MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Global Talent Management: A Critical Review and Research Agenda for the New Organizational Reality

2024· review· en· W4391100270 on OpenAlexaff
Paula Caligiuri, David G. Collings, Helen De Cieri, Mila Lazarova

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHuman Resource and Talent Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationTalent managementBusinessKnowledge managementMacroProcess managementMarketingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global talent management (GTM) refers to management activities in a multinational enterprise (MNE) that focus on attracting, motivating, deploying, and retaining high performing and/or high potential employees in strategic roles across a firm's global operations. Despite the critical importance for individual and firm outcomes, scholarly analysis and understanding lack synthesis, and there is limited evidence that MNEs are managing their talent effectively on a global scale. In this article, we review the GTM literature and identify the challenges of implementing GTM in practice. We explore how GTM is aligned with MNE strategy, examine how talent pools are identified, and highlight the role of global mobility. We discuss GTM at the macro level, including the exogenous factors that impact talent management and the outcomes of GTM at various levels. Finally, we identify some emerging challenges and opportunities for the future of GTM.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational BehaviorSame topicHuman Resource and Talent ManagementFrench-language works237,207