![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})
Abstract
With this paper, we aim to challenge the current theorizing in talent management (TM) that has generally been based on oversimplified assumptions, often approaching TM from a binary or an either/or perspective. We claim that adopting a paradox lens in which a both/and perspective is taken is essential to further deepen our theoretical understanding of the ill-understood tensions and ambiguities that are inherently part of managing talent. In this article, we take a paradox perspective to unravel the complexity of talent management by systematically reviewing the nature and prominence of paradoxes and their response mechanisms in the talent management literature and from the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational levels. We identified six primary paradoxes: (a) opportunities vs. pressures (at the intrapersonal level); (b) positive vs. negative effects of TM programs on employees (at the interpersonal level); and (c) talent as objective reality vs. socially constructed; (d) exclusiveness vs. inclusiveness; (e) transparency vs. ambiguity; and (f) standardization vs. customization (at the organizational level). Our review resulted in a multi-level framework of paradoxes in talent management and responds to calls for more pluralistic and balanced approaches to talent management. We believe that our review can assist researchers in adopting both/and perspectives when studying the complexity of the talent management phenomenon and can assist TM practitioners in navigating multiple paradoxes that are inherent to managing talent.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [author initials], upon reasonable request.
Notes
1 The references marked with an asterisk (*) have been included in the systematic review.
2 These articles published online in 2021: Cooke et al. (Citation2022); Kamoche and Leigh (Citation2022); McDonnell et al. (Citation2023); Tan (Citation2023); Usanova et al. (Citation2022).