Exclusive Talent
Management, Perceived
Organisational Justice &
Employee Engagement:
Bridging the Literature
By Mr. Edward P. O’Connor,
Maynooth University School of Business, Maynooth, Ireland.
Email: EDWARD.OCONNOR.2011@nuim.ie
&
Dr. Marian Crowley-Henry,
School of Business, Maynooth University School of Business, Maynooth,
Ireland.
Stream 4 - Working Paper
.
Abstract
Purpose - This conceptual paper explores the relationship between an organisation’s
exclusive talent management (TM) practices, the effects this has on its employees’
perceptions of organisational justice, and the implications for employee engagement. The
paper develops a conceptual framework from a detailed review of the literature, where
exclusive talent management, organisational justice and employee engagement overlap.
Design/methodology/approach – This conceptual paper is based on a review of the
academic literature at the intersection of exclusive TM, organisational justice and employee
engagement.
Findings – From the extant research, we postulate that in organisations pursuing exclusive
TM programmes the different components of organisational justice, such as procedural and
distributive justice (Gelens et al., 2013), together with perceptions on exclusive TM practices,
impact upon employee engagement (Purang, 2011). This in turn affects organisational
outcomes such as performance and retention (Gelens et al., 2014, Wooten and Cobb, 1999).
Originality/value – From our analysis, we construct and present a model depicting the
relationship between exclusive TM practices and employee engagement. The propositions in
the model are each supported by the respective literature. In unpacking how exclusive TM
practices can impact on employee engagement, the paper is relevant for academics in this
domain by bridging the literatures on TM, organisational justice and employee engagement.
The research is also relevant for organisations to understand in terms of the antecedents and
consequences of employee engagement which may be under the organisation’s control.
Keywords – Talent management, Employee Engagement, Organizational Justice, Procedural
Justice, Distributive Justice
.
Introduction
This conceptual paper presents the findings from a review of the literature on the justice of
exclusive talent management (TM) practices, and the implications this has for employee
engagement in the workplace.
The research concentrates on two questions;
1. How does exclusive TM practices by organisations impact on employees’ perceived
organisational justice?
2. What are the implications of question 1. on employee engagement in the workplace?
TM and employee engagement are currently two popular topics in management studies and
both have captured the interest of practitioners and academics alike (Hughes and Rog, 2008,
Saks and Gruman, 2014). Much of what has been written about both concepts comes from the
practitioner and consultant literature (Saks, 2006, Lewis and Heckman, 2006). The third
concept, organisational justice, is a popular medium with which to understand employee
reactions to organisational practices (Gelens et al., 2013, Gelens et al., 2014, Malik and
Singh, 2014), such as TM.
The links between the concepts are mostly examined under social exchange theory (SET)
(Biswas et al., 2013, Gelens et al., 2013, Mirvis, 2012, Saks, 2006, Ghosh et al., 2014), which
is a “well-established theoretical framework” (Ghosh et al., 2014, p.634). Social exchange
theory involves a series of interactions that generate obligations, with these interactions
usually seen as interdependent and contingent on the actions of another person (Emerson,
1976). These interactions, over time, can develop into high quality, committed and trusting
relationships, once all parties involved abide by the ‘rules’ of the exchange (Cropanzano and
Mitchell, 2005).
.
The paper is structured as follows: First it summarises the review process used and then
provides a summary of the review findings. It then builds up our postulation on the linkage
between the concepts on the basis of past research and extant literature. The paper concludes
with the study’s limitations and the scope for further research in the domains of TM,
organizational justice and employee engagement.
The Literature Review Process
The aim of a literature review is “to enable the researcher both to map and to assess the
existing intellectual territory, and to specify a research question to develop the existing body
of knowledge” (Tranfield et al., 2003, p.208). The paper reviews the literature at the
intersection of exclusive talent management, organisational justice and employee
engagement.
Figure 1. Scope of Study
The rationale behind this paper is to review the existing literature on organisational justice,
exclusive TM and employee engagement and, using past research, develop the linkage
between the concepts in order to answer our research questions and provide direction for
future research. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted, as per the sequence of
.
steps as devised by Tranfield et al. (2003) and Pittaway et al. (2004) (The SLR process is
detailed in appendix 1). A final total of 72 papers were reviewed..
Talent Management
Talent management is one of the most debated practices in the HRM field (Thunnissen et al.,
2013), and is an area that lacks theory and distinct academic boundaries (Lewis and
Heckman, 2006). Iles et al. (2010), in a review of the literatures’ conceptualisation of talent
and TM, list four main perspectives on TM:
1. Exclusive-people view where an employee’s added value to the organisation is used
as a form of workforce differentiation
2. Exclusive-position view focuses on differentiating employees according to the
importance of their organisational role or position.
3. Inclusive-people view operates on the belief that all employees are talented in one
form or another, with the potential to add value to the organisation.
4. Social capital perspective, which regards the work context and culture as an important
part of TM.
There are also a number of disputed areas, or tensions in the literature (Dries, 2013). In this
paper, the inclusive/exclusive tension is under scrutiny. Inclusive TM argues that everyone in
the organisation has talent, and “the organization's task is to provide equal opportunities so all
employees can reach their potential” (Malik and Singh, 2014, p.3). This follows the general
HRM principle that all employees’ performances are to be managed.
Conversely exclusive TM regards some workers as more talented than others, and thus more
valuable (Dries, 2013). This is the more practiced form of TM in organisations today, mainly
due to perceived cost effectiveness and efficiency (Gelens et al., 2013) and as such is the
form of TM that this paper is concerned with.
.
While the exclusive form of TM has been advocated by some (Iles et al., 2010, GallardoGallardo et al., 2013), there are also more negative criticisms of the practice. The effects of
categorizing a small percentage of the workforce “as having special powers” (Swailes, 2013a,
p.37) is seen as raising ethical questions and being problematic, and employees who perceive
organizational practices as unfair are likely to be dissatisfied (Wan et al., 2012).
A limited number of studies have concentrated on the impact of TM practices, mainly taking
a meso perspective on organisational effects. This is despite TM practices also having effects
at the micro level, such as affecting employee attitudes and behaviours (Gelens et al., 2014).
However, Swailes (2013a) argues that not all employees are troubled over exclusive TM,
with many unconcerned whether or not they are selected for talent programmes. This paper
concentrates on those that are concerned with their selection (or not) for TM programmes and
considers how these employees’ perceptions of organizational justice toward them (in being
talented or not) impacts on their workplace engagement. This is important as “effective TM
practices demonstrate commitment to human capital, resulting in more engaged employees”
(Bhatnagar, 2007, p.645), with more engaged employees leading to positive organisational
outcomes.
Employee Engagement
Saks (2006) observes that multiple definitions of employee engagement exist and there is a
general lack of consensus in the literature on what employee engagement actually means
(Shuck, 2011). However, Saks and Gruman (2014) find there are two influential definitions
of engagement in the academic literature, from Kahn (1990) and Maslach et al. (2001).
Kahn (1990) defines ‘personal engagement’ as “the harnessing of organization members’
selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically,
cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p.694), and describes
.
engagement as the “simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred self’ in
task behaviours that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical,
cognitive, and emotional), and active, full role performance” (Kahn, 1990, p.700). Kahn
(1990) contends that three psychological states are needed for this engagement to happen;
meaningfulness, safety and availability. Meaningfulness is a “feeling that one is receiving a
return on investments of one's self in a currency of physical, cognitive, or emotional energy”
(Kahn, 1990, p.704). Employees experience meaningfulness when they feel worthwhile,
useful, appreciated and not taken for granted (Kahn, 1990). Safety is when employees can
employ ones “self without fear or negative consequences”, (Kahn, 1990, p.708), and feel the
organisation is supportive and trusting. Availability concerns how ready employees are to
engage and “place their selves fully into role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p.714). This
availability depends on employees having the “physical, emotional or psychological
resources” (Kahn, 1990, p.714) needed to cope with both work and non-work aspects of their
lives. Kahn suggests these three psychological states have a significant impact on employees’
physical, emotional and cognitive engagement. Studies have since shown that all three states
were important constructs in creating an engaged workforce (Harter et al., 2002, Shuck,
2011).
In the second definition by Maslach et al. (2001), in their paper on job burnout, they describe
engagement as “an energetic state of involvement with personally fulfilling activities that
enhance one’s sense of professional efficacy” (Maslach et al., 2001, p.498) and engagement
is characterised by “energy, involvement, and efficacy”. This is the positive antithesis of job
burnout and its three dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy (Maslach et al.,
2001).
These two influential definitions have since been amended or refined by various scholars.
Rich et al. (2010), in one of the first modern studies to re-examine Kahn’s domains of
.
engagement (Shuck, 2011) and drawing from Kahn (1990) and Ashforth and Humphrey
(1995), state engagement is a more complete representation of the self and that individuals
are only engaged when they are investing their “hands, head, & heart” (Ashforth &
Humphrey, 1995, p.110) in active, full work performance.
Schaufeli et al. (2002) define employee engagement as a state of mind that consists of three
components: vigour, dedication, and absorption, while Rothbard (2001) highlights that it
involves two critical components: attention and absorption.
There are four major approaches to employee engagement running through the literature:
Kahn’s (1990) Need-Satisfying approach, Maslach et al (2001) burnout-antithesis, Harter et
al (2002) satisfaction-engagement approach and Saks (2006) multidimensional approach.
These are summarised below:
.
Author(S) &
Approach
Contribution
Kahn (1990)
Need Satisfying
Approach
First application and use of engagement theory in the workplace (Shuck, 2011).
Defined ‘personal engagement’ and ‘disengagement’
Early Theoretical Framework
Maslach et al.(2001)
Burnout Antithesis
Conceptualises engagement as the positive antithesis of job burnout and its
three dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy (Maslach et al., 2001).
Harter et al (2002)
SatisfactionEngagement
Much cited study, first to look at the effects of engagement at business unit level,
suggesting a positive link between engagement and organisational outcomes.
Saks (2006)
multidimensional
approach
Multidimensional approach, hypothesised that employee engagement developed
through social exchange model (Shuck, 2011). Differentiates separate types of
engagement, finding “ a meaningful difference between job and organizational
engagement” (Saks, 2006, p.600).
These approaches form what Shuck (2011) describes as “the scaffolding for the current
academic frameworks of employee engagement” (Shuck, 2011, p.316) and all four reach the
conclusion that “employee engagement inside organisations has the potential to significantly
impact important organisational outcomes” (Shuck, 2011, p.317).
The review revealed a strong relationship between employee engagement and positive
outcomes at both the meso (organizational) and micro (employee) levels. At the meso level,
employee engagement is seen as a key factor in areas such as organisational success (Rich et
al., 2010, Bhuvanaiah and Raya, 2014), higher shareholder return (Richman, 2006) and
improved customer satisfaction (Harter et al., 2002, Richman, 2006). Meanwhile micro level
studies demonstrat a positive relationship with organisational loyalty (Mehta and Mehta,
2013), employee wellbeing (Shuck and Reio, 2014), turnover intentions (Shuck et al., 2014)
and increased employee belief in CSR policies (Godkin, 2014). Overall the review presented
employee engagement as positive for organisations and individuals in ensuring performance
and in contributing to the organisation’s competitiveness.
Organisational Justice
Perceived organisational justice is defined as an employee’s “subjective perception of
fairness of allocation” (Gelens et al., 2013, p.343) and is directly related to the quality of the
employee-organizational relationship (Purang, 2011). Wooten and Cobb (1999) propound
that justice plays a particularly important role in career development, especially in areas
concerning the perceived fairness of organisational decisions affecting employees or their
colleagues. The concept is considered a suitable medium to examine and understand
employees’ reactions to exclusive TM (Gelens et al., 2013, Gelens et al., 2014, Malik and
Singh, 2014), while other authors establish a link between employee engagement and
organisational justice (Badewi, 2013, Ghosh et al., 2014, Mirvis, 2012, Saks, 2006).
.
There are three main forms of organisational justice: distributive justice, “the fairness of
outcomes distributions and allocations”(Thunnissen et al., 2013, p.332), procedural justice,
the perceived justice and fairness of the allocation process (Gelens et al., 2014) and
interactional justice, the quality of the interpersonal treatment people receive whilst
procedures are implemented (Thunnissen et al., 2013, p.332). Colquitt (2001) found that
interactional justice is made up of two separate forms of justice; interpersonal justice, how
employees are treated by those in authority, with respect, dignity etc; and informational
justice, how well employees are informed about procedures and processes that affect them.
An important finding for this research is how the various forms of justice moderate and
mediate the effects of organisational practices (Gelens et al., 2014) and the consequence of
the order effect of the different justice concepts (Van den Bos et al., 1997). Studies found
both distributive and procedural justice were linked to employee engagement (Biswas et al.,
2013), while in other studies distributive justice was found to have a greater effect at the
micro level, e.g. job engagement (Ghosh et al., 2014). Perceptions of procedural justice have
a greater effect at the meso level, such as organisational engagement (Saks, 2006).
An employee’s reaction to perceived injustice may result in “poor work attitudes, higher
incidents of interpersonal conflict and low job performance” (Mahajan and Benson, 2013,
p.723), and “low perceptions of fairness are likely to cause employees to withdraw and
disengage” (Ghosh et al., 2014, p.634), which is what we posit can happen with employees
not identified as high potentials in an organisation with exclusive TM practices.
Linking TM, organizational justice and employee engagement
For some employees exclusive TM practices have a negative effect on perceived
organisational justice (as contended by Gelens et al. (2014), Lacey and Groves (2014), Malik
and Singh (2014), Marescaux et al. (2013) among others) and, as perceived organisational
.
justice is an important element in employee engagement (as contended by Agarwal (2014),
Biswas et al. (2013), Ghosh et al. (2014), He et al. (2014), Li (2012), Saks (2006) and others)
we posit that exclusive TM may have a negative relationship with employee engagement,
through a mediating role played by organisational justice.
Figure 2. Postulation framework
We posit that
P1. Employees labelled as talented, will experience higher levels of engagement. Employees labelled
as talented were found to be positively disposed to their recognition as being “talent” (Huselid and
Becker, 2011), dedicated with lower turnover intentions (Björkman et al., 2013) and have higher
perceptions of justice (Gelens et al., 2014). We contend that, as these have been recognised as
antecedents to engagement (Saks, 2006), that exclusive TM can affect employee engagement.
P2. Employees not labelled as talented may reciprocate with counterproductive attitudes and
behaviours, which is active disengagement. Marescaux et al. (2013) find workforce differentiation,
the core of exclusive TM, leads to negative effects, with lower affective commitment. Employees’
reaction to perceived injustice or inequality has been found to result in “poor work attitudes, higher
incidents of interpersonal conflict and low job performance” (Mahajan and Benson, 2013, p.723), and
.
that “low perceptions of fairness are likely to cause employees to withdraw and disengage” (Ghosh et
al., 2014, p.634).
P3. SET does not happen in a straightforward way as every employee has their own perceptions of
fairness, just effort and reward. We posit that organisational justice, in its distributive and procedural
forms, will play a key role in how employees react to exclusive TM. Employees will evaluate the
fairness of themselves being labelled, or not, as talented, and will compare their estimated output with
their received resources and from this, if they perceive their contributions are/are not reciprocated by
the organisation, will experience more favourable/less favourable perceptions of distributive or
procedural justice.
P4. Perceptions of justice shape employee reactions (Cropanzano et al., 2007). Depending on the
perceived justice the employee will shape their reaction accordingly. In SET, if the employee
perceives an income/outcome imbalance, they will want to rebalance the relationship, as they want the
exchange relationship to be what they perceive as fair. Thus lower outcomes, as with some not
labelled as talented, will mean a lowering of work effort and commitment (Cohen-Charash and
Spector, 2001). On the other hand, some labelled as talented will respond positively as exclusive TM
positively affects their reactions (Gelens et al., 2014).
P5. Based on the moderating effects of interpersonal and informational justice, the effects of
procedural and distributive justice may be buffered. We posit that when employees are
provided with appropriate, clear information and fair treatment, and when they understand the
whole process, their reaction to announced TM outcomes may be moderated. However an
issue that inhibits this possible buffer to perceived injustice is the secrecy under which some
organisations operate their TM systems (Lacey and Groves, 2014), which prohibits the
provision of clear information and open procedures.
.
Discussion
Social scientists have long acknowledged that justice is vital in the effective running of an
organisation and for the satisfaction and fulfilment of its employees (Greenburg, 1990). In
this paper we have introduced a framework, constructed from a series of propositions, for
researching how perceptions of organizational justice concerning exclusive TM can affect
employee engagement.
The review suggests that organisational practices affect employee perceptions of fairness and
justice (Moorman, 1991) and that these perceptions affect employee engagement, with Ghosh
et al. (2014) and Saks (2006) finding that the various forms of justice predict and determine
employee engagement. This is supported by the Wooten and Cobb (1999) assertion that
organisation practices and career development interventions are “prone to perceptions of
distributive, procedural and interactional fairness” (Wooten and Cobb, 1999, p.177) by
employees. As one form of justice influences the others “the cumulative effects serve to
enhance the impact of fairness perceptions” of the organisation’s actions (Wooten and Cobb,
1999, p.177).
The review also established a link between perceived organisational justice and employee
reactions to exclusive TM practices (Gelens et al., 2014, Lacey and Groves, 2014, Swailes,
2013b), and it found that in some cases, such as with those not labelled as talented, that
exclusive TM was damaging to some employees’ perceptions of organizational justice, such
as the Lacey and Groves (2014) findings that ‘untalented’ employees experienced
marginality, isolation, distress and feelings of being undervalued.
As stated, the links between the concepts is mostly examined under SET (Biswas et al., 2013,
Gelens et al., 2013, Mirvis, 2012, Saks, 2006, Ghosh et al., 2014). However, under SET, for
employees to be engaged respect and trust must flow in both directions, with transparent
processes throughout (Doherty, 2010). If employees do not perceive they are being treated
.
fairly the employment relationship can suffer (Purang, 2011). The review has shown that
exclusive TM is damaging to some employees and their perceptions of justice (Lacey and
Groves, 2014, Gelens et al., 2014, Swailes, 2013a), thus we posit that exclusive TM, through
its effects on perceived organisational justice, can have an effect on employee engagement.
Study Limitations
This is a conceptual paper, with the conceptual model developed from a detailed review of
the literature. It requires empirical testing, preferably a longitudinal study, which would track
the categories of employees considered ‘talent’ or not in different organisation case studies,
in terms of their employee engagement scores. “At least seven different scales have been
developed to measure engagement” (Saks and Gruman, 2014, p.163), most based on Kahn’s
(1990) paper. However the most popular scale (Bakker et al., 2011, Klassen et al., 2012,
Shuck et al., 2015), the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) by Schaufeli et al. (2002),
is based on engagement being the antithesis of burnout. This research could be supplemented
with organisational information regarding information on progression (procedural,
information justice) and with interviews with employees recording their perceptions on
whether their respective organisation is perceived to practice exclusive TM and on
organisational justice. The propositions which form the basis of the model shared in the paper
serve as researchable propositions for further research.
The model focuses on the micro level analysis – how employees’ engagement may be
affected by an organisation’s exclusive talent management practices. It does not develop or
discuss in depth the meso perspective from the organisation with regards to the organisation’s
TM practices. It does, however, suggest the organisational implications of employees’
engagement, rendering the model of importance for organisations.
.
Conclusion
This paper bridges the current literature on the justice and fairness of exclusive talent
management practices and its relationship with employee engagement. Our review lays the
foundation for future empirical work to test our propositions. We initiate a consideration of
the relationship between exclusive TM, organisational justice and employee engagement,
which has not, to our knowledge, been done before. More research is required in this area, to
unpack the ramifications of exclusive TM practices on employee engagement and welfare,
and also on organisational performance and social justice. At the organisational level, “there
is an increasing body of compelling research linking TM and employee engagement with
bottom line results” (Hughes and Rog, 2008). However, organisations also need to be more
conscious of the extended effects of their TM programmes (Malik and Singh, 2014) on
individual employees, on the organisation’s performance and competiveness and the knockon effects for the wider society.
.
References
AGARWAL, U. A. 2014. Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement.
Personnel Review, 43, 41-73.
ANITHA, J. 2014. Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee
performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63, 308323.
ASHFORTH, B. E. & HUMPHREY, R. H. 1995. Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. ,. Human
Relations, 48.
BADEWI, A. 2013. MIS Research Methodology Course (2) Positivism V.S Interpretivism [Online].
Cranfield. [Accessed 18 December 2014].
BAKKER, A. B., ALBRECHT, S. L. & LEITER, M. P. 2011. Key questions regarding work engagement.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 4-28.
BERRY, M. L. & MORRIS, M. L. 2008. The Impact of Employee Engagement Factors and Job
Satisfaction on Turnover Intent, Online Submission.
BHATNAGAR, J. 2007. Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES
employees: Key to retention. Employee Relations, 29, 640-663.
BHUVANAIAH, T. & RAYA, R. P. 2014. Employee Engagement: Key to Organizational Success. SCMS
Journal of Indian Management, 11, 61-71.
BISWAS, S., VARMA, A. & RAMASWAMI, A. 2013. Linking distributive and procedural justice to
employee engagement through social exchange: a field study in India. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 24, 1570-1587.
BJÖRKMAN, I., EHRNROOTH, M., MÄKELÄ, K., SMALE, A. & SUMELIUS, J. 2013. Talent or Not?
Employee Reactions to Talent Identification. Human Resource Management, 52, 195-214.
COHEN-CHARASH, Y. & SPECTOR, P. E. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.
COLQUITT, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
CROPANZANO, R., BOWEN, D. E. & GILLILAND, S. W. 2007. The Management of Organizational
Justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 34-48.
DRIES, N. 2013. The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda. Human
Resource Management Review, 23, 272-285.
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, 290-300.
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, 23, 341-353.
GELENS, J., HOFMANS, J., DRIES, N. & PEPERMANS, R. 2014. Talent management and organisational
justice: employee reactions to high potential identification. Human Resource Management
Journal, n/a-n/a.
GHOSH, P., RAI, A. & SINHA, A. 2014. Organizational justice and employee engagement: Exploring
the linkage in public sector banks in India. Personnel Review, 43, 628-652.
GODKIN, L. 2014. Mid-management, employee engagement, and the generation of reliable
sustainable corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics.
GREENBURG, J. 1990. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of
Management, 16, 399-432.
HARTER, J. K., SCHMIDT, F. L. & HAYES, T. L. 2002. Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology,, 87.
.
HE, H., ZHU, W. & ZHENG, X. 2014. Procedural Justice and Employee Engagement: Roles of
Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Centrality. Journal of Business Ethics, 122,
681-695.
HUGHES, J. C. & ROG, E. 2008. Talent management: A strategy for improving employee recruitment,
retention and engagement within hospitality organizations. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20, 743-757.
HUSELID, M. A. & BECKER, B. E. 2011. Bridging micro & macro domains: Workforce differentiation
and strategic human resource management. Journal of Management, 37, 421-428.
ILES, P., CHUAI, X. & PREECE, D. 2010. Talent Management and HRM in Multinational companies in
Beijing: Definitions, differences and drivers. Journal of World Business, 45, 179-189.
KAHN, W. A. 1990. Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work.
The Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
KLASSEN, R. M., ALDHAFRI, S., MANSFIELD, C. F., PURWANTO, E., SIU, A. F. Y., WONG, M. W. &
WOODS-MCCONNEY, A. 2012. Teachers’ engagement at work: An international validation
study. Journal of Experimental Education, 80, 317-337.
LACEY, M. Y. & GROVES, K. 2014. Talent management collides with corporate social responsibility:
creation of inadvertent hypocrisy. Journal of Management Development,, 33, 399-409.
LEWIS, R. E. & HECKMAN, R. J. 2006. Talent management: A critical review. Human Resource
Management Review 16, 139-154.
LI, H. A study on the relationships among organizational justice, organizational identification, and
work engagement: The evidence from the hi-tech service industries. Proceedings - 2012
International Joint Conference on Service Sciences, Service Innovation in Emerging Economy:
Cross-Disciplinary and Cross-Cultural Perspective, IJCSS 2012, 2012. 72-77.
MAHAJAN, A. & BENSON, P. 2013. Organisational justice climate, social capital and firm
performance. Journal of Management Development, 32, 721-736.
MALIK, A. R. & SINGH, P. 2014. ‘high potential’ programs: Let's hear it for ‘b’ players. Human
Resource Management Review.
MARESCAUX, E., DE WINNE, S. & SELS, L. 2013. HR practices and affective organisational
commitment: (when) does HR differentiation pay off? Human Resource Management
Journal, 23, 329-345.
MASLACH, C., SCHAUFELLI, W. B. & LEITER, M. P. 2001. Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 397-422.
MEHTA, D. & MEHTA, N. K. 2013. Employee Engagement: A Literature Review. Economia: Seria
Management, 16, 208-215.
MIRVIS, P. 2012. Employee Engagement and CSR: TRANSACTIONAL, RELATIONAL, AND
DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACHES. California Management Review, 54, 93-117.
MOORMAN, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76, 845-855.
PETTICREW, M. & ROBERTS, H. 2006. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences. A practical guide.,
Oxford, Blackwell publishing.
PITTAWAY, L., ROBERTSON, M., MUNIR, K., DENYER, D. & NEELY, A. 2004. Networking and
innovation: a systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 5, 137-168.
PURANG, P. 2011. Organisational justice and affective commitment: The mediating role of perceived
organisational justice. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 16, 141-156.
RICH, B. L., LEPINE, J. A. & CRAWFORD, E. R. 2010. JOB ENGAGEMENT: ANTECEDENTS AND EFFECTS
ON JOB PERFORMANCE. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617-635.
RICHMAN, A. 2006. Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it? Workspan, 49, 3639.
.
ROTHBARD, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family
roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-684.
SAKS, A. M. 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21, 600-619.
SAKS, A. M. & GRUMAN, J. A. 2014. What do we really know about employee engagement? Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 155-182.
SCHAUFELI, W. B., SALANOVA, M., GONZALEZ-ROMA, V. & BAKKER, A., 3(1), 71–92. 2002. The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic
approach. Journal of Hapiness Studies, 3.
SHUCK, B. 2011. Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: An integrative literature
review. Human Resource Development Review, 10, 304-328.
SHUCK, B. & REIO, T. G., JR. 2014. Employee engagement and well-being: A moderation model and
implications for practice. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 43-58.
SHUCK, B., TWYFORD, D., REIO, T. G., JR. & SHUCK, A. 2014. Human Resource Development Practices
and Employee Engagement: Examining the Connection with Employee Turnover Intentions.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 239-270.
SHUCK, B., ZIGARMI, D. & OWEN, J. 2015. Psychological needs, engagement, and work intentions: A
Bayesian multi-measurement mediation approach and implications for HRD. European
Journal of Training & Development, 39, 2-21.
SWAILES, S. 2013a. The ethics of talent management. Business Ethics: A European Review, 22, 32-46.
SWAILES, S. 2013b. Troubling some assumptions: A response to “The role of perceived organizational
justice in shaping the outcomes of talent management: A research agenda”. Human
Resource Management Review, 23, 354-356.
THUNNISSEN, M., BOSELIE, P. & FRUYTIER, B. 2013. Talent management and the relevance of
context: Towards a pluralistic approach. Human Resource Management Review, 23, 326-336.
TRANFIELD, D., DENYER, D. & SMART, P. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidenceinformed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of
Management, 14, 207-222.
VAN DEN BOS, K., VERMUNT, R. & WILKE, H. A. M. 1997. Procedural and distributive justice: What is
fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 95-104.
WAN, H. L., SULAIMAN, M. & OMARB, A. 2012. Procedural justice in promotional decisions. Asia
Pacific Business Review, 18, 99-121.
WOOTEN, K. C. & COBB, A. T. 1999. Career Development and Organizational Justice: Practice and
Research Implications. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10, 173-178.
.
Appendix 1. The Systematic Literature Review (SLR) Process
The SLR process for this paper utilised the sequence of steps as devised by Tranfield et al.
(2003) and Pittaway et al. (2004). The sequences of steps in the process are:
1. Initial Study, 2. Pilot Study, 3. Categorization of Literature, 4. Review of Literature
and 5. Synthesis of Review.
1. Initial Study.
The literature review commenced with an initial study of the subject area, with the keywords
‘employee engagement’, ‘talent management’ and ‘justice’ used to perform a broad scoping
search of the Business Source Complete and Academic Search Complete databases.
1. Academic Search Complete – Over 13,600 peer reviewed journals.
2. Business Source Complete – Over 2,400 peer reviewed journals.
To ensure concentration on the relevant areas, articles were limited to those with the search
string terms appearing in the abstract or title, published in the English language and peerreviewed. This search returned 30 possible papers.
The initial search is designed to identify key scholars and papers across the research areas.
The bibliographies and citations of these articles are also analysed and the key authors in the
field were identified. The led to further searches of each author to review their specific
articles and a further search was conducted of the main citing papers. This process added 9
papers.
.
Initial Study
Search String
Data-Bases
Limiters
Fields Searched
Returns
Returns
Saved
“employee engagement”
& “justice”
Academic Search Complete
Business Source Complete
Title
Title
Peer reviewed
1990 - 2015
3
3
2
“employee engagement”
& “justice”
Academic Search Complete
Business Source Complete
Title
Abstract
Peer reviewed
1990 - 2015
6
5
4
“employee engagement”
& “justice”
Academic Search Complete
Business Source Complete
Abstract
Title
Peer reviewed
1990 - 2015
5
3
1
“employee engagement”
& “justice”
Academic Search Complete
Business Source Complete
Abstract
Abstract
Peer reviewed
1990 - 2015
8
1
0
“employee engagement”
& “talent management”
Academic Search Complete
Business Source Complete
Title
Title
Peer reviewed
1997 - 2015
2
2
2
“employee engagement”
& “talent management”
Academic Search Complete
Business Source Complete
Title
Abstract
Peer reviewed
1997 - 2015
6
3
3
“employee engagement”
& “talent management”
Academic Search Complete
Business Source Complete
Abstract
Title
Peer reviewed
1997 - 2015
7
2
1
“employee engagement”
& “talent management”
Academic Search Complete
Business Source Complete
Abstract
Abstract
Peer reviewed
1997 - 2015
17
5
4
“justice”
& “talent management”
Academic Search Complete
Business Source Complete
Title
Title
Peer reviewed
1997 - 2015
3
3
3
“justice”
& “talent management”
Academic Search Complete
Business Source Complete
Title
Abstract
Peer reviewed
1997 - 2015
2
2
0
“justice”
& “talent management”
Academic Search Complete
Business Source Complete
Abstract
Title
Peer reviewed
1997 - 2015
3
1
1
.
Returns
Used
2. Pilot Study
Keywords and synonyms from the returned papers in step 1 were used to create more
complex search strings for the second step, the pilot study. In the searches for this stage the
full range of the EBSCO library of databases, along with the Scopus database, were utilised
to complete a wide ranging and multi-disciplinary search for peer reviewed papers.
Using the keywords searches were conducted in the 24 EBSCO library databases, which
contains over 515,000 e-books plus access to 360,000 e-journals, e-journal packages and
print journals. Searches were also conducted in the SCOPUS citation database, which has
access to just under 22,000 titles and 5000 publishers. The returns from this stage are detailed
below. These returns exclude duplicates from the initial search
Pilot Study – with revised search strings
Search Strings
"talent management" or "high potential programs" or "workforce differentiation"
"job engagement" or "employee engagement" or "personal engagement" or "organizational
engagement" or "work engagement"
“justice”
Pilot Study – with revised search strings used to search SCOPUS citation database
Search String
Data-Bases
“employee engagement” +
synonyms
& “justice”
SCOPUS
“employee engagement” +
synonyms
& “talent management” +
synonyms
SCOPUS
“justice”
& “talent management” +
synonyms
SCOPUS
.
Limiters
Fields Searched
Article title, Abstract &
Keywords for both
terms
1990 - 2015
Article title, Abstract &
Keywords for both
terms
1990 - 2015
Article title, Abstract &
Keywords for both
terms
1990 - 2015
Returns
Returns
Saved
Returns
Used
29
11
6
18
3
2
4
0
0
Pilot Study – with revised search strings and searching entire Ebsco library
Search String
Data-Bases
“employee engagement” +
synonyms
& “justice”
Ebsco Library
“employee engagement” +
synonyms
& “justice”
Ebsco Library
“employee engagement” +
synonyms
& “justice”
Ebsco Library
“employee engagement” +
synonyms
& “justice”
Ebsco Library
“employee engagement” +
synonyms
& “talent management” +
synonyms
“employee engagement” +
synonyms
& “talent management” +
synonyms
“employee engagement” +
synonyms
& “talent management” +
synonyms
“employee engagement” +
synonyms
& “talent management” +
synonyms
Ebsco Library
Ebsco Library
Ebsco Library
Ebsco Library
“justice”
& “talent management” +
synonyms
Ebsco Library
“justice”
& “talent management” +
synonyms
Ebsco Library
“justice”
& “talent management” +
synonyms
Ebsco Library
“justice”
& “talent management” +
synonyms
Ebsco Library
Limiters
Fields Searched
Title
Title
Peer reviewed
1990 - 2015
Title
Abstract
Peer reviewed
1990 - 2015
Abstract
Title
Peer reviewed
1990 - 2015
Abstract
Abstract
Peer reviewed
1990 - 2015
Title
Title
Peer reviewed
1997 - 2015
Title
Abstract
Peer reviewed
1997 - 2015
Abstract
Title
Peer reviewed
1997 - 2015
Abstract
Abstract
Peer reviewed
1997 - 2015
Title
Title
Peer reviewed
1997 - 2015
Title
Abstract
Peer reviewed
1997 - 2015
Abstract
Title
Peer reviewed
1997 - 2015
Abstract
Abstract
Peer reviewed
1997 - 2015
Returns
Returns
Saved
Returns
Used
20
4
3
28
3
1
33
1
1
58
2
2
2
0
0
8
0
0
9
3
1
41
12
5
4
1
1
5
0
0
4
1
0
7
1
0
The bibliographies and citations of these articles are also analysed and the key authors in the
field were identified. This process added 6 papers.
.
3. Literature Categorisation
The next stage, literature categorisation, involved developing an exclusion and inclusion list
of the returned articles identified in the previous searches. The inclusion/exclusion criteria
used, which were subjective in nature, were designed to create a resulting return of papers
that were most relevant to the research topic. This resulted in a final total of 72 papers
reviewed.
Inclusion List – VIPs (Very Important Papers)
Papers with Employee Engagement, TM and Org Justice as main theme or subject.
Papers with Employee Engagement and TM and as main theme or subject.
Papers with Employee Engagement and Org Justice as main theme or subject.
Papers with TM and Org Justice as main theme or subject.
Papers identified as seminal or foundation papers - e.g. (Kahn, 1990)
Papers with employee engagement, TM or Org. justice definitions or concepts
Papers by key authors identified in VIPs
Lit reviews on Employee Engagement, TM and Org. Justice
Inclusion List – Important Papers
Papers with antecedents or outcomes of Employee Engagement, TM and Org Justice
Case studies on Employee Engagement, TM and Org Justice
Papers on measuring or scales for Employee Engagement and Org Justice
Papers which may provide insights into study’s area and related fields.
Articles which provide background on developments in the Employee Engagement, TM and Org
Justice fields which would be helpful in providing context
Exclusion List – All Papers
Practitioner papers and articles
Papers with Employee Engagement, TM and Org Justice as minor theme or secondary subject.
Papers with Employee Engagement and TM and as minor theme or secondary subject.
Papers with Employee Engagement and Org Justice as minor theme or secondary subject.
Papers which were deemed not relevant to the study as they did not provide any additional
information or insights.
.
4. Review of the Literature
At this stage each individual paper is scrutinized critically to determine whether it fits with
the research, and if it does, where does it belong? This process involves determining whether
any studies or selection criteria are affected by bias. This is important as the
inclusion/exclusion criteria used to select papers is created by a subjective process. This part
of the SLR process is sometimes called critical appraisal or as assessing study quality
(Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). This step is to assess whether the research is of a quality,
suitability and depth to answer the research questions in an unbiased and adequate manner.
To aid in this I used the list of appraisal questions for qualitative research as advocated by
Petticrew and Roberts (2006), which are detailed below.
Eighteen appraisal questions for qualitative research
1. How credible are the findings?
2. How has knowledge or understanding been extended by the research?
3. How well does the evaluation address its original aims and purpose?
4. How well is the scope for drawing wider inference explained?
5. How clear is the basis of evaluative appraisal?
6. How defensible is the research design?
7. How well defended are the sample design/target selection of cases/documents?
8. How well is the eventual sample composition and coverage described?
9. How well was the data collection carried out?
10. How well has the approach to, and formulation of, analysis been conveyed?
11. How well are the contexts of data sources retained and portrayed?
12. How well has diversity of perspective and content been explored?
13. How well have detail, depth, and complexity (i.e. richness) of the data been conveyed?
14. How clear are the links between data, interpretation and conclusions.
15. How clear and coherent is the reporting?
16. How clear are the assumptions/theoretical perspectives/values that have shaped the form
and output of the evaluation?
17. What evidence is there of attention to ethical issues?
18. How adequately has the research process been documented?
.
5. Synthesis of Review
“Synthesizing evidence is like assembling a jigsaw” (Petticrew, 2006, p.125), with the
previous steps of the review concerned with finding and sorting the right pieces. For
qualitative social studies the findings are usually too “too heterogeneous to permit a statistical
summary” (Petticrew, 2006, p.126), so a narrative analysis was utilised. This involved
organising the returned papers into groups of meta-themes, analysing each paper’s findings
within its theme and synthesising the findings overall.
.