) were coded as zero and labelled collectivists,
while employees who scored higher than the mean of I/C were coded one and labelled
individualists. After that the file was split in two parts, thus two t-test were done, one for
collectivist (t = -1.883, p > .05) and one for individualists (t = -1.033 p > .05). Neither one
appeared significant, which means that individualist, participating or not participating in a TM
program, did not score significantly different on PGI. With all this in mind Hypothesis 5 is
rejected.
In the last hypothesis it is argued that I/C would moderate the relationship between TM
and POS. As can be derived from Table 4, the interaction term does not have a significant
influence on POS (β = .009, p > .05). It does not even explain any additional variance in POS
(R2 change = .000, F change = .013, p > .05). This is confirmed by the slopes as displayed in
Figure 3. Therefore Hypothesis 6 is rejected. Although I/C does not moderate the relationship
between TM and POS, it has a direct effect on POS (β = -.319, p < .05). Together, TM and I/C
explain 13,1% of the variance in POS (F change = 12.958, p < .05). It can be argued that
employees with a highly individualistic orientation feel less supported by the organization. An
additional bootstrapping (N=5000) analysis shows that POS is a significant mediator in the
relationship between I/C and PGI (95% confidence interval, LL= -.258; UL= -.046). In all of
the analyses, only the control variable age has a significant influence.
In all moderation analyses age has a significant influence on POS. However, Model 1
shows that this influence is really small, since the model does not significantly differ from the
null model (F= 2.642 p >.05).
Table 4
Results Regression Analysis for the moderation effect of I/C: standardized regression coefficients, proportion explained variance (R2 and R2
Change) and the corresponding F-values (F and F change).
Variables
Perceived organizational support
Personal growth initiative
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Std.
Std.
Std.
Std.
Std.
Std.
β
β
Error
β
Error
TM
.145*
.147
.147*
I/C
-.319** .134
Error
I/C*TM
Gender
-.045
Age
Education
2
Error
β
Error
.149
.166*
.109
.150
.110
-.316** .142
-.010
.100
-.045
.105
-.111
.235
.318
Error
-.071
.308
-.070
.309
.134
.229
.127
.228
.120
.228
-.217** .020
-.158*
.019
-.157*
.019
-.027
.014
.000
.014
-.002
.014
-.019
-.045
.088
-.047
.089
-.025
.065
-.028
.065
-.014
.065
R
.046
F
2.642
.328
β
.009
β
.094
0.177
0.177
.019
6.998** .886
5.799** .889
1.075
R Change
0.131
.000
.027
.011
F Change
12.958**
.013
2.339
1.836
2
* p: < .05
**p: < .01
.948
.047
.662
1.591
.057
.657
1.638
.655
5
4,5
Personal growth initiative
4
3,5
3
Collectivists
2,5
2
Individualists
1,5
1
0,5
0
Not participating in TM program
Participating in TM program
Figure 2. Simple slopes of the moderation analysis of I/C on the relationship between TM and
Perceived organizational support
PGI.
6
5,5
5
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
Collectivists
Individualists
Not participating in TM program
Participating in TM program
Figure 3. Simple slopes of the moderation analysis of I/C on the relationship between TM and
POS.
Table 5 shows the unstandardized regression coefficients, standard errors, proportion of
explained variance and the corresponding F-values of the conditional process analysis.
At first, it has to be mentioned that conditional process analysis calculates
unstandardized coefficients instead of standardized betas. As can be seen in Table 5, the
explained variance is still the same for POS and PGI (R2 = .181, p < .05; R2 = .119, p < .05).
Moreover, POS is still significantly influenced by TM (b = .324, p < .05), I/C (b = -.623, p <
.05) and age (b = -.030, p < .05). PGI is significantly influenced by POS (b = .183, p < .05), but
not by TM (b = .144, p > .05). This can be declared since prior analyses have shown that POS
mediates the relationship between TM and PGI.
I/C does not moderate the relationships between TM and POS (b = .092, p > .05) as well
as the relationship between TM and PGI (b = -.323, p > .05), which is the same as in the
hierarchical regression analyses. In the same way, it was found that the conditional indirect
effect (ω), thus the moderated mediation, was not significant ( ω = .017, 95%CILL = -.102
95%CIUL = .169).
On the contrary, it was found that the direct effect of TM on PGI is significant for one
SD below the mean (θ(X→Y)|M=-.521 = .313, 95%LLCI = .024; 95%ULCI = .602). This means that
being in a talent management program indeed influences PGI for employees who are
collectively oriented. An additional analysis was done with the Johnson-Neyman technique.
This technique calculates the boundaries of values of the moderator in which the relationship is
significant. For I/C it was calculated that the relationship between TM and PGI was significant
for all scores on the moderator between -.234 and -1.047. This means that TM indeed directly
influences PGI for employees who are collectively oriented. Note that the mean of the centered
I/C is equal to zero. This does not mean that I/C significantly moderates the relationship
between TM and PGI, since the interaction term is not significant (Hayes, 2013).
In sum, TM has a significant positive effect on PGI. Moreover, POS mediates this
relationship. Nevertheless, a direct effect between TM and PGI exists for collectively oriented
employees. It is found that I/C does not moderate the relationships between TM and PGI or TM
and POS. However, it is found that I/C significantly influences POS and in that way POS
mediates the relationship between I/C and PGI.
Table 5
Results conditional process analysis by using model 8: unstandardized regression coefficients,
proportion explained variance (R2) and the corresponding F-values.
Perceived organizational
support
Personal growth initiative
Variables
b
Std. Error
b
Std. Error
TM
.324*
.146
.144
.106
.183**
.056
POS
I/C
-.623**
.137
.064
.104
I/C*TM
.092
.316
-.323
.226
Gender
-.281
.306
.399
.220
Age
-.030*
.013
-.003
.009
Education
-.054
.087
-.013
.063
2
R
.181
.0119
F
6.035**
3.158**
* p: < .05
**p: < .01
Conclusion and discussion
Conclusion
The aim of this research is to investigate whether being part of talent management
program would influence the personal growth initiative of the talent and if perceived
organizational support mediates this relationship. Furthermore, it is investigated if
individualism/collectivism moderates the relationship between TM and POS as well as the
relationship between TM and PGI.
In total, 172 employees of an organization filled in a survey of which 59 employees
were in a talent management program. It was found that being in a talent program does directly
influence the PGI of the talent (H1). In addition, it is found that being in TM program positively
influences POS (H2). In turn, POS heightens PGI (H3) Moreover, POS fully mediates the
relationship between being part of TM program and PGI (H4). However a direct relationship
exists between TM and PGI for employees with a collectivistic orientation.
It was found that I/C does not moderate the relationship between TM and PGI (H5) as
well as the relationship between TM and POS (H6). However it appeared that I/C has a direct
influence on POS and that POS significantly mediates the relationship between I/C and PGI.
Discussion
As can be derived from the results, participating in a talent management program does
indeed increase the personal growth initiative of the participants in TM program when the talent
is collectivistic oriented. As mentioned before, by using TM programs an organization expects
from the employee to achieve personal growth. An explanation can be that collectivists want to
maintain harmonious relationships, are very loyal to the organization and focus on group goals
(Hofstede, 1984; Oyersman et al., 2002; Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998). Therefore, they want
to live up to the expectations of the organization and contribute to the organizational goals by
taking initiative to reach personal growth and thus show more PGI.
In addition, it is found that perceived organizational support mediates the relationship
between TM and PGI for the whole sample. The role of POS is explained by the organizational
support theory. According to this theory, employees within a TM program get a special
treatment. Moreover, the organization invests in these employees. This signals that the talent is
important for the organization. In turn, these employees feel valued and supported by the
organization. As is shown in this research, this causes that employees within a TM programs
will experience an increase in POS. In this way the results of Gelens et al. (in press) are
confirmed, who also found that employees in a formal talent pool experience an increase in
POS.
Since POS is increased, employees are likely to reciprocate the investments of the
organization in a positive way (Eisenberger et al., 1986). In other words, the talents will feel a
need to repay the organization by showing beneficial attitudes and behavior (Kuvaas & Dysvik,
2010). The aim of TM programs is to develop the talents for future positions, which causes that
showing PGI by the talent is very beneficial for the organization. Since the employee will invest
in one’s own personal as well as the organization. This can speed up the learning process. In
this research, it is found that an increase in POS is significantly related to an increase in PGI.
As mentioned earlier in this research, TM and POS are not linked to PGI before. Since the
relationships are significant this means that this research, by linking human resource practices
to PGI, expands the existing literature.
As described before, it is found that I/C does not moderate the relationship between TM
and PGI. It is found that the relationship between TM and PGI is significant for collectivists
but not for individualists, as is explained earlier. For the population as a whole the relationship
between TM and PGI is fully mediated by POS. Therefore culture cannot moderate this
relationship between TM and PGI.
I/C does not moderate the relationship between TM and POS as well. Instead it is found
that I/C significantly influences POS in a direct way. In a way that the more the employee is
individualistic orientated, the less the employee will feel supported by the organization and the
other way around for employees with a collectivistic orientation. As mentioned before, the
preferences for human resources practices differ per culture (Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998).
In addition, it is found that job conditions significantly influence POS (Rhoades & Eisenberger,
2002). It may be that the organization, besides TM programs, uses practices, which for example
value teamwork and group goals. These practices are generally valued by collectivists, resulting
in that they feel more supported and valued by the organization. This is in contradiction with
the values of individualists, who value for instance, competiveness, personal goals and working
alone. Therefore, they may feel less valued than collectivists and therefore experience less POS.
However, the other HR practices of the organization are not investigated, which makes it hard
to say if this explanation is true. Further research should be done to investigate if this is the
right reasoning.
Moreover, collectivists value and want to maintain relationships (Triandis, 2001). In
addition, they develop strong ties with the organization and see the organization as extended
family, which means that they want to stay at their current organization (Ramamoorthy &
Caroll, 1998). On top of that, earlier research confirmed that collectivists tend to stay longer at
organizations they worked for than individualists (Parkes et al., 2001). In turn, it can be argued
that they perceive more organizational support, since tenure is positively related to POS (Wayne
et al., 1997).
Furthermore, POS significantly influences PGI as explained above. Additional analyses
have proven that POS is a significant mediator in the relationship between I/C and PGI. This
means that I/C does not directly influence PGI, as described above, but does have an effect on
PGI in an indirect way. This questions the conclusions of Yakunina et al. (2013), who state that
I/C does not influence PGI. Therefore, this research contributes to the existing literature, since
it found that I/C significantly influences POS and in that way indirectly influences PGI as well.
At last, it is found that in some analyses age specifically influences POS. This can be a
consequence of the effect of TM on POS. Since employees within the TM are significantly
younger than employees who are nog in the TM program.
Limitations
As with every research, also this research has limitations. At first, all data of this
research were collected at the same moment in time, which makes this research cross-sectional.
One drawback about cross-sectional research is that it is hardly possible to do any statements
about causality (Singleton & Straits, 2010).
At second, almost all respondents (94,8%) within this research are male. It can be that
the effects of being in TM program are stronger in this research than it would be in other
analyses with more female respondents. The reasoning is that men are attracted to competitive
environments, which fits the exclusive TM approach (Delfgaauw, 2010; Hoglund, 2012). Since
these job conditions fit men more than women they are likely to perceive more organizational
support. Moreover, it is argued that men perform better than women in a competitive
environment (Gneezy, Niederle & Rustichini, 2003). This could mean that men in TM program
show more PGI since they want to perform the best in the TM program. More research is needed
to investigate this reasoning.
The percentage of male respondents is common for companies in the technical sector.
This means that the results cannot be generalized across all sectors. For example in the
healthcare sector, where most of the employees are women. Furthermore, almost all
respondents (97,1%) have a higher education, which makes it less generalizable to employees
with a lower education. Further research should investigate whether education plays a role
regarding the effects of participating in a TM program. In addition, the data of this research are
gathered at one organization, which makes it difficult to generalize these findings to other
organizations.
Lastly, the survey was based on self-report measures, since employees filled in a survey
about their own behavior and attitudes. The drawback of self-report measures is that people can
give social desirable answers or that they are faking. This causes a greater risk of bias (Arnold
& Feldman, 1981). However, it can be argued that the use of another instrument to measure
PGI, POS and I/C is almost impossible, since these concepts are psychological constructs. It
has to be mentioned that the independent variable (e.g. talent management) was based on data
from the organization and thus not dependable on self-report measures.
Suggestions for future research
As mentioned before, the data for this research are gathered at one organization. It is
advisable to repeat this study in other organizations, with for example more women, to check
whether the result are generalizable to a broader population.
In addition, only a few studies investigate the differences between employees who are
and who are not in a talent pool (Gelens et al., in press). As can be derived from this research,
this significantly influences a talent’s attitude and behavior, in this case POS and PGI. It may
also influence some other attitudes and behavior, for example self-efficacy and organizational
citizenship behavior,
which may be useful to
investigate
in further
research.
In this research, POS has a significant influence on PGI, which makes this, to the best
of our knowledge, the first study that links HR to PGI. Future research should investigate
whether other HR constructs may also influence PGI.
It is also found that I/C has a significant influence on POS. More research is needed to
explain this relationship in detail. For example, if organizations use HR practices that are
associated with individualistic values or collectivistic values, which may play a role in the
relationship between culture and POS.
In addition, it is found that POS mediates the relationship between I/C and PGI. This
means that culture indirectly influences PGI. It can be that also other constructs mediate the
relationship between I/C and PGI. This should be investigated in future research.
At last, the sub dimension of I/C supremacy of group interest is excluded from further
research, since it did not load on the one-factor structure of I/C. As factor alone it did not have
a high reliability as well (α < 0.70). A part of the argumentation for the moderation is based on
the component supremacy of group interests, which causes that the strength of the moderation
may be different if this component is included. In the future, a new scale should be developed
in a way that this component is measured as well.
Theoretical contributions
As mentioned before, only a few studies have examined the effects of talent
management on employees (Gelens et al., in press). Earlier research of Gelens et al. (in press)
found that employees within a talent pool experienced more affective commitment than
employees who were not in a talent pool. This relationship was mediated by POS. This research
expands the existing literature, by showing that POS also mediates the relationship between
being in a TM program and PGI. Moreover, this research links human resource studies to a
more general psychological construct, PGI. This is not investigated before and therefore
expands the existing literature.
In addition, it is found that I/C does not influence PGI in direct way as is proven earlier
by Yakunina et al. (2013). However, it does in an indirect way through POS and therefore this
research contributes to the existing theory. On top of that, it appears that I/C has an influence
on POS, which was not known yet. It was only known that collectivism moderates the
relationship between favorable job experiences and POS ( Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003). In
this way, this research broadens the existing literature about POS in relation to cultural
differences.
Practical contributions
The outcomes of this research are of added value for organizations as well. This research
shows that identifying employees as talent already influences their development. It motivates
the talent to try to improve themselves and develop themselves even further in their own time.
This can boost the talent’s growth and causes a win-win situation for the organization and the
talent. Moreover, it is found that talent programs increase POS of the talents, which in this
research influences PGI, but also has a lot of other beneficial effects. For example, earlier
research found that employees who experience high POS are less likely to leave the firm and
experience an increase in affective commitment (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Gelens et al.,
in press). Low turnover intentions and commitment are often goals of talent management, since
organizations want to retain the talents (Meyers & Paauwe, forthcoming). It is therefore
valuable to know that TM influences these constructs in a positive way.
Conclusion and implications
It can be concluded that participating in a talent management program increases the
perceived organizational support of talents, which in turn increases the personal growth
initiative of the talents. Moreover, other research prove that perceived organizational support
causes other beneficial attitudes and behavior as well. For instance, an increase in affective
commitment and lower turnover intentions (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). This behavior is
also of added value for organizations with talent programs. In addition, it is found that also
culture has an influence on perceived organizational support and indirectly personal growth
initiative. Further research is needed to investigate this relationship in more detail and the
implications for HR.
In sum, this research shows that only participating in a talent program already causes
that those talents take initiative over their own development. This is very beneficial for both the
talent and the organizations since it accelerates the talent’s growth.
Literature
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational
support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of
Management, 29, 99–118. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. (1981). Social desirability response bias in self-report
choice situations. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 377-385. doi:
10.2307/255848
Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psychological
contracts: A theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 491509. doi:10.1002/job.211
Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99–120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108.
Benson, G.S., Finegold, D. & Mohrman, S.A. (2004). You paid for the skills, now
keep them: Tuition reimbursement and voluntary turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 47, 315-331. doi:10.2307/20159584
Bethke-Langenegger, P., Mahler, P., & Staffelbach, B. (2011). Effectiveness of talent
management strategies. European Journal of International Management, 5(5), 5524–
5539. doi:10.1504/EJIM.2011.042177
Bjorkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Makela, K., Smale, A., & Sumelius, J. (2013). Talent or not?
Employee reactions to talent identification. Human Resource Management, 52, 195–
214. doi:10.1002/hrm.21525
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Brutus, S., & Cabrera, E. F. (2004). The influence of personal values on feedback‐seeking
behaviors. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of
Management, 2(3), 235-250. doi:10.1108/15365430480000512
Buckingham, M., & Vosburgh, R. M. (2001). The 21st century human resources function: It's
the talent, stupid! Human Resource Planning, 24(4), 17–23. Retrieved from:
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/7716999/21st-century-human-resourcesfunction-talent-stupid
Cohen, A., & Avrahami, A. (2006). The relationship between individualism, collectivism,
the perception of justice, demographic characteristics and organisational citizenship
behaviour. The Service Industries Journal, 26, 889-901. doi:10.1080
/02642060601011707
Collings, D. G. (2014). Toward mature talent management: Beyond shareholder value.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(3), 301-319. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21198
Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and research
agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 304–313. doi:10.1016
/j.hrmr.2009.04.001
Cook, K.S., & Rice, E. (2003). Handbook of social psychology. New York, NY: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900. doi:10.1177/0149206305279602
De Pater, I., Van Vianen, A., Bechtoldt, M., & Klehe, U. (2009). Employees’ challenging job
experiences and supervisors’ evaluations of promotability. Personnel Psychology, 62,
297–325. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01139.x
Delfgaauw, J. (2010). Competitiedrang op de werkvloer. Economisch-Statistische Berichten,
95(4600), 790-791. Retrieved from: repub.eur.nl/pub/21921/plugin-101220_delf
gaauw.pdf
Dries, N. (2013). The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda.
Human Resource Management Review, 23, 272–285. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.001
Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2008). 'Real' high-potential careers: An empirical study into the
perspectives of organisations and high potentials. Personnel Review, 37, 85-108.
doi:10.1108/00483480810839987
Earley, P. C. (1994). Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 89–117. doi:10.2307/2393495
Eisenberg, J. (1999). How individualism-collectivism moderates the effects of rewards on
creativity and innovation: A comparative review of practices in Japan and the US.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 8(4), 251-261. doi:10.1111/1467-8691.00144
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D., & Rhoades, L. (2001).
Reciprocation of perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(1), 42–51. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. doi:10.1037/0021
-9010.71.3.500
Farndale, E., Pai, A., Sparrow, P., & Scullion, H. (2014). Balancing individual and
organizational goals in global talent management: A mutual-benefits perspective.
Journal of World Business, 49, 204-214. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.004
Festing, M., & Schäfer, L. (2014). Generational challenges to talent management: A
framework for talent retention based on the psychological-contract perspective.
Journal of World Business, 49, 262-271. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.010
Fitzsimmons, S. R., & Stamper, C. L. (2014). How societal culture influences friction in the
employee–organization relationship. Human Resource Management Review, 24(1),
80-94. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.07.001
Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward
emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13(2), 172-175. doi:10.1111/1467
-9280.00431
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & González-Cruz, T. F. (2013). What is the meaning of
‘talent’ in the world of work? Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), 290-300.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.002
Gelens, J., Dries, N., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (2013). The role of perceived organizational
justice in shaping the outcomes of talent management: A research agenda. Human
Resource Management Review, 24(4), 341–353. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12029
Gelens, J., Dries, N., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (in press). Affective commitment of
employees designated as talent: Signalling perceived organisational support. European
Journal of International Management.
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58, 479-514. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085559
Gneezy, U., Niederle, M. & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive environments:
gender differences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 1049–1074. doi:10.1162
/00335530360698496
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25, 161–178. doi:10.2307/2092623
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis:
A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Höglund, M. (2012). Quid pro quo? Examining talent management through the lens of
psychological contracts. Personnel Review, 41(2), 126-142. doi:10.1108
/00483481211199991
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultural consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept, Academy of
Management Review, 9, 389–98. doi:10.5465/AMR.1984.4279653
Hudson, T., & Rammamoorthy, N. (2009). Self-directed learning readiness, individualism–
collectivism and adult student learning in online environment: development and test of
a causal model. In P. Daly, D. Gijbels (eds.), Real learning opportunities at business
school and beyond, advances in business education and training 2 (pp. 71-79).
doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-2973-7 5
Kuvaas, B. & Dysvik, A. (2010). Exploring alternative relationships between perceived
investment in employee development, perceived supervisor support and employee
outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal, 20(2), 138–156. doi:
10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00120.x
Lee, C.H., & Bruvold, N.T. (2003). Creating value for employees: Investment in
employee development. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 14, 981-1000. doi:10.1177/1548051811405208
Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human
Resource Management Review, 16, 139-154. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.001
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of
human capital allocation and development. The Academy of Management Review, 24,
31-48. doi:10.5465/AMR.1999.1580439
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation Analysis. Annual Review
of Psychology, 58, 593. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542
McCall, M.W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrisson, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience.
How succesful executives develop on the job. New York, NY: Free Press.
McNatt, D. B. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: A meta-analysis
of the result. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 314–322. doi:10.1037/0021
-9010.85.2.314
Meyers, M. C., & Paauwe, J. (forthcoming). Talent management. In C. Viswesvaran, N.
Anderson, D. S. Ones & H. K. Sinangil (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work
and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 3).
Meyers, M. C., & van Woerkom, M. (2014). The influence of underlying philosophies on
talent management: Theory, implications for practice, and research agenda. Journal
of World Business, 49, 192-203. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.003
Noordin, F., Williams, T., & Zimmer, C. (2002). Career commitment in collectivist and
individualist cultures: A comparative study. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 13(1), 35-54. doi:10.1080/09585190110092785
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 128, 3–72. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS
for Windows (3th ed.). Two Penn Plaza, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Parkes, L. P., Bochner, S., & Schneider, S. K. (2001). Person-organisation fit across cultures:
An empirical investigation of individualism and collectivism. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 50, 81–108. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00049
Ramamoorthy, N., & Carroll, S. J. (1998). Individualism/collectivism orientations and
reactions toward alternative human resource management practices. Human Relations,
51, 571–588. doi:10.1023/A:1016954217602
Ramamoorthy, N., & Flood, P. C. (2002). Employee attitudes and behavioral intentions: A test
of the main and moderating effects of individualism-collectivism orientations. Human
Relations, 55(9), 1071-1096. doi:10.1177/0018726702055009020
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714. doi:10.1037/00219010.87.4.698
Robitschek, C. (1997). Life/career renewal: An intervention for vocational and other life
transitions. Journal of Career Development, 24, 133–146. doi:10.1023
/A:1025053330494
Robitschek, C. (1998). Personal growth initiative: The construct and its measure.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30, 183–198.
doi:10.1037/t04261-000
Robitschek, C. (1999). Further validation of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 31, 197–210.
doi:10.1037/t04261-000
Robitschek, C., Ashton, M. W., Spering, C. C., Geiger, N., Byers, D., Schotts, G. C., &
Thoen, M. A. (2012). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Personal
Growth Initiative Scale-II. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 274–287.
doi:10.1037/a0027310
Robitschek, C., & Cook, S. W. (1999). The influence of personal growth initiative and coping
styles on career exploration and vocational identity. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
54, 127–141. doi:10.1006/ jvbe.1998.1650
Robitschek, C., & Kashubeck, S. (1999). A structural model of parental alcoholism, family
functioning, and psychological health: The mediating effects of hardiness and personal
growth orientation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 159–172. doi:10.1037/0022
-0167.46.2.159
Robitschek, C., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2009). Keyes's model of mental health with personal growth
initiative as a parsimonious predictor. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(2), 321329. doi:10.1037/a0013954
Stahl, G. K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P., . . . Wright, P. M.
(2007). Global talent management: How leading multinationals build and sustain their
talent pipeline. INSEAD faculty and research working papers, 24. Retrieved from:
http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/details_papers.cfm?id=17506
Scullion, H., Collings, D. G., & Caligiuri, P. (2010). Global talent management. Journal of
World Business, 45, 105-108. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.011
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived
organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219-227. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.219
Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Perceived organizational support and organizational
justice. In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice,
and support: Managing the social climate of the workplace (pp. 149–164). Westport,
CT: Quorum.
Stevic, C., & Ward, R. (2008). Initiating Personal Growth: The role of recognition and life
satisfaction on the development of college students. Social Indicators Research, 89(3),
523-534. doi:10.1007/s11205-008-9247-2
Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2010). Approaches to social research. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Tansky, J. W., & Cohen, D. J. (2001). The relationship between organizational support,
employee development, and organizational commitment: An empirical study. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 12(3), 285-300. doi:10.1002/hrdq.15
Tarique, I., & Schuler, R. S. (2010). Global talent management: Literature review, integrative
framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of World Business, 45, 122133. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.019
Thoen, M. A., & Robitschek, C. (2013). Intentional Growth Training: Developing an
intervention to increase personal growth initiative. Applied Psychology: Health and
Well-Being, 5(2), 149-170. doi:10.1111/aphw.12001
Thunnissen, M., Boselie, P., & Fruytier, B. (2013). Talent management and the relevance of
context: Towards a pluralistic approach. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4),
326-336. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.004
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American
Psychologist, 51, 407–415. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.4.407
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-Collectivism and Personality. Journal of Personality,
69(6), 907-924. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.696169
Triandis, H. C., Brislin, R., & Hui, C.H. (1988). Cross-cultural training across the
individualism-collectivism divide. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12,
269-89. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(88)90019-3
Wasti, S. A. (2003). Organizational commitment, turnover intentions and the influence of
cultural values. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 303321. doi:10.1348/096317903769647193
Waterman, A. S. (1984). The psychology of individualism. New York, NY: Praeger
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M, & Liden, R.C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader–
member exchange: a social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal,
40, 82–111. doi:10.2307/257021
Weigold, I. K., Porfeli, E. J., & Weigold, A. (2013). Examining tenets of personal growth
initiative using the Personal Growth Initiative Scale–II. Psychological
Assessment, 25(4), 1396-1403. doi:10.1037/a0034104
Weigold, I. K., & Robitschek, C. (2011). Agentic personality characteristics and coping: Their
relation to trait anxiety in college students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
81(2), 255-264. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2011.01094.x
Wright, P.M., Smart, D.L., & McMahan, G.C. (1995). Matches between human resources and
strategy among NCAA basketball teams. Academy of Management Journal,
38(4), 1052–1074. doi:10.2307/256620.
Yakunina, E. S., Weigold, I. K., & Weigold, A. (2013). Personal growth initiative: relations
with acculturative stress and international student adjustment. International
Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, and Consultation, 2(1), 62-71.
doi:10.1037/a0030888
Appendix A
Table A1
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
,921
Approx. Chi-Square
1782,432
df
120
Sig.
,000
Figure A1. Scree plot of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale.
Table A2
Component matrix of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale.
Component
I set realistic goals for what I want to change about myself.
I can tell when I am ready to make specific changes in myself.
I know how to make a realistic plan in order to change myself.
I take every opportunity to grow as it comes up.
When I try to change myself, I make a realistic plan for my personal growth.
I ask for help when I try to change myself.
I actively work to improve myself.
I figure out what I need to change about myself.
I am constantly trying to grow as a person.
I know how to set realistic goals to make changes in myself.
I know when I need to make a specific change in myself.
I use resources when I try to grow.
I know steps I can take to make intentional changes in myself.
I actively seek out help when I try to change myself.
I look for opportunities to grow as a person.
I know when it is time to change specific things about myself.
1
,692
,643
,770
,656
,774
,600
,750
,752
,697
,806
,742
,724
,691
,738
,785
,774
2
3
-,370
-,330
-,341
,567
,446
-,309
-,380
-,358
,427
,359
Table A3
Rotated component matrix of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale.
Component
1
2
I set realistic goals for what I want to change about myself.
,683
,319
I can tell when I am ready to make specific changes in myself.
,738
,333
I know how to make a realistic plan in order to change myself.
,719
,358
I take every opportunity to grow as it comes up.
,300
,703
When I try to change myself, I make a realistic plan for my personal growth.
,560
,423
I ask for help when I try to change myself.
3
,334
,832
I actively work to improve myself.
,354
,693
I figure out what I need to change about myself.
,370
,572
I am constantly trying to grow as a person.
,371
,876
I know how to set realistic goals to make changes in myself.
,750
,351
I know when I need to make a specific change in myself.
,658
,397
I use resources when I try to grow.
,391
I know steps I can take to make intentional changes in myself.
,691
,332
,559
,415
I actively seek out help when I try to change myself.
,343
,804
I look for opportunities to grow as a person.
,695
,451
I know when it is time to change specific things about myself.
,554
,515
Table A4
Forced one-factor component matrix of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale.
Component
1
I set realistic goals for what I want to change about myself.
I can tell when I am ready to make specific changes in myself.
I know how to make a realistic plan in order to change myself.
I take every opportunity to grow as it comes up.
When I try to change myself, I make a realistic plan for my personal growth.
I ask for help when I try to change myself.
I actively work to improve myself.
I figure out what I need to change about myself.
I am constantly trying to grow as a person.
I know how to set realistic goals to make changes in myself.
I know when I need to make a specific change in myself.
I use resources when I try to grow.
I know steps I can take to make intentional changes in myself.
I actively seek out help when I try to change myself.
I look for opportunities to grow as a person.
,692
,643
,770
,656
,774
,600
,750
,752
,697
,806
,742
,724
,691
,738
,785
I know when it is time to change specific things about myself.
,774
Appendix B
Table B1
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity of the measurement scale of POS.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
,874
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
571,316
df
28
Sig.
,000
Figure B1. Scree plot of the measurement scale of perceived organizational support.
Table B2
Component matrix of the measurement scale of perceived organizational support.
Component
1
The organization values my contribution to its well-being.
,772
The organization really cares about my well-being.
,689
The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work.
,708
The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work.
,676
The organization fails to appreciate any extra effort from me.
,712
The organization would ignore any complaint from me.
,726
Even if I did the best job possible, the organization would fail to notice.
,683
The organization shows very little concern for me.
,845
APPENDIX C
Table C1
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity of the measurement scale of I/C.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
,728
Approx. Chi-Square
df
1015,631
190
Sig.
,000
Figure C1. Scree plot of the measurement scale of individualism/collectivism.
Table C2
Component matrix of the measurement scale of individualism/collectivism.
Component
1
People who belong to a group should realize that they are
2
3
4
,411
5
6
-,565
not always going to get what they want.
What happens to me is my own doing.
Doing your best is not enough; it is important to win.
,485
In the long run, the only person you can count on is yourself.
,582
People in a group should be willing to make sacrifices for
-,450
,606
,591
-,392
,372
,462
,515
,418
-,409
,387
,433
the sake of the group’s well-being.
Winning is everything.
,554
Working with a group is better than working alone.
,492
Only those who depend on themselves get ahead in life.
,603
It annoys me when others perform better than I do.
,432
People should be made aware that if they are going to be
,655
,410
,322
,540
,448
part of the group, they are sometimes going to do things that
they do not want to do.
A group is more productive when its members follow their
,476
-,549
own interests and concerns.
Success is the most important thing in life.
,541
People who belong to a group should realize that they
,646
,435
sometimes are going to have to make sacrifices for the sake
of the group as a whole.
A group is most efficient when members do what they think
,534
,311
-,604
is best rather than what the group wants them to do.
I feel that winning is important in both work and games.
,396
-,341
Given a choice, I would rather work alone than working with
,579
,385
,447
a group.
If you want to get something done right, you have got to do
,580
it yourself.
I prefer to work with others rather than working alone.
A group is more productive when its members do what they
,392
,604
want to do rather than what the group wants them to do.
To be superior, a person must stand alone.
,656
,590
-,552
Table C3
Rotated component matrix of the measurement scale of I/C.
Component
1
2
3
4
People who belong to a group should realize that they are
5
6
,483
-,543
not always going to get what they want.
What happens to me is my own doing.
Doing your best is not enough; it is important to win.
,864
,799
In the long run, the only person you can count on is yourself.
,815
People in a group should be willing to make sacrifices for
,809
the sake of the group’s well-being.
Winning is everything.
,790
Working with a group is better than working alone.
,754
Only those who depend on themselves get ahead in life.
It annoys me when others perform better than I do.
,764
,589
People should be made aware that if they are going to be
-,397
,617
part of the group, they are sometimes going to do things that
they do not want to do.
A group is more productive when its members follow their
,766
own interests and concerns.
Success is the most important thing in life.
,567
People who belong to a group should realize that they
,752
sometimes are going to have to make sacrifices for the sake
of the group as a whole.
A group is most efficient when members do what they think
,878
is best rather than what the group wants them to do.
I feel that winning is important in both work and games.
Given a choice, I would rather work alone than working
,708
,314
,668
with a group.
If you want to get something done right, you have got to do
,500
,425
it yourself.
I prefer to work with others rather than working alone.
A group is more productive when its members do what they
,803
,866
want to do rather than what the group wants them to do.
To be superior, a person must stand alone.
,342
,393
,475
Table C4
Forced one-factor component matrix of the measurement scale of I/C.
Component
1
People who belong to a group should realize that they are not always going to get what they want.
What happens to me is my own doing.
Doing your best is not enough; it is important to win.
,485
In the long run, the only person you can count on is yourself.
,582
People in a group should be willing to make sacrifices for the sake of the group’s well-being.
Winning is everything.
,554
Working with a group is better than working alone.
Only those who depend on themselves get ahead in life.
,603
It annoys me when others perform better than I do.
,432
People should be made aware that if they are going to be part of the group, they are sometimes going to
do things that they do not want to do.
A group is more productive when its members follow their own interests and concerns.
,476
Success is the most important thing in life.
,541
People who belong to a group should realize that they sometimes are going to have to make sacrifices
for the sake of the group as a whole.
A group is most efficient when members do what they think is best rather than what the group wants,534
them to do.
I feel that winning is important in both work and games.
,396
Given a choice, I would rather work alone than working with a group.
,579
If you want to get something done right, you have got to do it yourself.
,580
I prefer to work with others rather than working alone.
A group is more productive when its members do what they want to do rather than what the group wants,604
them to do.
To be superior, a person must stand alone.
,656
Appendix D
Table D1
Conditional direct effects of TM on PGI for one standard deviation below the mean, one
standard deviation above the mean and the mean of I/C and the corresponding standard
errors and 95% confidence intervals.
Value of the
moderator
value of I/C
θ(X→Y)
Std.
Error
95%LLCI
95%ULCI
1SD < mean
mean
1SD > mean
-.521
.000
.521
.313
.144
-.024
.146
.106
.171
.024
-.066
-.360
.602
.355
.313
Table D2
Conditional indirect effects of TM on PGI (e.g. mediated by POS) for one standard deviation
below the mean, one standard deviation above the mean and the mean of I/C and the
corresponding standard errors and 95% confidence intervals.
Value of the
moderator
value of I/C
θ(X→Y)
Std.
Error
95%LLCI
95%ULCI
1SD < mean
-.521
.050
.040
-.025
.137
mean
1SD > mean
.000
.521
.059
.068
.059
.068
.003
-.026
.144
.201