Hindering talented employees’ internal mobility: managers’ territorial response to stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Integrating territoriality and the job demands-resources model, this study investigated tactics that managers use to hinder their talented employees’ internal job transfer attempts. This study proposed that managers’ psychological ownership of talent would relate to their use of persuasion and nurturing tactics, and that managers’ role overload and job social support would moderate these relationships. Design/methodology/approach The data for this study was collected by administering two surveys approximately two weeks apart. A hundred and sixteen managers provided complete data for analysis. Findings Psychological ownership of talent related to persuasion tactics but not nurturing tactics. When overload was higher and social support was lower, managers with higher psychological ownership reported using more persuasion tactics to hinder their talented employees’ internal mobility. This study did not find significant interactions for nurturing tactics. Practical implications Internal talent hindering can impede employee access to critical learning and growth opportunities, and employees who feel their mobility is restricted may be more inclined to turnover. Accordingly, managers who hinder internal mobility can negatively affect talented employees’ leadership development within an organization and the effectiveness of its succession plans. Originality/value This study demonstrates empirically that managers intentionally use tactics to hinder the internal transfers of their talented employees. This study identifies predictors and boundary conditions of hindering tactics, and this knowledge can help organizations address internal talent hindering.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".