Lewis and Heckman (2006, p. 141) criticize each of the three perspectives they
identified – talent management as automated and enterprise-wide HRM, talent
management as automated and enterprise-wide workforce planning, and talent
management as policies and practices geared towards maximizing employee talent
(of few or many). The first perspective is criticized on the basis that it is “superfluous”
or little more than the “rebranding” of HRM. The second is similarly criticized as
“it provides no incremental understanding [to the HR planning function] and is
therefore unnecessary” (p. 141). Finally, the third perspective is seen as the most
problematic, given the contradictory positions that are presented (i.e. a focus on a select
few versus all employees). Further, arguments in favour of one position or the other are
largely based on “compelling anecdotes” (p. 141); little rigorous data is available to
support either perspective.
Lewis and Heckman (2006, p. 141) criticize each of the three perspectives theyidentified – talent management as automated and enterprise-wide HRM, talentmanagement as automated and enterprise-wide workforce planning, and talentmanagement as policies and practices geared towards maximizing employee talent(of few or many). The first perspective is criticized on the basis that it is “superfluous”or little more than the “rebranding” of HRM. The second is similarly criticized as“it provides no incremental understanding [to the HR planning function] and istherefore unnecessary” (p. 141). Finally, the third perspective is seen as the mostproblematic, given the contradictory positions that are presented (i.e. a focus on a selectfew versus all employees). Further, arguments in favour of one position or the other arelargely based on “compelling anecdotes” (p. 141); little rigorous data is available tosupport either perspective.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
