Chapter 6: Talent Development and Management Practices in South Korea: A Global Conglomerate Case

Our review of the literature indicates that (a) talent management (TM) subsumes talent development (TD) as a broader domain of relevant research, (b) TM has become popular since the 1990s, (c) it is frequently mixed with terms, particularly HR- or succession-planning, and (d) practitioner sources drove popularity while academic research has fallen behind (Iles, 2015; Lewis & Heckman, 2006; Ruona, 2014). Organizational researchers state that interests in talent management have exploded in the 2000s as news and media claimed it as one of the most important strategies for organizational success (Galagan, 2008; Lewis & Heckman, 2006). Scholars differ in determining the scope and core components of TM frameworks. For instance, Lewis and Heckman (2006) stated that TM is mostly recognized in three different ways: (a) conducting new and strategic HR practices, (b) analyzing performance goals/needs and talent levels (internally within a firm in most cases), and (c) managing talent without organizational boundaries or specific positions. In comparison, Ruona (2014) stated that an integrative framework is appropriate, which recognizes and can purposefully select or combine four major TM approaches, namely (a) managing high performers, (b) leadership pipeline, (c) pivotal positions, and (d) specific talent segments.