Introduction
The metaphor ‘war for talent’, which emphasises the challenges of finding and retaining scarce expertise, was conceived by McKinsey Consultants in the late 1990s (
Chambers et al., 1998). Talent management in its earliest form provided a construction of, and legitimated, the notion of talent as being the preserve of the ‘upper echelons’ (
Hambrick and Mason, 1984: 193). Motives for introducing talent management tend to be strategic in nature and linked to establishing competitive advantage in an increasingly global market (
Tatoglu et al., 2016). Global talent management is concerned with attracting, developing and retaining ‘the best employees in the most important roles worldwide’ (
Cascio and Boudreau, 2016: 12).
Global talent is defined as ‘high-performing and high-potential incumbents’ (
Collings et al., 2019: 5). Such talent is expected to be globally mobile as part of their personal development, sharing best practice across business units and increasing functional flexibility (
Tansley and Kirk, 2018). In short, these individuals are expected to be globally mobile in order to meet the strategic objectives of international firms and this is often a ‘condition’ of being part of a ‘leadership talent pool’ (
Collings, 2014: 253). The latest PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Mobility Survey (
2016) reveals demand for global talent remains a priority for businesses. Limited attention at an individual level, however, has been paid to the impact of identifying or naming (
Hough, 2016) individuals as ‘talent’ or indeed ‘global talent’.
Onomastics is the study of names, whereas socio-onomastics is an emerging field that offers a deeper understanding of the meaning of names and how they are ‘born’ through the interaction of people with their sociocultural environment (
Ainiala and Östman, 2017). Naming Theory has been applied to the gendered power relations in organisations (
Collinson and Hearn, 1994), in education and learning (
Boud and Solomon, 2003), in the branding of organisations (
Fox, 2011), the naming and shaming of organisations in pursuit of human rights (
Scheper, 2015) and with respect to violence in feminist political campaigns (
Frazer and Hutchings, 2020). There is scant research into other uses of naming in organisations, a notable exception being the work of
Ospina and Foldy (2010: 298) into the naming of women as leaders and ‘potential authority figures’.
Naming is central to the construction of identity (
Valentine, 1998); however, there is limited research bringing together naming and identity studies (
Aldrin, 2016), especially within the workplace. In combining and building on extant literature in naming, identity and global talent, the article offers a greater understanding of the lived experiences of individuals named as global talent. The theoretical contribution offered here is twofold. First, by highlighting how names do not merely mirror identities, but are negotiated and resisted through a process of identity work, a contribution is made to the field of socio-onomastics. Second, by drawing on socio-onomastics, a greater understanding of the meaning and connotations of being named as global talent is offered, thus contributing to the field of identity studies and global talent management.
Drawing on the findings from a qualitative study of those named as global talent in a large multinational, the question is asked: how do individuals cope with the demands associated with names and related identities that are conferred upon them in the workplace?
Research to-date in the field of global talent has tended to focus almost exclusively on expatriation (see
McNulty and Brewster, 2017;
Mao and Shen, 2015;
Nowicka and Kaweh, 2009). This study is distinctive as it encompasses numerous forms of global mobility – namely, global commuting, frequent international travel (globetrotting), short-term assignments, flexpatriate and inpatriate assignments, and virtual global employees – rather than the usual focus on traditional expatriate assignments of 3–5 years. This is important, it is argued, as it offers a more comprehensive understanding of the working and personal lives of these global talents.
This article is structured as follows: first, the relevant literature in relation to naming, talent and identity work are examined. The research approach adopted for this study is then reviewed, followed by the findings, analysis and discussion of the key contributions offered.
Names have both associative (or connotative) and emotive meanings and can be used to ‘identify or characterise the name-bearer’ (
Van Langendonck and Van de Velde, 2016: 32). Naming is central to questions of identity as ‘names can be considered as (semantic/verbal) labels which both identify and distinguish an individual from other individuals’ (
Watzlawik et al., 2016: 3). Names are ‘identificatory practices’ (
Pilcher, 2016: 766) that may positively or negatively influence the identity and self-esteem of the name-bearer. This is because ‘the name-giver, name-carrier and name-user may hold different views of identities connected to a certain name’ (
Aldrin, 2016: 383). The process of naming is thus ‘an act of placement or classification of self and others’ (
Strauss, 2017: 13).
Naming is also an exercise in power (
Valentine, 1998) that takes place in a particular societal and cultural context (
Ainiala and Östman, 2017). This process can be a source of pride or conflict as naming is ‘a political act of ascribing identities to ourselves and others in ways that may liberate, maintain or dehumanize’ (
Rivera Maulucci and Moore Mensah, 2015: 2). Membership of a named category is linked to particular actions and/or characteristics and individuals may seek to associate or distance themselves from the implied ‘rights and obligations’ (
Benwell and Stokoe, 2012: 39). In the light of on-going global competition and the so-called ‘war for talent’ (
Chambers et al., 1998), those named as global talent are subject to high demands in fulfilment of their roles.
The genealogy of the word ‘talent’ is derived from the Bible (Matthew 25: 14–30) and in Hebrew the word for talent was
Kikkar, denoting a flat, round gold or silver disk. Talent therefore has a positive associative meaning which, in theory, should evoke an affirmative emotive response (
Nyström, 2016). However, in the contemporary working environment, naming an individual as global talent, is assigning an identity to that individual which has connotations intended to characterise that person (
Strauss, 2017). These connotations are linked with expectations that the person will be globally mobile in fulfilment of his/her role.
The less positive consequences, such as high stress levels (
Dries and Pepermans, 2008), personal sacrifices that have to be made (
Tansley and Tietze, 2013) and the anxiety and insecurity caused by what is expected of these talented individuals (
Dries and De Gieter, 2014) has, until recently, received far less attention. A few studies exist, such as
Daubner-Siva et al.’s (2018) article analysing the experience of being identified as ‘talent’. They explore what they call ‘The Talent Paradox’, defined as ‘the odd mixture of power and powerlessness experienced by individuals identified and celebrated by management as talents’ (p. 75). The personal and political consequences of being named as ‘talent’ are highlighted by
Petriglieri and Petriglieri (2017) and how talent management practices may result in unethical behaviour is explored by
Painter-Morland et al. (2019).
Dubouloy (2004) asserts that some labelled as talent may develop a ‘false self’ and
Tansley and Tietze’s (2013) study reveals some of the identity struggles of those identified as talent.
Kirk’s (2016) article goes further, highlighting how talent can be seen as an ‘anti-identity’ (i.e. a label that individuals may actively resist or reject); however, there has been scant work on the relationship between being talent and identity. This has led to calls for further research into this aspect (
De Boeck et al., 2017).
Individuals may select names they perceive to be desirable and thereby reflexively impose identities on themselves (
Brown, 2015). Talent or global talent is one such name and associated identity. However, equally, names and identities can be forced onto people by others. Naming an individual as global talent prompts identity work as individuals respond to attempts to regulate their identity construction.
Managerial attempts to regulate identity (
Thornborrow and Brown, 2009), such as naming individuals as talent, can provoke positive or negative reactions. The function of a name is therefore important as it is ‘an efficient way to individualise an object (the referent)’ (
Nyström, 2016: 41) and to assign an identity to the name-bearer.
Cooley’s (1902) concept of
The Looking Glass Self, suggests we live in the minds of others; however, we also have a self-concept and the two may overlap or stand in sharp contrast to each other. Therefore, in their identity work, expressed through their talk, individuals may seek to associate or distance themselves from perceived connotations of such naming and identity categorisation (
Benwell and Stokoe, 2012).
Identity work is the process of developing, maintaining, repairing and re-forming identities, enabling individuals to maintain a positive sense of self when faced with complexity and contradiction (
Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003). However, identity work is not a conscious process of selection from an established list of discursive resources, it is an exercise of social power (
Brown, 2015;
Watson, 2008) and, as such, can be thought of as a ‘struggle’ through ‘a jungle of messiness and contradictions in the pursuit of a sense of self’ (
Alvesson, 2010: 200).
This article focuses on the identity work and lived experiences of individuals, named as global talent. This study was designed to answer the question: how do individuals cope with the demands associated with names and related identities that are conferred upon them in the workplace? Drawing on socio-onomastic theory, a greater understanding of the meanings and connotations of name conferral within organisations is offered, thus contributing to identity theory. By illuminating how names are negotiated and resisted through identity work, a contribution is made to the field of socio-onomastics. Finally, by highlighting the tensions inherent in being named as global talent, a contribution is made to the field of global talent management.
Discussion
Naming is central to the construction of identity as names hold semantic meaning (
Hough, 2016) and associations that influence identity work, and, in turn, behaviour. In the so-called ‘war for talent’ (
Chambers et al., 1998) being named as global talent has particular connotations with respect to mobility as firms seek to establish a competitive advantage in the global market. Although the word ‘talent’ has positive associative meaning, the name-bearer may have different interpretations of the identities connected with a name than the name-giver, in this case, the employing organisation.
Furthermore, as the findings from this study show, name-bearers, and indeed name-users, can prioritise other names (as husband, wife, daughter, etc.) over the one assigned to him/her by the name-giver by engaging in ‘remedial identity work’ (
Winkler, 2018: 3). This is exemplified by those individuals who either declined to be part of the talent pool/to be named talent or exited the organisation. The analysis shows how the meaning and connotations of a name can be changed through interaction with other name-bearers and name-givers, which is not something that has been previously examined in socio-onomastic studies. It also reveals how a name can be rejected if it is perceived to negatively impact on others and/or when the connotations of the name are seen to contradict an individual’s sense of self, again not something that has been highlighted in studies of naming (
Hough, 2016). This insight adds to the debates surrounding the extent to which being named ‘talent’ can be viewed as a blessing (
Daubner-Siva et al., 2018).
The findings from this study offer a deeper understanding of the lived experience of those named as global talent as they adapt to, negotiate, resist, or even reject the challenge of on-going mobility demands. As this case illustrates, conferring names to influence identity work and behaviour may have profound effects. This is particularly so where naming is perceived to have wider consequences than for the individual themselves and includes those associated with that person, both inside and outside of work. Indeed, it may result in repairing identity work for these individuals (not just the name-bearer), something not previously highlighted in identity studies. Resistance ranges from outright rejection, or dis-identification, with associated emotions of anger, shame, etc., to depression, divorce and even suicide. More passive, but nonetheless conflictual outcomes manifest in efforts to negotiate alternative forms of mobility. This shows how names do not necessarily mirror identity (
Hough, 2016), but influence identity work, either positively or negatively. The key argument presented in this article is that, for those individuals who perceive being named as global talent as an imposition, the processes of enacting global mobility choices trigger intense identity struggles and emotional fallout.
Paradoxically, the findings also reveal how rejecting the associations of being named as global talent can have a liberalising effect on some individuals, who may perceive that in doing so they are being in some way authentic or true to their selves. This is shown in the case of Derek, who chooses to leave the organisation and be free to be true to what his ‘DNA’ tells him. This notion of perceived authenticity in a name is currently overlooked in the study of names (
Hough, 2016), although it is clearly a strong influence on identity.
Those who had expatriated and were now involved in high levels of business travel, were seen to be comrades in the ‘fight’ against too much mobility and dubbed ‘Road Warriors’. Interestingly, these were names that the global talent (the name-bearers) themselves used to self-categorise, as opposed to ones imposed by the organisation. Thus, as a form of resistance, the name-bearers can also become the name-givers, a factor not previously identified in either identity theory or socio-onomastic studies.
The question posed was how do individuals cope with the demands associated with names and related identities that are conferred upon them in the workplace? The answer is, as the evidence in this case organisation demonstrates, those who feel the name global talent has been imposed on them experience intense identity struggles that impact on both their work and personal lives. This has implications for workplaces, where little space is made for employees to engage in ‘contradictory feelings’ (
Hoyer and Steyaert, 2015: 1858).
Conclusion
This article focuses on tensions created by being named as global talent in an organisational attempt to ‘encourage’ aspirational identity work linked to global mobility. Through an exploration of the stories told, the lived experience of those named as global talent is illuminated.
By drawing on the field of socio-onomastics, a deeper understanding of the meaning of names and how they are ‘born’ through the interaction of people with their sociocultural environment (
Ainiala and Östman, 2017) is offered. This is particularly pertinent considering the on-going demand for global talent. Although naming and narrative is central to the construction of identity (
Valentine, 1998), there is scant research bringing together naming and identity studies (
Hough, 2016), especially within the workplace. In combining and building on extant literature in naming, identity and global talent, this article highlights how individuals named as global talent, construct and re-construct their identities in an on-going cycle (
Musson and Duberley, 2007).
The theoretical contribution offered here is twofold. First, a greater understanding of the meaning and connotations of being named as global talent is offered, thus contributing to the field of identity studies and global talent management. Second, by highlighting how names do not merely mirror identities, but are negotiated and resisted through a process of identity work, a contribution is made to the field of socio-onomastics.
These findings have implications for the working lives of global talent. From an ethical perspective, it is argued there is a moral obligation on employers to consider the impact that demands for global mobility have on their employee and on their employees’ dependants. Identity work can, to some degree, enable these individuals to craft and re-craft an acceptable sense of self as they navigate their working lives. However, there are limits to the extent to which this can help them to reconcile the tensions and conflicts inherent in such challenging careers.
Methodologically, as
Beech et al. (2016: 520) note, ‘one-off interviews’ may not encourage as much in-depth self-questioning among participants as other approaches designed to create a greater rapport, such as ethnographic studies. Furthermore, as identity work is an on-going process, it would be useful to conduct a longitudinal study of those named as global talent to explore how they make sense of the mobility choices they face at different stages in their lives. It would also be interesting to examine how names and identities play out in other work settings, such as healthcare, where the renaming of some senior nurses as advanced nurse practitioners may be seen to challenge the power of doctors.