Employee reactions to talent management: Assumptions versus evidence

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 a systematic review published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior. It compares assumptions in non-empirical talent management literature with empirical evidence on how employees react to talent management. It is not a single empirical field study, but it reviews both quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies.

Research question

Do employees react to talent management in the way talent management theory often assumes?

More specifically, the article examines two major assumptions.

First, it examines the assumption that employees identified as talents react positively to talent management.

Second, it examines the assumption that talent management creates differences between employees identified as talents and employees not identified as talents.

The article asks whether these assumptions are supported by the available empirical evidence and whether current theory can explain the evidence.

Hypotheses

Not specified.

The article is a systematic review rather than a hypothesis-testing study. Instead of testing new hypotheses with primary data, it evaluates two assumptions found in the talent management literature:

1. Talent management leads to positive outcomes in employees identified as talents.
2. Talent management creates differences between talents and employees not identified as talents.

The review finds partial support for both assumptions, but also shows that both assumptions are too simple.

Method

The authors conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed international journal articles.

They searched Web of Science and Scopus using the search string “talent management” in titles, abstracts, and keywords. The search covered English-language peer-reviewed articles published between 2001 and 2017.

The initial search produced 475 articles. The authors excluded 313 articles that used the term talent management only colloquially or did not provide a definition, theoretical framework, data, or references. The remaining 162 articles were content analyzed by all three authors.

The main inclusion criterion was explicit discussion of employee reactions to talent management. Articles that did not refer to employee-level outcomes, consequences, or reactions were excluded. This removed 117 articles.

Of the remaining 45 articles, two were excluded because they assessed employee reactions only through HR managers rather than employees themselves.

The final review included 43 articles:

• 22 non-empirical articles;
• 21 empirical articles.

The empirical articles included:

• 14 quantitative studies;
• 5 qualitative studies;
• 2 mixed-methods studies.

The authors classified talent management operationalizations into six categories:

1. talent philosophies;
2. talent management objectives;
3. degree of workforce differentiation;
4. talent management system;
5. talent management practices;
6. talent status.

They note that empirical studies mainly focused on talent management practices and talent status, while non-empirical studies discussed broader organizational-level components such as talent philosophy, objectives, workforce differentiation, and talent management systems.

To organize employee reactions, the authors used the affective-behavioral-cognitive model of attitudes.

Affective reactions refer to feelings, emotions, preferences, and motivational states. Examples include commitment, satisfaction, engagement, motivation, trust, stress, insecurity, and identity struggles.

Cognitive reactions refer to thoughts and beliefs. Examples include perceived knowledge, skills, abilities, psychological contract beliefs, psychological contract fulfillment, and psychological contract breach.

Behavioral reactions refer to intentions and observable behaviors. Examples include turnover intentions, actual turnover, performance, effort, and organizational citizenship behavior.

For quantitative evidence, the authors converted reported statistics into effect sizes. Relationships between talent management practices and employee reactions were converted into Pearson’s r. Relationships between talent status and employee reactions were converted into Cohen’s d. The authors then calculated weighted mean effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals.

Results / key findings

The article’s central finding is that common assumptions about employee reactions to talent management are only partly supported.

The first assumption is that talent management leads to positive outcomes among employees identified as talents. The review partly supports this assumption. Talent management practices were generally linked to positive affective, cognitive, and behavioral reactions. However, qualitative studies also found negative reactions among talents, including stress, insecurity, psychological contract breach risk, and identity struggles.

The second assumption is that talent management creates differences between talents and non-talents. The review also partly supports this assumption. Differences were found most clearly for behavioral reactions, such as performance, effort, and intentions to stay. However, differences were smaller or mixed for affective and cognitive reactions.

The quantitative evidence for talent management practices was generally positive.

For affective positive reactions, three studies reported 27 effects. Fifteen of those effects were significant. The weighted mean effect size was r = .38, with a 95% confidence interval from .34 to .42. This suggests a small-to-medium positive relationship between talent management practices and positive affective reactions such as job satisfaction, affective commitment, work engagement, motivation, and trust.

For cognitive reactions, four studies reported 45 effects. Only five of those effects were significant, but the weighted mean effect size was still positive at r = .25, with a 95% confidence interval from .23 to .28. This suggests a smaller but positive relationship between talent management practices and cognitive reactions such as perceived skills, perceived support, and psychological contract fulfillment.

For behavioral reactions, three studies reported four effects, and all four were significant. The weighted mean effect size was r = .43, with a 95% confidence interval from .37 to .48. This suggests a medium positive relationship between talent management practices and behavioral reactions such as intention to stay and job performance.

The quantitative evidence for talent status was more mixed.

For positive affective reactions, seven studies reported 18 effects. Nine of those effects were significant. The weighted mean effect size was d = .16, with a 95% confidence interval from .11 to .21. This is a very small effect. It means that talents often did not differ strongly from non-talents in positive affective reactions such as commitment, satisfaction, or trust.

For cognitive reactions, eight studies reported 39 effects. Twenty-six were significant. The weighted mean effect size was d = .29, with a 95% confidence interval from .25 to .33. This suggests a small positive difference between talents and non-talents, but the pattern was not straightforward. The most important issue was that talent status seemed to increase what talents expected from the organization more clearly than it increased what they felt obliged to give back.

For behavioral reactions, five studies reported nine effects. Seven were significant. The weighted mean effect size was d = .34, with a 95% confidence interval from .26 to .41. This suggests a small-to-medium positive difference between talents and non-talents in behavioral outcomes such as performance, work effort, organizational citizenship behavior, and intention to stay.

A major contribution of the article is showing that talents can react negatively to talent management.

The qualitative studies found that talents sometimes experienced high stress, insecurity, anxiety, ambiguity, and identity struggles. In some studies, talents described feeling monitored, pressured to continuously improve, expected to remain flexible, and uncertain about what talent status meant for their future. Some talents struggled to remain authentic while also conforming to the identity expected of a high-potential employee.

The article also highlights psychological contract imbalance.

Talent status appears to increase the expectations talents have of their employer. Talents may expect customized career support, regular promotions, special development opportunities, job security, or financial incentives. However, the evidence does not show that talents necessarily feel equally stronger obligations toward the employer. This creates an imbalance: talents may expect more from the organization without clearly feeling that they owe more in return.

This is important because talent management theory often assumes reciprocity. Social exchange theory suggests that employees who receive favorable treatment should reciprocate with stronger loyalty, effort, and commitment. The review shows that this logic fits some findings, especially behavioral reactions, but not all findings. Talent status can also create entitlement, pressure, uncertainty, and risk of psychological contract breach.

The article also shows that research on non-talents is weak.

A common critique of exclusive talent management is that employees outside the talent pool will react negatively. However, the review finds little direct empirical evidence for this claim. Most studies focus on talents, not non-talents. The authors therefore conclude that negative reactions among non-talents are often assumed rather than demonstrated.

The article identifies several important mediators.

Distributive justice appears important because employees respond not only to whether they receive resources, but also to whether the allocation of resources feels fair. Perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support also appear important because talent management practices and talent status can signal that the organization or supervisor values the employee.

The article also identifies three important boundary conditions.

The first is talent management transparency versus secrecy. Ambiguous communication can increase uncertainty, stress, psychological contract breach risk, and frustration. Employees need to understand what talent status means, how talent decisions are made, and what expectations come with talent programmes.

The second is procedural justice. Employees react more positively when talent identification and access to talent practices are based on fair, transparent, consistent, and credible procedures.

The third is HR attributions. Employees interpret why the organization uses talent management. The same practice may be interpreted as supportive and developmental, or as controlling and exploitative. These interpretations shape employee reactions.

Figure 1 integrates the review findings. It shows that organizational-level components such as talent philosophy, objectives, workforce differentiation, and talent management system influence employee-level experiences of talent management practices and talent status. These then shape affective, cognitive, and behavioral reactions through social exchange mechanisms, justice perceptions, support perceptions, HR attributions, procedural justice, and transparency.

Overall, the article concludes that talent management reactions are more complex than the simple assumption that selected talents react positively and non-talents react negatively. Talent management can generate positive reactions, but it can also create stress, uncertainty, entitlement, psychological contract imbalance, and identity struggles.

Practical implications

For managers, the article’s most important message is that talent management is not automatically beneficial just because it targets high-potential employees.

Organizations often invest heavily in talent pools because they expect selected talents to become more committed, motivated, loyal, and high-performing. The review shows that this expectation is only partly reliable. Talent management practices are generally associated with positive reactions, especially behavioral outcomes, but talent status alone can also create unintended consequences.

Managers should not assume that being labelled as talent is only positive for employees. Talent status may create pressure, stress, uncertainty, identity conflict, and higher expectations. If the organization does not manage expectations carefully, selected talents may feel disappointed or even betrayed.

The article is especially useful for HR teams designing talent pools. It suggests that communication matters. Secretive or ambiguous talent management can create uncertainty. Information often leaks anyway, so silence may not protect the organization from negative reactions. Instead, employees may become more suspicious or confused.

Organizations should communicate clearly about:

• how talent is defined;
• how talent status is decided;
• what talent status means;
• what selected employees can expect;
• what the organization expects in return;
• whether talent status is temporary or permanent;
• how non-selected employees can develop;
• how talent pool membership connects to promotion and career opportunities.

The article also suggests that fairness may matter more than the talent programme itself. Employees are more likely to react positively when they see talent decisions as procedurally fair. This means talent identification should use transparent criteria, consistent procedures, credible assessments, and clear communication.

For selected talents, expectation management is crucial. HR and line managers should avoid implying guaranteed promotion, unlimited career support, or automatic future advancement unless those promises are realistic. Unrealistic expectations can create psychological contract breach later.

For non-talents, the article warns against acting on assumptions without evidence. Many organizations fear that exclusive talent management will automatically demotivate non-selected employees. The review shows that this has not been directly tested enough. Managers should therefore measure employee reactions instead of assuming them.

The article also suggests that talent management should include well-being safeguards. Talents may be under pressure to constantly prove themselves. Organizations should monitor stress, burnout risk, workload, and authenticity pressures among talent pool members.

For practitioners, useful diagnostic questions include:

• Are talent management practices designed around employee development or mainly around management control?
• Do selected talents understand what talent status does and does not promise?
• Are promotion and development criteria clear?
• Are talent pool members experiencing pressure, stress, or identity conflict?
• Are non-selected employees actually reacting negatively, or is the organization only assuming this?
• Do employees perceive talent identification as fair?
• Are managers communicating talent decisions consistently?
• Are talent management practices interpreted as supportive or controlling?
• Does the organization evaluate covert reactions such as anxiety, insecurity, entitlement, and psychological contract breach risk?
• Is the organization measuring reactions among both talents and non-talents?

Theoretical implications

The article contributes to talent management theory by challenging two dominant assumptions about employee reactions.

The first challenged assumption is that talents react positively to talent management. The evidence supports this only partly. Talent management practices are generally associated with positive reactions, but talent status can also create negative reactions.

The second challenged assumption is that talent management creates clear differences between talents and non-talents. The evidence supports this mainly for behavioral reactions. Differences in affective and cognitive reactions are smaller and more mixed.

The article also contributes by clarifying talent management operationalizations. It distinguishes between talent philosophies, talent management objectives, workforce differentiation, talent management systems, talent management practices, and talent status. This is important because employees may react differently to each component.

The review shows that empirical research has focused mainly on talent management practices and talent status. By contrast, non-empirical research discusses broader organizational-level components. This creates a theory-evidence gap. Researchers often theorize about talent management systems but empirically measure only individual practices or talent labels.

The article also contributes by organizing employee reactions using the affective-behavioral-cognitive model. This helps distinguish emotional reactions, thought-based reactions, and behavioral reactions. This is useful because different types of reactions do not always move in the same direction.

The dominant theoretical lens in the reviewed literature is social exchange theory. The article shows that this lens explains some findings well. Employees who receive development opportunities or support may reciprocate with commitment, satisfaction, effort, and lower turnover intentions.

However, the article also argues that social exchange theory has been used too narrowly. Talent management research often focuses on reciprocity but neglects uncertainty, power, and social identity.

Uncertainty matters because talent management often involves ambiguous promises, unclear procedures, and hidden expectations. This can create stress, psychological contract breach, and distrust.

Power matters because talent status changes bargaining dynamics. Once employees know they are considered valuable, they may expect more from the organization. This can shift the psychological contract in favor of the talent and increase entitlement.

Social identity matters because talent status is not only an HR classification. It communicates symbolic meaning. Selected employees may feel valued, but they may also experience pressure to conform to a high-potential identity. Non-selected employees may interpret exclusion as a signal about their organizational worth.

The article also strengthens the link between talent management and organizational justice. Distributive justice, procedural justice, and perceived support help explain why employees react positively or negatively.

Finally, the article contributes a research agenda. It calls for more attention to negative reactions, non-talent reactions, multilevel designs, longitudinal research, experimental designs, psychological contract dynamics, transparency, HR attributions, power, and identity.

Limitations

The review is limited by the quality and design of the studies available at the time.

Most empirical studies included in the review were cross-sectional. This limits causal interpretation. It remains difficult to know whether talent management causes certain reactions or whether employees with certain reactions are more likely to be selected as talents.

The literature was fragmented. Studies used different definitions, measures, operationalizations, and outcome variables, making it difficult to accumulate evidence cleanly.

The review found only a limited number of empirical studies on employee reactions to talent management. The final empirical evidence base included 21 studies, which is not large for drawing strong conclusions across all talent management contexts.

Negative reactions were mostly studied qualitatively. Quantitative research focused mainly on positive outcomes such as commitment, satisfaction, engagement, support, and performance. This creates an incomplete picture.

The review found almost no direct research on non-talents’ negative reactions. This is a major limitation because much of the critique of exclusive talent management depends on assumptions about how non-selected employees respond.

The authors did not conduct a full meta-analysis because the available studies were too fragmented in their measures and operationalizations.

The review covers articles published up to 2017. Later research on inclusive talent management, perceived non-talent status, fairness perceptions, people analytics, and AI-supported talent identification is not included.

The review focuses on peer-reviewed English-language international journal articles. Relevant practitioner evidence, non-English research, books, dissertations, and unpublished studies may have been excluded.

Future research

Future research should directly study employees who are not identified as talents.

This is one of the biggest gaps in the literature. Researchers should test whether non-talents actually experience lower motivation, weaker commitment, resentment, perceived exclusion, psychological contract breach, or reduced performance after talent management decisions.

Researchers should study both positive and negative reactions in the same design. Talents may be committed and stressed at the same time. Studies that measure only positive outcomes will miss this complexity.

Future quantitative research should include negative variables such as stress, anxiety, insecurity, burnout risk, identity struggles, entitlement, psychological contract breach, and authenticity pressure.

Longitudinal studies are needed to separate cause and effect. Researchers should examine employee reactions before talent identification, shortly after identification, and later in the talent journey.

Experimental vignette studies could test how employees react to different talent management systems. Researchers could vary transparency, selection criteria, proportion of employees selected, degree of workforce differentiation, and whether the employee is selected or not selected.

Future research should examine talent management transparency versus secrecy. Studies could test whether transparent communication improves trust and fairness perceptions or whether it increases jealousy and competition.

Researchers should study procedural justice in talent identification. Important questions include whether employees understand the criteria, whether the criteria are consistent, whether employees can challenge decisions, and whether procedures differ across departments or managers.

Future studies could examine HR attributions. Employees may interpret talent management as developmental, exploitative, political, controlling, fairness-oriented, or performance-oriented. These interpretations may determine employee reactions more than the practices themselves.

Researchers should examine psychological contract dynamics among talents. Talent status may increase employer obligations in the eyes of employees without increasing employee obligations toward the employer. This imbalance needs stronger testing.

Future research should examine identity. Talent status may create pride, belonging, pressure, conformity, or authenticity struggles. Non-talent status may create exclusion, resistance, or indifference.

Finally, future studies should use multilevel designs. Talent philosophies, objectives, workforce differentiation, and talent systems operate at the organizational level, while practices, talent status, and reactions operate at the employee level. Stronger research needs to connect these levels instead of studying isolated variables.