Examining the relationship between talent management and employee job-related outcomes: The case of the Indian manufacturing industry

Review status

This summary is based on the full article text.

The DOI and source URL have been verified through the official Wiley article page.

The article is an empirical quantitative study published in Human Resource Development Quarterly. It uses survey data from employees in the Indian manufacturing industry and analyzes the relationship between talent management practices and employee job-related outcomes using exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and structural equation modeling.

One issue should be read carefully: the article’s abstract states that organizational culture moderates the relationship between talent management and employee job-related outcomes. However, Section 5.2 reports that the interaction term was not significant and that H6 was not supported. This summary therefore treats the moderation finding as mixed rather than straightforwardly supported.

Research question

What is the relationship between talent management and employee job-related outcomes in the Indian manufacturing industry?

More specifically, the article examines whether talent management practices are positively related to five employee outcomes:

• intent to stay;
• job engagement;
• affective commitment;
• job satisfaction;
• employee competency.

The article also examines whether organizational culture moderates the relationship between talent management and employee job-related outcomes.

Hypotheses

The article tests six hypotheses.

H1 proposes a positive relationship between talent management and employee competency.

H2 proposes a positive relationship between talent management and intent to stay.

H3 proposes a positive relationship between talent management and job engagement.

H4 proposes a positive relationship between talent management and affective commitment.

H5 proposes a positive relationship between talent management and job satisfaction.

H6 proposes that organizational culture moderates the relationship between talent management and employee job-related outcomes.

Method

The study uses a quantitative survey design.

The research context is the Indian manufacturing industry. Data were collected from two manufacturing facilities of one of the largest textile and paper manufacturing organizations in India. The organization had more than 15,000 employees and facilities in two Indian states.

The survey was distributed to employees with a company email address. This included top management, middle management, entry-level production engineers, and operation workers with digital access. Production-floor employees without computer access were not included because COVID-19 restrictions prevented the researcher from collecting data in person.

A total of 1,575 surveys were distributed. The researchers received 1,222 responses and retained 992 complete responses, giving a usable response rate of 62.98%.

The sample was male-dominated, reflecting the manufacturing setting. Of the 992 respondents, 778 were male, or 78.4%, and 214 were female, or 21.6%.

The survey used a five-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The questionnaire contained 70 items across 10 sections:

• talent acquisition;
• talent development;
• talent engagement;
• talent retention;
• job satisfaction;
• intent to stay;
• affective commitment;
• job engagement;
• employee competencies;
• organizational culture.

Talent acquisition was measured with items covering employer attractiveness, realistic job preview, and satisfaction with compensation.

Talent development was measured through items related to performance appraisal, knowledge sharing, and training.

Talent engagement was measured through job embeddedness and perceived organizational support.

Talent retention was measured through quality of work life and organizational justice.

Employee job-related outcomes were measured through intent to stay, job satisfaction, job engagement, employee competencies, and affective commitment.

Organizational culture was measured with items focused on employee perceptions of leadership style and job autonomy.

The reliability values were generally acceptable. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85 for talent acquisition, 0.85 for talent development, 0.84 for talent engagement, 0.88 for talent retention, 0.74 for intent to stay, 0.94 for job satisfaction, 0.85 for job engagement, 0.60 for employee competencies, 0.68 for affective commitment, and 0.86 for organizational culture.

The authors conducted a pilot test with 38 valid responses to check clarity, feasibility, and reliability.

Common method variance was assessed with Harman’s single-factor test. The total variance explained by one common factor was 31.723%, below the 50% threshold used by the authors, so common method bias was not treated as a major concern.

The authors used exploratory factor analysis in SPSS 26 and confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling in SPSS AMOS 26.

The exploratory factor analysis retained 44 items. Items with communalities below 0.30 were dropped, and factor loadings above 0.50 were retained. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.956 for independent variables and 0.922 for dependent variables, both significant at the 0.001 level.

The confirmatory factor analysis included 10 latent constructs: talent acquisition, talent development, talent engagement, talent retention, intent to stay, job engagement, job satisfaction, affective commitment, competency, and organizational culture.

The final measurement model had acceptable or marginally acceptable fit. The reported fit statistics were CMIN/DF = 3.109, GFI = 0.885, RMSEA = 0.046, PCLOSE = 0.999, SRMR = 0.0434, RMR = 0.033, TLI = 0.914, CFI = 0.922, NFI = 0.890, AGFI = 0.866, PCFI = 0.831, and Hoelter values of 345 at 0.05 and 356 at 0.01.

The structural model also showed broadly acceptable fit. The reported fit statistics were CMIN/DF = 3.736, GFI = 0.875, RMSEA = 0.053, SRMS = 0.050, RMR = 0.036, TLI = 0.899, CFI = 0.907, NFI = 0.877, AGFI = 0.858, PCFI = 0.836, and Hoelter values of 290 at 0.05 and 301 at 0.01.

Results / key findings

The main finding is that talent management was positively associated with employee job-related outcomes.

The structural model showed significant positive path coefficients from talent management practices to all five employee job-related outcomes. In Figure 2, the standardized regression weights from talent management to the outcomes were strongest for competency, job satisfaction, and affective commitment, and weaker for intent to stay.

The reported standardized path coefficients in Figure 2 were:

• talent management to intent to stay: 0.250;
• talent management to job engagement: 0.766;
• talent management to affective commitment: 0.907;
• talent management to job satisfaction: 0.920;
• talent management to competency: 0.925.

This supports the article’s overall argument that talent management practices are linked not only to employee attitudes, but also to perceived skill and competence outcomes.

The strongest relationships were with competency and job satisfaction. This suggests that employees who viewed talent management practices more positively also reported higher perceived competence and stronger job satisfaction.

The relationship with affective commitment was also strong. This is important because affective commitment reflects emotional attachment to the organization. From a social exchange theory perspective, employees may respond to talent acquisition, development, engagement, and retention practices with stronger attachment because they interpret these practices as organizational investment.

The relationship with job engagement was also positive and substantial. This supports the argument that talent management can shape employees’ energy, involvement, and psychological connection to work.

The relationship with intent to stay was positive but weaker than the other outcome paths. This suggests that talent management may matter for retention intentions, but intent to stay may also depend on other factors such as external labour market opportunities, compensation, family situation, career alternatives, and local employment conditions.

The study also found strong relationships among several constructs. Talent acquisition was strongly correlated with talent engagement, estimate = 0.891, affective commitment, estimate = 0.830, organizational culture, estimate = 0.791, and job satisfaction, estimate = 0.781. Talent engagement was strongly correlated with affective commitment, estimate = 0.879, job satisfaction, estimate = 0.864, organizational culture, estimate = 0.838, and competency, estimate = 0.747. Job satisfaction was strongly correlated with affective commitment, estimate = 0.860, organizational culture, estimate = 0.782, and competency, estimate = 0.784.

These correlations suggest that employees’ perceptions of talent management, culture, commitment, satisfaction, engagement, and competency are closely connected in this context.

The role of organizational culture is important but somewhat unclear in the article.

The abstract states that organizational culture is significantly related to talent management and employee job-related outcomes, and that organizational culture moderates the relationship between them. The detailed results section, however, reports that the interaction term between talent management and organizational culture was not significant, and that H6 was not supported.

Section 5.2 states that when organizational culture is low, there is a positive relationship between talent management and employee job-related outcomes. When organizational culture is high, the relationship becomes negative, meaning organizational culture dampens the positive relationship between talent management and employee job-related outcomes.

Because the article reports a non-significant interaction but still discusses a dampening pattern, the safest interpretation is that organizational culture is strongly relevant to the overall model, but the evidence for moderation should be treated cautiously.

The authors propose an inclusive definition of talent management based on the findings. They define talent management as an integrated process composed of talent acquisition, talent development, talent engagement, and talent retention, all aimed at improving organizational effectiveness by engaging organizational members and improving organizational performance. They also argue that talent management should be integrated into organizational functions, supported by organizational culture, and aligned with organizational goals.

Overall, the results support the article’s main claim: in the Indian manufacturing setting studied, talent management practices are positively related to employee job-related outcomes.

Practical implications

For managers, the article’s core message is that talent management should be treated as an integrated system, not as a collection of disconnected HR practices.

In this study, talent management includes acquisition, development, engagement, and retention. These four areas need to work together. Hiring employees without developing them is not enough. Training employees without engaging and retaining them is also incomplete. Manufacturing firms facing talent shortages need the whole talent cycle.

The article is especially relevant for manufacturing organizations in emerging economies. In India, manufacturing firms face major talent shortages while also needing skilled and future-ready employees. The study suggests that stronger talent management practices can support job satisfaction, engagement, affective commitment, intent to stay, and competency.

For HRD practitioners, the findings support investment in structured talent development. Development practices such as performance appraisal, knowledge sharing, and training can help build employee competence and strengthen positive work attitudes.

Talent engagement also matters. Practices linked to job embeddedness and perceived organizational support can help employees feel connected to the organization. In manufacturing settings, where turnover and skill shortages can disrupt operations, engagement is not a soft extra. It is part of workforce stability and capability building.

Talent retention should also be designed deliberately. Quality of work life and organizational justice are part of the talent management system in this article. This means retention is not only about pay. It also depends on whether employees experience fairness, support, and a decent working environment.

The weaker relationship with intent to stay suggests that retention intentions are harder to influence than satisfaction or perceived competence. Managers should not assume that talent management alone will fully solve turnover risk. They should also examine compensation, career opportunities, labour market alternatives, supervisor quality, work-life balance, and external job demand.

The organizational culture finding is useful but should be handled carefully. The article clearly shows that culture is closely connected to talent management and employee outcomes. However, the moderation result is not cleanly supported. Practically, this means managers should still align talent management with culture, but should not assume that culture automatically strengthens every talent management effect.

For practitioners, useful diagnostic questions include:

• Are talent acquisition, development, engagement, and retention designed as one system?
• Do employees experience talent management as real support, or only as HR language?
• Are training and development practices linked to future skill needs in manufacturing?
• Does performance appraisal support development, or only evaluation?
• Are employees encouraged to share knowledge across teams and levels?
• Do employees feel embedded in the organization?
• Are retention practices based on quality of work life and organizational justice?
• Is the organization measuring job satisfaction, engagement, commitment, intent to stay, and competency?
• Is organizational culture supporting or weakening talent management implementation?
• Are talent management practices aligned with the firm’s goals, workforce needs, and manufacturing realities?

Theoretical implications

The article contributes to talent management research by empirically testing the relationship between talent management and employee job-related outcomes in a non-US context.

Much of the talent management literature has been conceptual, practitioner-oriented, or focused on developed economies. This study provides quantitative evidence from the Indian manufacturing industry, an emerging-market context where talent shortages and workforce development are strategically important.

The article also contributes by treating talent management as an integrated system. Instead of studying only one component, such as training or retention, the model includes talent acquisition, talent development, talent engagement, and talent retention.

The article contributes to social exchange theory by arguing that employees reciprocate organizational investment in talent management with more positive attitudes, behaviors, and perceived competencies. When employees perceive that the organization supports their development and work experience, they may respond with higher satisfaction, engagement, commitment, and intention to stay.

The article contributes to resource-based view theory by using an inclusive interpretation of human resources as valuable organizational assets. The authors argue that all employees can be viewed as resources that are valuable, difficult to imitate, and important for competitive advantage. This supports an inclusive talent management logic rather than limiting talent management only to a small elite group.

The study also contributes to HRD research by linking talent management to competency development. Human resource development is not only about training delivery; it is about building employee capability in ways that support organizational performance.

The article also contributes by examining organizational culture as part of the talent management model. Even though the moderation result is mixed, the study reinforces the idea that talent management does not operate in isolation. It is embedded in organizational culture, leadership style, autonomy, and daily work practices.

Limitations

The study is based on one large textile and paper manufacturing organization in India. Although the sample size is large, the results may not generalize to all Indian manufacturing firms, other industries, small and medium-sized enterprises, public-sector organizations, or multinational firms.

The sample comes from two facilities of the same organization. The findings may partly reflect that organization’s specific culture, HR system, leadership style, industry segment, and regional context.

The data are cross-sectional. This means the study can show associations between talent management and employee outcomes, but it cannot prove that talent management caused the outcomes.

The study relies on self-reported survey data. Employees reported their perceptions of talent management, organizational culture, and job-related outcomes. This creates potential common method bias, although the authors tested for this using Harman’s single-factor test.

The sample excludes many production-floor employees without computer access or company email addresses. This is important because manufacturing workforces often include large numbers of blue-collar employees whose experience of talent management may differ from digitally connected staff.

The sample is relatively educated and male-dominated. The results may differ if more women, lower-educated employees, shop-floor workers, contract workers, or temporary workers were included.

Some reliability values are weaker than ideal. Employee competencies had Cronbach’s alpha of 0.60, and affective commitment had Cronbach’s alpha of 0.68. These are usable in exploratory work but should be interpreted cautiously.

The organizational culture moderation result is internally inconsistent. The abstract says organizational culture moderates the relationship, but Section 5.2 reports that the interaction was not significant and H6 was not supported. This weakens confidence in the moderation claim.

The study measures perceived employee competency rather than objective skill growth, productivity, quality, absenteeism, safety, or performance data.

Future research

Future research should test the model in other manufacturing organizations, including privately owned firms, government-owned firms, small and medium-sized enterprises, and multinational manufacturing firms.

Researchers could compare industries such as automotive, steel, electronics, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, textiles, and advanced manufacturing to examine whether the talent management model works similarly across manufacturing contexts.

Future studies could include shop-floor workers, contract workers, and employees without regular digital access. This would improve understanding of how talent management affects the broader manufacturing workforce.

Longitudinal studies could test whether talent management practices predict changes in job satisfaction, engagement, affective commitment, competency, and retention intentions over time.

Future research could combine survey data with objective HR and operational data. Useful outcomes could include turnover, absenteeism, productivity, quality defects, safety incidents, promotion rates, training completion, and skill certification.

Researchers could examine which talent management practice matters most. For example, talent development may affect competency more strongly, while talent retention practices may affect intent to stay more strongly.

Future studies could examine whether organizational culture strengthens or weakens talent management effects using clearer moderation designs and more precise culture measures.

Researchers could also test additional moderators, such as organizational size, business model, union presence, leadership style, digital maturity, automation level, and multinational versus domestic ownership.

Another useful direction would be to study external factors, including labour market conditions, national manufacturing policy, skill shortages, regional education systems, and economic cycles.

Future research could also compare inclusive and exclusive talent management approaches in manufacturing. This article adopts an inclusive view, but manufacturing firms may use different approaches depending on skill scarcity, strategic roles, and workforce structure.

Finally, future studies could connect talent management to organizational outcomes such as productivity, profitability, innovation, workforce agility, and competitive advantage.