Review status
This summary is based on the full article text.
The DOI and source URL have been verified through the official Emerald article page.
The article is a conceptual and practitioner-oriented paper published in Industrial and Commercial Training. It combines literature review, organizational review, interviews, and linguistic analysis. It does not report statistical hypothesis testing, regression results, survey scales, or a single structured empirical dataset.
Research question
What does the term “talent” mean in talent management?
More specifically, the article asks why the meaning of talent is so ambiguous, how the term developed historically and linguistically, how organizations define talent in practice, and what this means for talent management, training, and development.
The article focuses on a practical problem: organizations often build talent management programmes before agreeing what talent means. Tansley argues that this creates weak foundations for identifying, developing, grouping, and supporting employees.
Hypotheses
Not specified.
The article does not test formal hypotheses. It develops a conceptual argument about the meaning of talent and the risks of terminological ambiguity in talent management.
The article’s guiding claim is that organizations need a shared working definition of talent before designing talent management practices.
Method
The article uses a conceptual and qualitative evidence base.
Tansley draws on several sources.
First, the article reviews key reports and literature on talent management. This includes work on talent definitions, talent development, high potential, high performance, strengths, human resource development, and skills.
Second, the article uses evidence from a major review of ten organizations across sectors. These organizations differed in how they used the term talent, how widely the term appeared in policies and processes, and whether employees shared a common understanding of what talent meant.
Third, the article draws on interviews with over 100 individuals involved in talent management programmes in the UK and abroad. These interviews are used to illustrate how managers, HR leaders, and organizations define talent in practice.
Fourth, the article uses philological analysis conducted by Holden and Tansley. This analysis examines the historical and linguistic development of the term talent across English and other languages. It considers both literal meanings and metaphorical associations of the term.
The article also uses examples from organizations such as Gordon Ramsay Holdings, Google, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Standard Chartered Bank, and a food-processing company to show how organizational definitions of talent vary by industry and work context.
The article is organized around three levels of analysis:
- talent at the organizational level;
- talent at the group level;
- talent as individually specific.
Results / key findings
The article’s central finding is that talent has no single stable meaning.
Historically, the term talent began as a unit of weight, then became a monetary unit, then developed religious and metaphorical meanings, and later came to refer to disposition, natural ability, special aptitude, and eventually talented people themselves. This history matters because modern talent management still carries several of these meanings at once.
The article explains that by the Middle Ages, talent had shifted toward meanings such as inclination, disposition, riches, mental endowment, and natural ability. By the seventeenth century, it was associated with special natural abilities or higher mental powers. By the nineteenth century, talent became embodied in talented persons.
This history helps explain why talent management is conceptually messy. Sometimes talent means a quality a person has. Sometimes it means the person. Sometimes it means potential. Sometimes it means performance. Sometimes it means a scarce organizational resource.
The second major finding is that European languages often treat talent as innate ability, while non-European usage can differ.
Table I compares meanings of talent in Danish, French, Russian, and Polish. These languages generally connect talent to innate ability, giftedness, aptitude, or unusual ability. French definitions include the idea of talent as a disposition that helps someone succeed and is appreciated by social groups. Polish usage is broader because it can include both innate and acquired ability.
The article contrasts this with Japanese usage. The Japanese term discussed in the article does not carry the same strong assumption of innateness. Instead, it emphasizes ability, skill, accomplishment, and years of striving. This matters for talent management because whether talent is treated as innate or developed changes the kind of HR practices an organization may use.
The third major finding is that organizations define talent differently depending on their context.
Tansley argues that organizations often gain more value from creating their own definition of talent than from copying a universal definition. A local authority, a transnational corporation, a restaurant group, a bank, and a technology company may all need different talent definitions.
The article gives several examples.
At Gordon Ramsay Holdings, talent is linked to the creative flair of chefs.
At Google, talented employees are described through the idea of being a “Googler”: confident, idea-oriented, challenging, and able to think differently.
At PricewaterhouseCoopers, talented individuals are described as having drive, energy, applied intelligence, willingness to take on challenges, and the ability to make a distinctive contribution to the business.
These examples show that talent definitions are shaped by the nature of the work. Creative industries may emphasize flair and originality. Professional services may emphasize intelligence, energy, client value, and challenge orientation. Technology companies may emphasize ideas, confidence, and unconventional thinking.
The fourth major finding is that talent can be analyzed at three organizational levels.
At the organizational level, talent definitions are specific to the organization, influenced by industry and work type, shaped by organizational priorities, and likely to change over time.
At the group level, organizations often classify talent into groups or pools. These classifications may include leadership talent, key talent, core talent, and peripheral talent.
At the individual level, talent is often treated as a special or unique mix of qualities such as skill, knowledge, cognitive ability, behaviour, potential, creativity, expertise, and performance.
The fifth major finding is that talent grouping has both positive and negative effects.
The article describes several common talent groups.
Leadership talent refers to individuals seen as especially valuable for future leadership. These may include high potentials, specialists, thought leaders, and people with scarce niche skills.
Key talent is usually a very small group, often described as about 2–5% of the workforce. These employees may be highly attractive to competitors and therefore receive special attention.
Core talent refers to employees who perform core business processes and deliver short-term operational value. These employees may form the majority of the workforce. They are not always difficult to replace individually, but replacement still carries productivity costs.
Peripheral talent includes contractors and third-party providers who perform useful or necessary services but are not considered central to the organization.
Talent pools are used to group employees who have been identified as talented. They can support resourcing, secondments, project work, succession, leadership development, or internal recruitment.
The positive side of talent grouping is that it recognizes strengths, makes talent visible, and gives selected employees access to organizational resources. The negative side is that it can create marginality, resentment, and status division between selected and non-selected employees.
The sixth major finding is that individual talent is often understood through high potential and high performance.
The article discusses high potential as the ability, engagement, and aspiration to rise to and succeed in more senior or more critical positions.
Table II breaks high potential into three components.
Ability includes innate characteristics and learned skills used in everyday work. Examples include cognitive ability, emotional intelligence, technical skills, functional skills, and interpersonal skills.
Aspiration refers to the employee’s desire for prestige, recognition, advancement, influence, financial rewards, work-life balance, and job satisfaction.
Engagement includes emotional commitment, rational commitment, discretionary effort, intent to stay, passion, and motivation.
High performance is treated as another important part of talent. Tansley notes that some organizations define talent as recurring patterns of behaviour associated with successful performance. However, the article argues that performance alone is not the full picture. Successful performance may also be connected to expertise, leadership behaviours, creativity, initiative, and self-belief.
The seventh major finding is that talent can be understood as behaviour.
Some managers in the article emphasize behaviours such as ethical conduct, leadership behaviour, standards of conduct, and a “can-do” attitude. This matters because skills and knowledge are not the only things organizations value. How employees behave while achieving results can also be part of talent.
This is especially relevant for leadership and ethical leadership. The article links trust in leadership to employee confidence about the organization’s future, noting that employees worry less about the future when they have greater trust in the leader.
The eighth major finding is that talent can be understood as individual strengths.
Some organizations take a strengths-based view of talent. In this view, talent is a pattern of thought, feeling, and behaviour associated with success in a job. Skills, knowledge, and experience are then treated as related but secondary elements.
This strengths-based perspective shifts attention from only selecting elite high potentials to understanding what employees are naturally good at, where they are energized, and how they can grow in the context of their strengths.
The ninth major finding is that narrow definitions can waste talent.
The article warns that talent management programmes often exclude people in low-skilled roles, older workers, and functional experts. This can lead organizations to underuse important forms of capability.
Tansley argues that organizations need to recognize deep domain expertise. Employees who have spent years developing mastery in a specific field may be strategically valuable even if they are not classified as leadership talent or high-potential generalists.
The article also notes that mastery takes time. It cites the idea that people may need around ten years to develop high-level mastery in a field. This supports a long-term view of talent development rather than short-term talent labelling.
The final major finding is that talent must be made visible before it can be developed.
The article concludes that talent needs to be visible, stimulated, and nurtured. The first step is a shared organizational definition. Without that, organizations may not know who or what they are trying to identify, develop, retain, or reward.
Overall, the article argues that talent management should begin with conceptual clarity. Talent definitions should be specific enough to guide practice, flexible enough to fit the organization, and broad enough not to ignore important forms of human capability.
Practical implications
For managers, the article’s main implication is direct: do not launch a talent management programme without first defining talent.
A vague talent definition creates confusion. Managers may nominate different people for different reasons. HR may build programmes that do not match business needs. Employees may not understand why some people are selected and others are not.
A good talent definition should fit the organization’s work, strategy, industry, and future needs. A technology company, a restaurant group, a public-sector organization, a bank, and a specialist manufacturing firm may need different talent definitions.
Managers should also decide whether talent means people, characteristics of people, or both. If talent means people, the organization needs to decide who counts as talent and why. If talent means characteristics, the organization needs to define which characteristics matter: potential, performance, creativity, expertise, behaviour, strengths, commitment, or role-specific capability.
The article also warns against over-focusing on leadership talent. Leadership potential matters, but organizations also need core talent, functional talent, technical expertise, creative talent, and domain mastery. Ignoring these groups can weaken the organization’s real capability base.
Talent pools should be used carefully. They can help organizations allocate development resources and plan succession, but they can also create resentment and status divisions. Employees outside talent pools may feel undervalued if the organization sends the message that only a small group matters.
For HR and training professionals, the article shows why a shared talent language is essential. Training and development programmes depend on knowing what is being developed. A programme aimed at leadership potential will look different from one aimed at technical mastery, creative flair, strengths use, behavioural standards, or high performance.
The article also suggests that organizations should revisit their talent definition over time. Talent is dynamic. The capabilities needed today may not be the same as those needed in five years. A definition that worked under one strategy may not fit a new strategic direction.
For practitioners, useful diagnostic questions include:
- What does talent mean in this organization?
- Does talent refer to people, characteristics, roles, or all three?
- Is the definition specific enough to guide real HR decisions?
- Is the definition too narrow, excluding important groups such as older workers, low-paid workers, technical experts, or functional specialists?
- Does the organization overemphasize leadership potential while ignoring domain expertise?
- Are talent pools creating development opportunities or unnecessary status divisions?
- Do managers use the same definition of talent across the organization?
- Does the definition fit the organization’s industry, work type, and strategy?
- Does the organization recognize both high performance and high potential?
- Are employee strengths, behaviours, creativity, and expertise included in the talent conversation?
Theoretical implications
The article contributes to talent management theory by addressing the basic concept of talent itself.
Tansley argues that talent management cannot develop as a field if the core term remains ambiguous. Before researchers and practitioners can evaluate talent management practices, they need to know what talent means.
The article contributes historically by tracing the development of talent from a unit of weight and money to a concept associated with ability, aptitude, giftedness, and talented persons. This helps explain why talent can be interpreted as both an asset and a person.
The article contributes linguistically by showing that talent does not carry identical meanings across languages and cultures. European languages often emphasize innate giftedness, while Japanese usage is described as more focused on accomplishment and development. This supports more context-sensitive talent management theory.
The article also contributes to organizational talent theory by distinguishing levels of analysis. Talent can be organizationally defined, grouped into talent pools, or treated as individually specific. These levels should not be collapsed.
The article also connects talent management with human resource development. Talent is not only something to identify or label. It must be developed, supported, and nurtured over time.
The article contributes to strengths-based HRM by showing that some organizations define talent through recurring patterns of thought, feeling, and behaviour that support success at work. This connects talent management with positive psychology and strengths-based development.
Finally, the article anticipates later debates about inclusive and exclusive talent management. It warns that narrow definitions can prevent organizations and societies from fully using available talent.
Limitations
The article is conceptual and practitioner-oriented rather than a formal empirical study.
Although it draws on interviews with over 100 individuals and a review of ten organizations, it does not present a detailed sample table, coding procedure, interrater reliability, or systematic qualitative methodology.
The article does not report statistical results, effect sizes, regression models, or hypothesis tests.
The organizations and interviewees are not described in enough detail to assess sector balance, country coverage, organizational size, or participant characteristics.
Some organizational examples are illustrative rather than systematically analyzed.
The article was published in 2011. Later debates on responsible talent management, inclusive talent management, employee reactions, AI-supported talent identification, diversity, equity, inclusion, and algorithmic HR are not covered.
The article discusses language and culture but does not conduct a full cross-cultural empirical comparison of how organizations define talent across countries.
The article does not provide a validated tool for organizations to define or measure talent.
Future research
Future research could examine how organizations actually define talent in internal policies, leadership statements, talent review meetings, and HR systems.
Researchers could compare talent definitions across industries, including technology, public services, professional services, healthcare, manufacturing, education, hospitality, and creative industries.
Future studies could examine whether organizations with clearer talent definitions have more effective talent management systems.
Researchers could test whether employees and managers share the same understanding of talent. Misalignment between HR, senior leaders, line managers, and employees may weaken talent management implementation.
Qualitative studies could investigate how employees experience being placed inside or outside talent pools.
Future research could examine how talent definitions affect inclusion and exclusion. Narrow definitions may miss older workers, low-paid workers, frontline employees, functional specialists, or employees with deep domain expertise.
Cross-cultural research could study how talent meanings differ across languages and institutional contexts. This would be especially useful for multinational firms that use global talent frameworks.
Researchers could examine how the meaning of talent changes over time within organizations during restructuring, digital transformation, growth, crisis, or leadership change.
Future studies could connect talent definitions to outcomes such as development access, promotion, retention, performance, engagement, fairness perceptions, and employee well-being.
Finally, future research could examine how AI and people analytics shape organizational definitions of talent. Algorithms may make talent appear measurable, but they still depend on underlying assumptions about what talent is.