The International Journal of Human Resource

Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Digitalised talent management and automated

talent decisions: the implications for HR
professionals

Sharna Wiblen & Janet H. Marler

To cite this article: Sharna Wiblen & Janet H. Marler (2021): Digitalised talent management and
automated talent decisions: the implications for HR professionals, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2021.1886149

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1886149

Published online: 22 Mar 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 516

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1886149

Digitalised talent management and automated

talent decisions: the implications for HR
professionals
Sharna Wiblena and Janet H. Marlerb
Sydney Business School, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia; bSchool of Business,
a

Management Department, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Our study examines the role digitalisation plays in how var- Talent management;
ious stakeholder groups (HR and line managers) identify information technology;
talent and whether digitalisation transforms the role of HR digitalised talent
professionals in identifying talent. By employing a qualitative management; human
resource management;
case study with multiple embedded units of analysis, we
social constructionism;
show how the same digital talent management technology case study;
produced different ways of identifying talent even within socio-materiality
the one organisation. In one social context, the material
properties of the technology dominated, while in another
the existing social context and relationships prevailed over
the material properties of the technology. Our findings have
implications for understanding digital transformations by
acknowledging what factors influence the role that digital-
isation and automation have on the perceived legitimacy of
HR professionals. We discuss these implications for talent
management scholarship and the HR profession.

Introduction
It is always compelling to make predictions about how new technological
innovations will transform the future. Some believe that digitalisation
will impact workforces, tasks, and jobs (Jesuthasan & Boudreau, 2018),
and in the most extreme case, take jobs away from humans. Concerns
about the future are reflected in questions such as, ‘Will robots take
my job or yours?’ With digitalisation, organisations can even have tech-
nology making decisions, in essence automating decisions about their
most valuable asset – talent. Should humans or automated processes
make decisions about who is talent? Are automated processes the answer

CONTACT Sharna Wiblen swiblen@uow.edu.au Faculty of Business, The University of Wollongong,

Room 40a.286, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. WIBLEN AND J. H. MARLER

to the error-prone and biased decisions associated with human deci-

sion-making? Are robots or humans better at talent decisions?
Such questions about managing talent are becoming more salient as
organisations continue to delegate certain decisions and processes to
technology. Indeed, at the heart of talent management are questions
about how to differentiate and identify talent to determine the exclusive
set of individuals to retain (for example, see Gallardo-Gallardo et al.,
2020; Lewis & Heckman, 2006; McDonnell, 2011; McDonnell et al.,
2017; Meyers et al., 2020; Wiblen & McDonnell, 2020). Is delegating
talent management decisions to technology a part of the future of work?
Dominant talent management (TM) discourses encourage differenti-
ation through systematic approaches, although the dimensions of that
differentiation are subject to different definitions. Talent and talent
management meanings are not discoverable but rather defined within
organisations (Maguire & Hardy, 2013) with stakeholders deciding – and
socially constructing – what talent means in their particular context of
social history, operational needs, and strategic goals (Wiblen &
McDonnell, 2020). Therefore, talent definitions and determination criteria
can vary as organisations decide whether their systematic talent iden-
tification (TI) processes seek to identify either highly ranked individuals
across the organisation or certain highly ranked individuals according
to specific skill and capability criteria. Regardless of the talent definition
adopted, creating an informed understanding of what talent is (or is
not) is important for robust TM policies and practices (Tansley, 2011).
In addition to contestation about talent definitions and determination
criteria, there are differing views on the role of HR managers in talent
management. In one camp, some argue that HR managers play a key
role in TM (Calo, 2008; CIPD, 2006; Devine & Powell, 2008) and that
the addition of technology increases HR managers’ ability to improve
talent decisions (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005). Others, however, argue
that line managers, rather than HR managers, are typically responsible
for evaluating the performance of their direct reports. Thus, responsi-
bility for TM resides mainly with line managers (McCauley & Wakefield,
2006; Stahl et al., 2007; Warren, 2009), and HR managers play a periph-
eral role. Minbaeva and Collings (2013), focusing on global talent man-
agement (GTM), argue that the assertion that TM is not an HR
responsibility is a myth. They note that while top management plays a
critical role in ensuring effective TM, the corporate HR function must
play a central role in coordinating the operationalisation of GTM in
subsidiaries. HR professionals should assert a role and gain credibility
by proving they can manage the wider organisations’ talent pool.
In the controversy over who should manage talent and how, digital-
isation has also recently emerged as a key mechanism for improving
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3

talent identification within TM. The ever-expanding and evolving Digital

Human Resource and TM technology landscape, estimated to be worth
about USD$11.4 billion (MarketsandMarkets, 2017), provides organisa-
tions with various pre-determined and technologically embedded frame-
works for ‘doing’ TM. Proponents of these so-called Digital Talent
Management (DTM) systems argue that DTM allows organisations to
transition towards more widely promoted systematic approaches (e.g.
Berger & Berger, 2003; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Iles et al., 2010).
Systematic TM approaches include well-defined talent definitions, eval-
uative criteria, and ranking algorithms that are technologically encoded
to increase standardisation and reduce human error. That is, embedded
frameworks work as a control variable (Tams et al., 2014) such that
DTM increases procedural justice because the standardised definitions
and structured approaches (Silzer & Church, 2009) decrease the likeli-
hood that talent determinations are political (Dries, 2013).
In this paper, we examine talent identification in the context of
digitalisation and automation. Does the transition towards digitalisation
and the increased use of technology in talent management – digitalised
talent management – change which humans are involved in identifying
organisations most valuable asset, its talent? We aim to develop an
understanding of how digitalisation is influencing talent identification
and at the same time how (if ) digitalisation is influencing the role
of humans, and more specifically humans employed as HR profes-
sionals in identifying talent. Our research question then is How does
digitalisation influence how talent is identified, and how does the
Digitalisation of Talent Management (DTM) change HR’s role in talent
management?
To answer our research question we use a socio-material theoretical
(Leonardi & Barley, 2010) lens to examine the role digitalisation plays
in shaping the practice of TM and the performance of HRM. In doing
so we contribute to the HRM literature in several respects. First, to our
knowledge, this is the first empirical study of digitalised TM, DTM,
and how in this critical domain of strategic HRM, digitalisation may
be changing how specific individuals are designated ‘talent’ through
talent identification practices. Second, we build on the need for rich
descriptive evidence that provides the kind of nuanced insights into the
non-recursive reciprocal nature of the human-technological interface
that makes it highly challenging to examine with traditional quantitative
methods. Third, we build on the growing literature concerning to what
extent digitalisation is transforming the role of HRM in organisations,
an emerging phenomenon of great interest, as this special issue on
digitalisation and the transformation of HRM (Meijerink et al., 2018)
attests.
4 S. WIBLEN AND J. H. MARLER

Digitalised talent management: how technology influences talent

management
Since the 1990s, the terminology for HRM-focused information tech-
nologies has changed regularly as technological innovations have
advanced. The older Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS)
technology created centralised systems that collected, stored, and pro-
cessed HRM information (Ceriello & Freeman, 1991; Marler & Dulebohn,
2005; Stone & Dulebohn, 2013), that aimed to increase HRM process
and cost efficiencies (Bussler & Davis, 2001; Farndale et al., 2009,
Paauwe, & Hoeksema, 2009; Gueutal & Stone, 2005; Ruël et al., 2007),
and that promoted process consistency through automation (Benders et
al., 2006; Grant et al., 2006). With the rise of cloud-based IT and the
notion of TM, more terms have emerged that include references to
Digitalised Talent Management (DTM), Human Capital Technology,
e-talent management, and more broadly, electronic Human Resource
Management (eHRM). While there are no significant differences between
the concepts, we use the term DTM as a complement to the growing
e-HRM literature which involves all types of HRM content shared via
information technology (IT) (Bondarouk et al., 2017). A specialised area
within eHRM, DTM focuses specifically on the use of IT in TM and
so recognises that HRM and TM are not synonymous. Table 1 outlines
the (proclaimed) benefits of HR technology for both HRM and TM.
DTM influences TM. Key to DTM are technology suppliers external
to an organisation who create algorithms that provide step-by-step elec-
tronically encoded instructions that execute specific data management
tasks in a specific order, with a priority or weighting (Orlikowski &
Scott, 2015, p. 210). By electronically encoding processes for coding,
sorting, filtering, and ranking individuals, talent identification is stan-
dardised and consistently reproduced. First, DTM involves embedding
structured terminology and standard definitions of the skills and capa-
bilities to be evaluated against and thus explicitly encodes the talent
classification criterion. Second, digitalisation of criteria (automatically)
applies that single definition of talent to the workforce during the talent
identification process. Third, DTM technology suppliers define talent
using data on required competencies, personal attributes, technical and
professional knowledge, and experience and attach labels like high per-
former, high potential, and success to the outcomes of the automated
process. DTM technology is part of the process as it collects, encodes,
sorts, and classifies the workforce against the single talent definition
and according to the standardised process.
DTM suppliers play an influential role by designing and then pre-
scribing the process of identification. Indeed, increasing digitalisation is
affording technology suppliers with agency over defining the attributes
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 5

Table 1. Proclaimed benefits of technology for Human Resource Management (HRM) and
Talent Management (TM).
Human Resource Management Talent Management
• Cost efficiencies • A mechanism to create and enact talent man-
• Process automation agement ‘systems’.
• Standardise and harmonise HR function • Identify targets of investment and retention
• Transition HR away from administration and • Establish a unified and accessible talent database
compliance to ‘strategic’ activities • Link human capital assets to organisational
• Disrupt and change HR processes and practices performance
• A mechanism for HR to become strategic • Consistent identification of ‘talent’.
business partners • Structured dialogue, criteria and workflow
processes

of a talented subject. Suppliers (such as SuccessFactors, Oracle, Workday,

etc.) frequently tout a core value proposition, which is that they provide
organisations with access to ‘best practice’. Best practices, while consid-
ered commercially sensitive and proprietary knowledge, are sold to
organisations as frameworks that mirror accepted and prescribed prac-
tices. Suppliers argue that embedded practices are the most effective
means to manage and identify talent. However, despite DTM technology
developers claiming they have TM best practices encoded into their
algorithms, scholars in TM still debate how talent should be defined
(McDonnell et al., 2017) and identified.
Most TM scholars and publications advocate for systematic talent
identification practices (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). For example, Iles
et al. (2010) and Stainton (2005) posit that all individuals should go
through the same process. Collings and Mellahi similarly assert that
‘systematic identification’ is the critical foundation of talent management
(2009, p. 304). These assertions, therefore, prescribe that employees
should be subjected to the same set of policies and practices. In other
words, a core requirement of a strategic and effective approach is to
enact talent management upon a set of systems and practices that give
authority and mandates for action. The policies and practices associated
with talent identification imply conditions for control. Most recently,
Jooss et al. (2019) after a cross-comparative study of talent pool forma-
tions within three multinational organisations further advocated a sys-
tematic approach. They noted that considerable differences in views
about the criteria (the ‘what’) result in flaws and limit the contribution
of talent pools towards the global TM effectiveness. Therefore, ‘a sys-
tematic approach which incorporates both considerations of human
capital and organisational capital is essential for effective TP [talent
pool] management’ (2019, p. 16). Assertions about the value of defined
criteria and processes, however, differ from the perspective of Wiblen
(2016) who argued that an ‘integrated’ approach – whereby organisations
are deliberate, intentional, and cross-divisional in the ways they identify
talent – is essential. An integrated perspective, however, does not assume
that the criteria and process for talent pool inclusion are predefined.
6 S. WIBLEN AND J. H. MARLER

DTM technology, once implemented within an organisation, can fur-

ther influence whether humans or technology make talent decisions.
The increasing use of task automation, whereby technology-enabled
processes and the embedded algorithms are used to establish talent lists,
inherently prioritises technology as the design maker. In instances where
DTM is used according to designers’ intentions, technology, rather than
humans, undertakes workforce differentiation and denotes which indi-
viduals possess the pre-defined talent characteristics. Embedded algo-
rithms are a key feature of the technology and represent a significant
‘material’1 property of DTM technology. It is this material property that
is the basis of automating the talent management process and helps
facilitate the transition towards digitalisation.

A socio-material perspective
All IT has both a material/physical and a social/procedural dimension
(Orlikowski & Scott, 2008). The material components include the hard-
ware, software, and communication network infrastructures. While these
are separate from individuals, the material aspect is nothing without
individuals using it in organisational tasks (Marler & Parry, 2016).
Therefore, when we think about the use of IT in talent management,
we need to consider aspects of the material computer (the desktop,
laptop, monitor, keyboard, mouse, network connections, operating sys-
tem, software, add-ons, etc.) as well as the individuals and social context
into which technologies are deployed and used. Acknowledging recent
advances in Information Systems and e-HRM literatures, which assert
the need to recognise the influence of social, material, and physical
factors on technology use and outcomes (Dery et al., 2013; Leonardi,
2012; Orlikowski & Scott, 2008; Strohmeier & Kabst, 2009), we drew
on Leonardi and Barley (2010) comprehensive review of the social con-
struction of technology literature and expanded theoretical framework
to guide our study. Leonardi and Barley (2010) argue that outcomes are
neither fully determinate (inherent and automatic) based on the material
properties of technology nor entirely influenced by contextual factors.
Rather, IT might be better conceptualised as being not wholly socially
constructed or wholly objectively material but instead as having malleable
material ‘objective’ properties.
Adopting this socio-material theoretical perspective has numerous
benefits. Firstly, this approach incorporates and moves beyond deter-
minist views of technology (often espoused by technology vendors),
which research increasingly shows is a too-narrow lens from which to
study technology in organisations (Strohmeier, 2009). Secondly, it pro-
vides a framework that acknowledges the influence of various individual
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 7

and group-level stakeholders on how IT becomes part of organising

processes. And thirdly, it illuminates how personal perceptions and
sense-making (technology as either constraining or enabling talent man-
agement and HRM) interact with the material reality of the technology
(the encoded algorithms) to influence the implementation and execution
of HR and TM policies and the role of HR managers in these.
In their literature review, Leonardi and Barley identified five distinct
theoretical lenses: perception, interpretation, appropriation, enactment,
and alignment. We apply the appropriation (observing whether people
conform to or deviate from the designers’ perceptions of patterns of use)
and alignment (examining how roles and relationships change as repre-
sentatives of two or more functional or occupational groups interact in
the process of using the new technology) frameworks in our study. The
appropriation perspective is useful on two fronts. First, it provides a
framework to examine if stakeholders conform to or deviate from the
intended ‘best practice’ processes encoded in the DTM technology algo-
rithms. Second, it is the only approach that recognises that technology
vendors have explicit images of patterns of use that may differ from
how talent is managed in a particular organisation or by employees in
the organisation. In this way, we can highlight the intersection of the
material properties of the DTM technology, the encoding algorithm,
with the social context. The social context in our study represents the
existing ways in which talent management is practised that include an
understanding of what talent is and how executives in their organisation
enact it. According to Leonardi and Barley (2010), vendor perceptions
represent a ‘material’ form of IT. This material form of the IT represents
pre-configured algorithms and automated processes that vendors embed
in the ‘technical’ aspects of the technology. Observing whether stake-
holders establish patterns of use that align with the technology vendor’s
technically embedded intentions or not can, therefore, highlight how
‘social’ patterns of use either conform to or deviate from the ‘material’
properties of the technology.
We also use the alignment perspective because it builds on and
enriches the appropriation perspective. Rather than just focusing on
end-users conforming to or deviating from the technically intended use,
the alignment perspective focuses on how previously existing roles and
relationships also shape a technology’s use and how the use of new
technology might alter or confirm an existing social order (Leonardi &
Barley, 2010, p. 25). Alignment-oriented research, therefore, is concerned
with questions about stability and change in role relationships, implying
that technologies can change social orders by changing work practices.
In this vein, a seminal study conducted by Zuboff (1988), highlighted
how power structures relating to existing relationships affected the degree
8 S. WIBLEN AND J. H. MARLER

to which digital technologies introduced change or not. In short, the

appropriation and alignment approaches provide a framework to best
examine our research questions: What role does digitalisation play in
how various stakeholder groups (HR and line managers) identify talent
by reflecting on the extent to which the implemented IT technology
was used as intended, and then, on how DTM changes (or does not)
the roles of HR managers in identifying talent.

Research design
To empirically examine the phenomena of DTM and our overall research
questions – how is technology used in TM and what happens to the
role of HRM in TM when deploying technology – we conducted a
qualitative case study in a multi-business-unit professional services firm
operating in Australia (hereafter referred to as PSF). More specifically,
we examined whether technology use conformed to or deviated from
designers’ intentions (appropriation perspective) and how this shaped
HR managers’ roles (alignment perspective).
The empirical data presented in this paper is part of a more extensive
exploratory qualitative case study of the use and role of technology in
talent management. Specifically, the larger study uses a case study of
multiple units of analysis within the case organisation, PSF. Qualitative
case studies are well suited to the study of TM, TI, and technology use
by facilitating the collection and presentation of empirical data that
acknowledges and captures historical and situational factors (Fairhurst,
2009; Sillince, 2007) embedded in textual data and recognises that var-
ious contextual and situational factors influence talent management
practices (Björkman et al., 2008; Hartmann et al., 2010; Silzer & Church,
2009). Multiple embedded units of analysis are valuable, for they permit
the presentation of a set of findings illustrative of the same phenomenon
within a single organisation, thus controlling the ‘treatment’ and the
overall context while varying the conditions in which the treatment was
introduced via varying business units, allowing us to foreground the
‘social’ factors that interact with the same technology and the same TM
process. It also affords an exceptional opportunity to examine the social
complexity of TM and DTM because ‘when knowledge is being con-
structed, no two observers construct it the same way. Complete infor-
mation is not possible; views are partly agreed on, partly not…when
what is not agreed on is important, the different views should be
reported’ (Stake, 2006, p. 37).
Data associated with the case study included semi-structured inter-
views, internal company documentation, and publicly available informa-
tion about the company and its approach to TM and technology. Internal
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 9

and external text collection continued throughout the study’s duration

to capture the situated dynamics of the organisation and TM discourses
over time and to reflect on whether externally communicated discourses
aligned with internal talk about TM and technology. Combining data
from formal and informal, internal and external texts afforded additional
insights, which contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of
talent management and technology phenomena. It created the potential
for stakeholders to talk and act in ways that are inconsistent with data
generated vis-à-vis formal and semi-structured interviews (Alvesson &
Karreman, 2000).
Seventy-nine interviews with various managers2 occurred over three
years, with interviewees selected due to their knowledge and under-
standing of both technology and TM. The semi-structured interview
schedule included questions covering the participants’ personal back-
grounds (e.g. job title, role, tenure, connection to and involvement in
HRM and TM policies and practices); organisational issues (e.g. func-
tional, unit and business strategies, importance placed on HR and TM,
prioritisation of business challenges and issues); talent and TM (e.g.
perceptions and meanings, conceptualisations and micro and macro
policies, challenges, opportunities, practices, authority and responsibility);
technology (e.g. perceptions and meanings, variations, use and appro-
priation, value, appreciation, policies and processes, resource allocation,
strategy); and the specific role of technology in talent management (e.g.
perceptions of and use and role of technology in recruitment, selection,
identification, development, and retention of talent). Managers from
PSF’s corporate HR function were interviewed first to garner an under-
standing of HR’s role within the organisation and then TM specifically.
The decision to interview HR managers first was deliberate and informed
by research suggesting and advocating for HR’s pivotal role in TM (for
example Calo, 2008; CIPD, 2006; Devine & Powell, 2008). Interviews
with HR aligned with the interview schedule and focused on the context
of the organisation and TM practices across the organisation. Corporate
HR managers were asked to answer questions within the context of
their role, the organisation, and the senior leadership team. If HR man-
agers sought clarification of what talent, talent management, and tech-
nology meant, they were directed to share their opinions and given the
freedom to interpret the terms as they viewed them in explicit recog-
nition of the need for individuals, units, and organisations to negotiate
concept meanings within the context of the operational and strategic
requirements.
In most cases, managers raised the topic of talent management and
openly talked about specific TM practices, including talent identification.
Changes in the internal and external environment were also noted as
10 S. WIBLEN AND J. H. MARLER

interviews progressed. The initial interviews indicated the absence of

an organisational-wide approach to talent management, thus affording
PSF’s six business units the ability to determine the use and role of
technology in TM within the context of business units’ needs.
Given the potential for variation in the use and role of technology in
talent management, the second round of interviews occurred with pur-
posefully sampled (Creswell, 2009; Miles & Huberman, 1994) HR and
line managers located within PSF’s business units. Business unit interviews
sought to derive insights into the HR practices enacted within each unit.
Most interviews occurred with senior business unit managers, known as
‘partners’ and were guided by the principles outlined above. Some ques-
tions were rephrased to reflect changes in context from that of organi-
sation-wide to that of the business unit. HR and line managers from all
six units were interviewed as part of the larger study.3 We present the
findings of corporate (organisation-wide) and two units, FinCo and
KnowCo, in this paper. PSF’s senior leadership team members were also
interviewed to garner an informed understanding of their perspectives
of talent, TM, and technology, considering both internal and external
demands and requirements. The first named author transcribed, reviewed,
and analysed the interview data (Roulston, deMarrais, & Lewis, 2003).
Analysis of our data comprised four main stages and was informed
by previous studies that share an interest in exploring the social con-
struction of meaning, social reality and social construction of technology
use (Maguire, 2004; Maguire & Hardy, 2009, 2013; Wiblen et al., 2012).
First, we read and catalogued our data according to the genre (e.g.
interviews, internal presentations, website, organisational reports, etc)
collected as part of the wider study. This data was further organised
into a discursive event history database (Maguire, 2004), which sought
to capture who said what and when (Maguire & Hardy, 2009). As such,
the same data were categorised according to the functionality and the
location of the interviewee who generated the data. For example, dis-
tinctions were made between HR and non-HR managers as well as
corporate and business unit managers.
In the second stage, the data and other sources of text were subjected
to a detailed and systematic examination and interpretation using content
analysis (Berg, 2009). This process involved applying a lexicon of terms
that emanated from the data itself and that related to talent and talent
identification as well as a priori constructs (Eisenhardt, 1989) grounded
in the literature. For example, we identified statements that related to
defining talent, the practice of performance management, talent man-
agement, talent identification, and technology. At this stage of the anal-
ysis, we were interested in garnering an informed understanding of
meaning attribution, practices and appropriation at the individual (each
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 11

interviewee) and meso-functional level (HR or line managers). We moved

between the data and the TM and DTM literature to identify appropriate
categories of responses and to render first-order codes into second-order
themes. Codes sought to capture tensions within functions (between
HR managers) and across functions concerning the role and use of
technology in TM, in TI specifically, and insights about the role of HR
in TM, whether data was attached to technology or not. The key themes
that emerged from this stage of analysis were explored, discarded, and
further refined (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Table 2 illustrates our data
structure and shows how tensions emerged in second-order themes as
HR and line managers talked about their experiences and opinions about
talent identification and technology.
The third stage of analysis involved the creation of narratives at the
organisational and business unit levels to create stories of how units
framed TM and technology within the context of specific unit bound-
aries. Composing unit-based narratives facilitated juxtaposition of
accounts of the same phenomena to ascertain whether and how unit-
based perspectives and practices converged or diverged within the unit
(unit-based inconsistencies) and between units (organisation-wide incon-
sistencies) in PSF. Updated narratives noted changes in unit-specific
situational dynamics (for example, those associated with HR and senior
leadership turnover). During the study, there was an opportunity to
meet several times with stakeholders informally and outside of the
interview setting to verify some of the initial interpretations of the talent
management stories at the business unit level.
In the fourth stage, we undertook a process of axial coding (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998). This involved systematic and iterative analysis of our
coded and ordered data seeking to identify relationships and patterns
(Eisenhardt, 1989) between business units concerning technology use
and the implications for HR. Here we re-coded the data allocated to
‘technology use’ according to our socio-material theoretical framework
to gain insights into whether and how implementation of a new TM
technology generated new patterns of use (appropriation, the use of
technology) and how these influenced HR’s role in TM and TI specif-
ically (alignment) to establish a holistic understanding of the talent
identification process from a multiplicity of perspectives and the extent
to which technology shaped HR’s role. Employing this research design
offered an opportunity to explore, in depth, multiple perspectives that
highlight competing tensions about technology use and outcomes for
HR. Results of this stage of analysis are represented in Table 3. Next,
we present narratives of Corporate HR, FinCo, and KnowCo as they
illustrate instances of tension, convergence, and divergence within the
parameters of a journal publication.
12 S. WIBLEN AND J. H. MARLER

Table 2. Overview of data structures.

Example First Order Codes Example Second-order Example Aggregate
(Categories of Responses) Themes Dimensions
No predetermined or mandated talent definition Broader context Talent Management
Predetermined definition of talent Context (Macro &
Absence of a consistent framework Organisational level)
Talent management includes talent identification
Absence of a consistent or mandated process
Demand for consistent process
Senior executive commitment
SuccessFactors Selection
No mandated technology use
Business unit criteria agency
Business unit process agency
Various HR technologies used
No technology strategy
The purpose is to identify potential partners Desired subjects: Talent Concept
Identify high performers Potential partners,
Identify lowest performers Bottom Talent, Top
Identify top talent Talent, High
Identify high performers and high potentials Performers
Systematically and consistently identified Systematic Talent Identification
Employees evaluated by measures/measurements Process
Decision transparency Flexible
Justify inclusion/ exclusion from talent pool
Robust processes
Objective processes
Fair process
Predetermined talent definition
Standardised process
Consistent processes are most effective
Business units differ in approach
No one way to identify talent across organisation
Desire for consistent approach
Advocate nine-box matrix
Part of external commercial offerings
Subjectivity important part Process
Employees evaluated through observations
Talent is an attribute that the executive’s ‘see’
Evaluation based on a multiplicity of views
No predetermined talent definition
No predefined process
Agility and flexibility beneficial/ required
Collegiate discussions and debate
Critical of embedded nine-box matrix
Technology plays a role Technology Use Digitalisation and
Technology used to enact a standardised process (advocates of /for Automation
Technology use is valuable technology)
Performance management processes via technology
Procedural justice
Capture value
Talent lists generation
Talent definition embedded in framework
Requires criteria standardisation
Facilitates consistency
Minimise subjectivity
Advocates of digitalised and automated approach
Part of external commercial offerings
Technology used to generate ‘scores’/ measurements
Technology plays a limited role in identifying talent Technology Use
Technology play no key role in identifying talent (critical of/for
Technology is of little/ no value in identifying talent technology)
Confined notions of ‘value’
Limits group-decisions and discussions
Reservations about measuring/ measurements
(Continued)
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 13

Table 2 (Continued). Overview of data structures.

Example First Order Codes Example Second-order Example Aggregate
(Categories of Responses) Themes Dimensions
Limited role in identifying talent Human Resource Human Resources’
HR excluded Managers and Role/ Involvement
HR plays minimal role Functions
HR justifies decisions (Minor stakeholder)
HR reacts to non-talent
Facilitate discussions Human Resource
Manage process Managers and
Advocate ‘people-skills’ Functions
Facilitate transparency between stakeholders/ (Major stakeholder)
evaluators
Work with partners/ line managers
No role in identifying talent Human Resource
Corporate HR managers responsible for talent Managers and
development only Functions
Limited/ no knowledge of Unit TM policies and (Excluded stakeholder)
practices
Business Units responsible for talent at Unit level
Corporate HR centralised policies and practices
Corporate HR excluded
‘Partners’ responsible for performance management Line managers Line managers’ Role/
reviews Involvement
‘Partners’ and line managers complete performance
management reviews
‘Partners’ solely responsible for identifying talent
‘Partners’ generate talent lists
Line managers ‘know’ and ‘see’ talent
Advocates of consistent process
Advocates of consistent criteria
Advocates of technology-enabled approach
Simplified (and automatic) approach
Talent status based on evaluator judgment
Work / collaborate with HR
Avoid HR involvement
Advocates of digitalised process
Generate and capture employee evaluations
Advocate objective process
Advocate collegiate process

Contextualising DTM and HR at PSF

PSF consistently communicated its dedication to talent and talent man-

agement. Proactively investing in talent management was core to oper-
ational needs and strategic imperatives. PSF, via its senior leadership
team, frequently asserted that their ability to recruit and retain talent
was core to success because the skills, capabilities, and experiences of
its internal workforce were the basis of its competitive positioning. PSF’s
CEO noted in an internal presentation, ‘The managing of people in
professional services firms is different from other businesses’. Perceptions
about the salient connection between talent, effective management of
talent, and competitive advantage were undisputed as the foundation
for client services was underpinned by the talent of its workforce, gen-
erally, and its best-performing workers, specifically. PSF’s strategic plan
formalised its commitment to ‘People Power – (original emphasis) as
[PSF] unapologetically puts people at the apex of its business model’.
14 S. WIBLEN AND J. H. MARLER

Discourses regarding talent as pivotal due to operating in the professional

services industry was strengthened through formalised business and
talent management strategies that prioritised investment in expanding
the supply chain of talent. ‘Potential partners’ were of interest as a group
of specifically designated individuals represented the ‘future owners’ and
the ‘future breadwinners’ of PSF due to its partnership ownership model.
Talk about potential partners dominated talent conceptualisation,
acknowledging that certain individuals with specifically designated skills
and capabilities might be considered ‘talent’ because of the revenue they
generated.
At the time of this study, PSF used 80 different HR technologies to
capture, store, and analyse HR data. The selection of SAP’s SuccessFactors,
the technology we examined, resulted from stakeholders’ perceptions of
SuccessFactors as a ‘best of breed’ technology that utilised newly avail-
able cloud-based software-as-a-service (SaaS) mechanisms and facilitated
standardised processes. Promotional material, at the time of PSF’s deci-
sion, encouraged organisations to choose SuccessFactors because the
software automated performance reviews, eliminating the hassles of
‘babysitting and policing’ line managers.
At the time of the study, PSF’s 5000 employees worked either within
corporate or one of six business units. HR professionals within PSF had
differing roles and responsibilities throughout the organisation according
to their allocation into one of three areas: recruitment, corporate, and
business unit. HR managers allocated to recruitment were responsible
for recruiting and selecting applicants.4 The two other groups, corporate
and business unit, differed regarding fundamental responsibilities, with
corporate HR managers responsible for centralised HR and TM func-
tions. Business unit HR managers were responsible for HR and talent
services for a division. Despite the structural separation, all HR managers
explicitly expressed their commitment to TM.

Findings: different roles for HR in talent management throughout PSF

In this section, we present the three unit-based narratives and examine
how contextual factors and perceptions and use of DTM influenced HR’s
role in TM in different ways (see Table 3 for an overview).

Corporate perspectives of talent identification

From a high-level perspective, despite the absence of an organisation-wide

approach or pre-established definition, the term talent at PSF referred
to high-performing and high-potential individuals. Further, although
HRM professed the importance of TM and was responsible for developing
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 15

talent after it was identified, no HR managers located in corporate

headquarters evaluated employee performance or identified high-potential
employees. In practice, however, corporate HR observed that their func-
tion was mostly absent from discussions about 1) the criteria and pro-
cesses chosen to evaluate individuals and 2) to identify talent within
Business Units (BUs). A corporate HR manager explained, ‘HR managers
think that we [corporate HR] know what is going on, but we don’t’.
The BUs, rather than corporate HRM, identified talent within the
context of each unit’s respective operational needs and strategic ambi-
tions. PSF’s CEO further reinforced corporate HR’s exclusion. Rather
than advocate for corporate HR involvement, the CEO encouraged clear
lines of authority, in which responsibility for identifying talent resided
with BU line managers. In his words, BU managers responsible for talent
identification can ‘…tell me who your talent are’ and ‘You know talent
when you see it’. The CEO reiterated these sentiments to an array of
audiences and in a range of formats (e.g. informal and formal presen-
tations), throughout the data collection stages of the project.
Given that BUs exercised agency and power over the processes of
talent identification, corporate HR nevertheless spoke about the need
to ensure that talent identification processes across the organisation were
systematic. Many HR managers prioritised the notion of consistency
(corporate and business unit) when interviewed: ‘We need to identify
our top talent through a robust and consistent methodology’ and ‘…I
would like more consistency’. A systematic and consistent approach,
based on metrics and data, were positioned as essential to ensure that
processes were objective and fair.
Corporate HR managers’ primary motivation behind advocating DTM
was to ensure that consistent criteria and processes underpinned employee
evaluation. Believing that DTM technology (inherently) required the
standardisation of evaluation criteria and operating procedure, corporate
HR managers privileged the material properties of the commercially
acquired DTM technology because it imposed a prescribed talent iden-
tification framework. They perceived that this DTM framework, which
established boundaries around the skills and capabilities associated with
talent, was a mechanism to cultivate strategic alignment and make sure
‘everyone was working together’ (corporate HR manager).
In contrast, while corporate HR managers advocated for the DTM
technology to introduce consistency, PSF’s CEO was wary of processes
that systematically delineated what talent ‘was and was not’. Rather than
advocating for a systematic approach or automated process, the CEO
sought to ensure that PSF’s leadership did not adopt a ‘one-size-fits-all’
standardised process-driven approach. In keeping with existing practice
at PSF, therefore, despite corporate HR’s advocacy of the DTM, nothing
16 S. WIBLEN AND J. H. MARLER

changed when the DTM technology was deployed. As Table 3 states,

corporate headquarters was not involved in talent identification practices
either before or after the SuccessFactors implementation.
We now turn to two key business units, FinCo and KnowCo, to
illustrate how unit-based managers appropriated the same DTM tech-
nology differently.

Talent identification in FinCo

FinCo provided financially-based services to external clients and accorded

great importance to accounting and finance-based knowledge, skills, and
abilities. FinCo managers framed talent management as ‘core’ to the unit’s
operations and strategic ambitions, with senior leaders committed to and
driving the talent agenda within the context of their specific BU. Noticeably
absent, however, among senior leaders in FinCo was a pre-defined under-
standing of the skills and capabilities required to classify or identify
talent. In FinCo, therefore, there was potential for multiple perspectives
of ‘who’ (the individuals) or ‘what’ (skills and capabilities or pivotal roles
and positions) talent was. Nevertheless, FinCo stakeholders unanimously
agreed that arriving at a shared understanding of which individuals were
simultaneously ‘high performers’ and ‘high potentials’ was key.
The how-to processes for identifying talent were more malleable, how-
ever, and divergent perspectives were evident. Our qualitative data indi-
cated that FinCo HR and line managers had different views about whether
an individual’s talent could be quantified and measured solely through
the nine-box matrix ‘best practice’ embedded in the DTM algorithms.
Table 3 captures the different perspectives between line and HR managers.
FinCo line managers appeared willing to use the evaluation criteria
and ranking algorithms as the sole mechanism for identifying talent.
Indeed, many FinCo line managers maintained positive perceptions of
the technology in spite of (or perhaps because of) having limited knowl-
edge of how the technology accurately measured talent. In contrast,
despite initially framing DTM as valuable because it provided a mech-
anism for standardising evaluation criteria, FinCo’s HR changed their
tune after implementation and voiced serious concerns. In particular,
FinCo’s HR managers had reservations about whether basing talent
determinations on a single person’s evaluation of that individual at one
point in time was suitable. They also questioned the legitimacy of relying
solely on numerical evaluations produced by third party-designed algo-
rithms. In practice, PSF’s annual performance management practices
could severely limit the quality of subjects gaining admission into FinCo’s
talent pool, ‘because sometimes it’s [based on] just one person’s opinion’
(FinCo HR manager).
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 17

Realising that FinCo’s line managers’ acceptance of DTM might

exclude HR from talent decisions, FinCo’s senior HR managers proac-
tively sought to avoid this. Although the HR managers were aware they
were not directly identifying talent, they emphasised the importance of
their facilitation and educational roles. Wanting to ensure the ‘right
people had been allocated to the top box’ and that the ‘right people
had been identified’, FinCo’s senior HR managers proactively organised
and facilitated face-to-face forums to insert themselves into the talent
identification process. In these bi-annual forums, senior FinCo HR and
BU managers came together to discuss how to identify FinCo’s talent:
So, for example, we [HR] say who are they? What are they doing? Are they the
right people? Just because you have put them on the list, are they really talent?
Have we captured the right people? (Senior FinCo HR manager)

HR managers asked line managers to share with all present the rea-
sons and evidence that underpinned perceptions of an individual’s value,
with all managers privy to the discussions. Managers could add confir-
matory or contradictory information. This practice allowed FinCo HR
managers to educate their line managers on the connections between
talent identification, development, and retention and how to expand
talent conceptualisations.
Moreover, FinCo HR managers also tried to circumvent potentially
biased perceptions about the importance of financial-based (aka an
ability to generate revenue) over less tangible people-based skills (lead-
ership, branding, connections). By asserting that collegial and transparent
processes were key to ensuring that talent identification was aligned to
and informed by FinCo’s operational and strategic ambitions and goals,
FinCo HR managers imposed their belief that nuanced contextually-sen-
sitive factors could not be pre-defined or automated. As a result, senior
HR managers facilitated conversations that transcended the technolog-
ically generated performance criteria to more deliberate, intentional,
transparent, and collegiate discussions about the ‘who’, ‘what’ and ‘why’
of talent identification.
Senior FinCo line managers reflected positively on HR’s role in talent
identification, with one senior BU manager proclaiming that ‘HR was
pretty good’. This manager further commented on HR’s ability to advise
and educate some FinCo line managers about the crucial and strategic
importance of investing in the processes of identifying valuable indi-
viduals. In sum, in downplaying the material properties of the DTM’s
algorithmic capabilities, HR managers exerted agency over how FinCo
line managers used the DTM technology. In changing how the DTM
was used/appropriated, FinCo HR managers were able to preserve their
role as important ‘human’ actors in the talent identification process.
18 S. WIBLEN AND J. H. MARLER

Table 3. HR roles in talent management at PSF.

Corporate Headquarters Business Unit - FinCo Business Unit – KnowCo
Contextual • No predetermined or • No predetermined defi- • Predetermined definition
influences mandated PSF definition nition of talent. of talent.
of talent. • Professional employees • Ambitious, data-driven
• Corporate HR managers possess accounting and professional employees.
are only responsible for finance qualifications.
talent development.
Perceptions and • DTM enables systematic • DTM enables effective • DTM enables the
use of DTM and consistent talent numerical evaluation of enactment of the stan-
(category of identification processes employee performance dardised and prede-
actor) (Corporate HR). and potential (Business termined definition of
• DTM enables the enact- Unit managers). talent (HR and Business
ment of ‘objective’ and • DTM enables effective Unit managers).
‘fair’ processes (Corpo- methodology for iden- • DTM enables systematic
rate HR). tifying talent (Business evaluation of employee
• DTM enables strategic Unit managers). performance and po-
alignment and synergism • DTM enables systematic tential (HR and Business
(Corporate HR). evaluation of employee Unit managers).
• DTM enables visibility of performance (Business • DTM enables the
employees identified as Unit HR managers). generation of talent
‘talent’ (Corporate HR). • DTM constrains the ‘lists’ (Business Unit
• DTM constrains practice, possibility of collegiate managers).
as it requires the stan- discussions of critical • DTM enables numerical
dardisation of language subjective evaluations justification of an em-
and process (PSF’s CEO). on dimensions that ployee’s exclusion from
cannot be objectively the talent pool (HR and
or efficiently measured Business Unit managers).
(Business Unit HR man-
agers).
Role of HRM • No involvement in talent • Highly involved in talent • Peripherally involved in
identification practices identification practices. talent identification.
pre and post SuccessFac- • Facilitate conversations • Advocate for process
tors’ implementation and to discuss performance integrity within the Unit.
transition towards DTM. and potential evalua- • Reactively defends the
• Corporate HR managers tions generated by the determination of an em-
largely marginalised DTM technology. ployee’s exclusion from
from HRM and talent • Promote and facili- the Unit’s talent pool.
identification practices at tate conversations to
the corporate level. incorporate various sub-
• Limited knowledge of jective evaluations of an
how talent identification employee’s performance
is practiced throughout and potential.
the company.

The TM practices within KnowCo, as Table 3 outlines and which we

present next, differed from FinCo’s.

Talent identification in KnowCo

KnowCo’s client services covered many areas including strategy and

operations, human capital and technology. As with FinCo, ideas about
TM were core to KnowCo, with all managers declaring that ‘talent was
vital’ and a ‘massive focus’. Senior HR and line managers emphasised
the salience of TM within the division because talent and human cap-
ital-based knowledge and consulting-based services were a core value
proposition of KnowCo and frequently called upon by external clients.
KnowCo HR managers considered themselves fortunate when compared
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 19

to HRM teams in other BUs because the unit’s senior leadership framed
talent as a critical resource that needed proactive management. In other
words, KnowCo HR managers were not required to advocate for TM
because ‘There is definitely recognition across the [KnowCo] exec[utive]
that people… people are our number one priority and talent manage-
ment is certainly a priority….’
KnowCo managers considered the BU to be ‘ahead of the game’ and
suggested that the policies and practices adopted in this unit were more
sophisticated and ‘structured’ than others in PSF. Part of the proactive
investment in establishing such processes arose from client expectations
and the external positioning of KnowCo as talent management experts
themselves. The understanding of talent existed in KnowCo before the
DTM implementation, with a predetermined talent concept and struc-
tured dialogue around ‘what’ (skills and capabilities) were required to
achieve talent status. These pre-defined factors focused on financial
performance, the ability to develop external business, and leadership
skills. All managers noted that key stakeholders within KnowCo had
‘been looking at talent’ and defining the skills and capabilities of talent
before the selection and organisation-wide implementation of the new
DTM technology.
KnowCo HR managers valued technology for its ability to implement
‘robust’ practices that afforded a mechanism to evaluate performance
consistently, systematically evaluating KnowCo’s workforce. A manager
assessed individual performance based on three pre-defined talent capa-
bilities built into the DTM algorithm; talent identification processes
relied heavily on DTM technology to generate, analyse, and distribute
‘scores’. Talent at KnowCo was reduced to numerical scores based on
the line managers’ subjective perceptions of the pre-defined factors
entered into the DTM technology. Through this automated and algo-
rithmically intensive process, the material properties of the technology
standardised the high-potential talent identification process. In KnowCo,
line managers used the DTM just as the third-party technology supplier
had designed it. In this appropriation and acceptance of DTM’s material
properties, patterns of technology use aligned with the technology’s
algorithms and therefore assumed a very prominent role in talent iden-
tification. Technology use within KnowCo dictated how managers cat-
egorised employees and which employees were allocated to the ‘top box’
based on a nine-block performance-potential matrix encoded within the
software.
Using the embedded algorithm, senior KnowCo HR and line managers
could generate a list of high-performing and high-potential talent.
However, rather than request individual line managers to generate and
justify their lists, KnowCo’s senior BU leaders centralised the process
20 S. WIBLEN AND J. H. MARLER

and generated a KnowCo-wide list. In this way, technology played a

pivotal role in shaping the talent identification processes. The algorithm
institutionalised in the technology, therefore, dictated who was ruled in
and ruled out of the internal talent pool.
KnowCo’s managers also used the technology as a mechanism for
ensuring objectivity in talent decisions. Measures, scores, rankings, and
results generated by the embedded algorithms were called upon as evi-
dence to support an individual’s talent status, or more frequently, the
reasons for their inclusion or exclusion from the talent pool.
At KnowCo, given the prominence afforded to DTM, HR managers
played a limited role in talent identification. Instead, HR managers
played one of two roles within the KnowCo unit: process champion or
decision defender. In the process champion role, KnowCo HR managers
sought to ensure that all line managers evaluated individuals in the
same way, according to the same criteria. In the decision defender role,
KnowCo HR managers used the DTM’s standardised numerical evalu-
ations to defend decisions when employees questioned their exclusion
from KnowCo’s talent pool. This role emerged specifically from how
the new DTM technology was appropriated. HR managers could now
invoke the DTM technology to support the talent identification process,
‘…now if somebody was to come in and say why am I not on the talent
list, … there would be some substantiation for why they were not on
the list’. HR managers noted that they were regularly asked by their
highly ambitious and data-driven workforce to communicate and justify
talent determinations with numerical data. DTM afforded KnowCo HR
managers an ability to justify decisions. These conversations were inex-
tricably linked references to structured processes required by the tech-
nology and also about being transparent: ‘… so if we don’t have that
robust definition in place, it will be very difficult to be fully transparent
about our talent program’ (senior HR manager).
In summary, at KnowCo, unlike at FinCo, DTM technology was used
as intended, to automate talent identification. Also, the technology’s
algorithms and talent identification process were privileged over KnowCo
HR managers’ professional knowledge. At KnowCo, compared to FinCo,
HR managers played a less prominent role in talent identification. Rather
than participating in the talent identification process, HR managers at
KnowCo were relegated to more administrative roles involving defending
the TM process and line managers’ decisions.

Discussion
Our goal was to explore how digitalisation influenced the practice of
TM, and more specifically, how digitalisation influenced talent
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21

identification and HR’s role in talent management. Our findings suggest

shared understandings of the legitimacy of the material properties of
the DTM influenced the degree to which it was accepted, how it was
then used to identify talent, and what role HR played in this process.
In studying how a new DTM technology was appropriated in two sep-
arate divisions within the same company, we can show how the same
DTM technology is used differently with different outcomes for the role
of HR in TM.
We found that two important factors shaped how digitalisation affected
TM and the role of HR at PSF. First, shared perceptions of the value
of technology (DTM) versus humans as key decision-makers influenced
the process of talent identification such that across corporate, FinCo,
and KnowCo, the role of HR in talent identification varied strikingly.
At the corporate level, the DTM did not affect HR, which is consistent
with the CEO’s belief that corporate HR had no role or value to add
in identifying talent. At FinCo, the DTM technology was treated as a
flawed tool to be remediated with human intervention. In contrast, at
KnowCo, it was treated as ‘objective’ and ‘error-free’, replacing ‘error-
prone’ human involvement. These findings suggest that shared percep-
tions of whether technologically enabled processes and algorithms are
legitimate and acceptable influence how the DTM is appropriated. This
finding also highlights the second factor. How the DTM is appropriated
has implications for the role of HR in TM.
Our findings suggest that the second factor influencing how digital-
isation affects TM is the degree to which HR managers proactively assert
their professional knowledge and judgement. When HR managers priv-
ilege ‘best practices’ encoded in the DTM over their professional knowl-
edge and human capital, it has the effect of diminishing their role in
TM. This is what happened at KnowCo. HR managers became decision
defenders and process champions rather than key players in talent iden-
tification. At FinCo, HR managers asserted their value and consequently
played a more strategic and integral role in talent management.
By examining the intersection between DTM and HR within the
context of increasing digitalisation, this paper makes three primary
contributions. First, our PSF case contributes to and expands the long
tradition of research within the HRM domain examining the interface
between technology and HRM (Bondarouk et al., 2017; Dery et al.,
2013; Marler & Fisher, 2013; Meijerink et al., 2013) by generating empir-
ically informed insights that highlight how digitalisation might affect
the roles of HRM and HR managers in organisations. Our findings
suggest that the rhetoric about DTM’s positive influence on HR roles
in TM, specifically, and strategic HRM, more generally, does not have
consistent empirical support. Indeed, what our study shows is that despite
22 S. WIBLEN AND J. H. MARLER

compelling discourses from various stakeholders (DTM suppliers and

HR managers) about the potentially transformational impact on HR,
such outcomes are contingent and influenced significantly by non-tech-
nological factors. Our findings, therefore, confirm and build on the
criticisms of the often-stated positive relationship between technology
and HRM’s strategic involvement in the business (Marler & Parry, 2016).
These findings confirm that ‘people factors’ (Bondarouk et al., 2017;
Dery et al., 2009) influence the adoption and deployment of technolog-
ically-enabled TM processes and that previously institutionalised power/
knowledge relations also influence how the human-technology divide is
accomplished in practice and influence HRM’s ongoing struggle for
legitimacy (Heizmann & Fox, 2019).
Notably, within one large organisation, the same technology was
appropriated differently across two different divisions, resulting in dif-
ferent TM practices and different roles for HR. Senior non-HR managers
within KnowCo promoted and highly valued the automated ‘systematic’
externally developed processes and advocated for digitalisation. In con-
trast, stakeholders in FinCo sought to advocate for human intervention
and agency rather than automation and chose to override these same
features. These two contrasting approaches to using DTM technology
highlight the important role of social processes in influencing how
organisations and HR managers, specifically, are transitioning towards
digitalisation and managing the ever-increasingly complex human-tech-
nology interface.
Second, by examining a case study with embedded units of analysis
via a socio-material theoretical perspective (Leonardi & Barley, 2010),
we presented empirically informed insights that show how technology’s
influence on HR’s role is contingent on how key stakeholders appropriate
technology. That is, differing appropriation has consequences for whether
or how relationships and roles between HR and line managers change.
In the case of KnowCo, the prioritisation of technology as a mechanism
to capture talent evaluations and automate the generation of ‘talent lists’
led to HR’s marginalisation. Although HR managers played no role in
this automated process, technology appropriation reinforced an admin-
istrative role with HR’s role encompassed defending line manager deter-
minations and outputs of the technologically enabled process. HR
professionals, if and when involved, were tasked with defending the
algorithmic decisions to build trust in the (perceived) objectivity and
transparency of the automated process. In this situation, line managers
were the humans responsible for this specific HR/TM practice, thus
giving further weight to debates about which humans, HR or line man-
agers, should enact agency over workforce practices (Keegan & Francis,
2010; Keegan et al., 2012).
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 23

FinCo HR managers, in contrast, adopted a strategic facilitation and

advisory role. They questioned the legitimacy of DTM. More specifically,
FinCo’s HR managers proactively refuted vendor rhetoric about the value
of devolving evaluations to line managers and automating workforce
differentiation. HR Managers asserted their beliefs that DTM technologies
should not act as the sole mechanism to identify talent. By articulating
perceived limitations of technology in making decisions about talent
and by highlighting the constraining aspects of structured and sys-
tems-based processes, FinCo HR managers successfully communicated
the value of humans and were able to insert their function into a specific
TM practice, talent identification. HR managers did not fulfil an oper-
ational, transactional, or supporting role but rather played a more stra-
tegic role in helping decide who and what was talent within the context
of FinCo’s specific needs. This pivotal role differed from HR’s role in
KnowCo and was possible not only because HR managers questioned
the value of DTM but also because of mutually beneficial and reciprocal
relationships with FinCo’s line managers, which existed before the
SuccessFactors implementation. These findings confirm the need for
HRM to be mindful of how employees perceive the function (Meijerink
et al., 2016) and the importance of establishing social and organisational
capital (Meijerink et al., 2012).
Finally, by examining the changing role of corporate and BU HR man-
agers within a corporate entity, we nuance out how the role of HR man-
agers in TM is contingent. By examining HR’s role in a specific TM
practice – that of talent identification – we contribute to TM literature
by endeavouring to close a significant gap in our knowledge and under-
standing of how talented individuals are managed. This is a pivotal con-
tribution as a McDonnell, et al. (2017) recent review revealed that TM
scholars tend to focus on broader issues facing organisations, rather than
specific TM practices, and thus our understanding of how organisations
‘do’ TM in the rich world of practice is limited. Examining specific TM
practices from multiple perspectives is key for all aspects of HR (Bondarouk
et al., 2017; Renkema et al., 2016), TM, and digitalisation research.

Limitations
In using a single case study, even with multiple embedded units of
analysis, we acknowledge its limitations. Some researchers will argue
that the findings are limited in their generalisability because the data
collected and the insights offered by managers were analysed subjectively,
and conclusions were based on a limited number of observations. In
conducting this research, however, we do not adopt a positivist episte-
mological perspective, in which there is an ‘objective truth’ to be
24 S. WIBLEN AND J. H. MARLER

uncovered through analyses of population samples. Our production of

knowledge is based on a social constructionist perspective, in which
knowledge is socially constructed rather than objectively discovered. Just
as technology use is contextually specific, so are the findings presented
rooted in the person, character, experience, and context of the partici-
pants and researchers (Creswell, 2007; Crotty, 1998; Lincoln & Guba,
2002; Neuman, 2000). Just like technology, talent meanings are negotiated
within organisational boundaries with specific meanings underpinning
robust talent management practices (Tansley, 2011; Wiblen & McDonnell,
2020). If organisations hold different talent meanings, one expects dif-
ferent talent management practices and, therefore, the potential for
different patterns of technology use (appropriation) and role changes
(alignment). Although we agree assured generalisability is not an out-
come of this research, we also believe the value of this research is in
highlighting how a process of interaction between DTM technology,
people, and social processes unfolds and creates varying outcomes.

Future research
While our study contributes to knowledge of HR, DTM, and TM, further
research is required to examine the extent to which pre-existing mental
models and mindsets influence the use of technology and the enactment
of DTM. This would require affording explicit recognition to the assump-
tions that underpin the talent concept and whether managers believe that
talent is a construct that valued employees enact or possess. These indi-
vidual assumptions, mental models, and underlying frames, we argue,
influence technology use and perceptions about the value of DTM within
organisations and recognise that variability can arise from the individual
employee level (Meijerink et al., 2016). While maintaining a specific
examination of less glamourous technologies such as traditional ERP and
HRIS modules, scholars should also consider the impact of new technol-
ogies on TM. Consideration of artificial intelligence and machine learning
are pertinent because a key distinction of current technological innovations
is the potential minimisation of human agency in decision-making. Posing
and answering questions about who prevails as the key decision-maker
is salient. Especially because talent management is a judgement-oriented
activity which involves judging the value of individuals (Wiblen, 2019)
and making decisions about resource allocations based on these judgments.
Specific questions include who will make the decisions? To what extent
will HR play a role in talent identification and deciding which individuals
gain talent status? Are organisations, whether via their HR functions or
senior leadership team, changing workforce dynamics and structure to
allow technology, digitalisation and automation to become the key
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25

decision-maker about who and what is talent? As our study shows, DTM-
embedded algorithms afford organisations with an opportunity to imple-
ment new control mechanisms (Kellogg et al., 2020), with stakeholders
wanting to control the process of ‘doing’ TM framing technology in a
largely positive way. Is this the case in other professional services firms
or other organisations where the competitive positioning relies on talent?
Do HR managers frame DTM as an opportunity for the function and a
mechanism to advance careers or as an impending threat? Does talk about
control, whether it be the control of information, costs, criteria, or pro-
cesses, permeate current TM and TI discourses? Future research that
applies techniques other than those employed by this study may produce
insights that either confirm or question the contextually and historically
situated empirical findings presented here.

Practical implications

Our contribution at a more practical level highlights that increasing process

automation and digital ways of managing has (possibly negative) implica-
tions for the practice of TM and HRM. The challenge for HRM, therefore,
is to find ways to assert their value to line managers in how effectively
they practice and manage talent. While academics may assert theoretical
differences between performance management and talent identification
(Mäkelä et al., 2010; Wiblen, 2016), practitioners may, as Makram, Sparrow,
and Greasley (2017) note, think otherwise. DTM and digitalised HR sys-
tems present a way to transition away from initiative and ad hoc processes
by structuring pre-defined frameworks to guide practices. DTM and embed-
ded performance and talent frameworks provide a foundational language
base to direct evaluative, judgement-based conversations about talent. While
some may frame embedded frameworks as valuable resources for talent
decisions, we suggest that HR managers exercise caution when electing to
do so. DTM may, when enacted in practice, erect arbitrary or unconscious
boundaries for talent conversations. HR managers, much alike FinCo man-
agers, may benefit from proactively inserting human expertise to expand
perceptions of talent as stakeholders discursively communicate what talent
means at an individual, unit, and organisational level. HR managers may
be able to deploy current talk about the impact and influence of digital-
isation and automation on jobs and workers as rhetorical devices to initiate
the revision, amendment, or replacement of dominant talent meanings.
HR managers must also garner an informed understanding of differing
perceptions of technology, digitalisation, and automation to ensure respon-
sible and strategic TM practices are practised within this era of techno-
logical change. HRM, therefore, should capitalise on the opportunity to
assume a salient role in TM and talent identification specifically.
26 S. WIBLEN AND J. H. MARLER

Conclusion
HR’s ability to play a strategic business partnering role is complex given
that information technology is in a constant state of flux, with innova-
tions, platforms, and systems frequently changing and capabilities for
greater levels of automation and digitalisation evolving. In this context,
HR professionals need to learn how to manage the human-technology
interface because digitalised talent management and technology use may
decrease the agency and role of human stakeholders – including that
of HR in organisations, such that HR may not fit into the future of work.

Notes
1. We use Leonardi’s (2012) definition of the materiality of information technology as
‘the arrangement of an artifact’s physical and/or digital materials into particular
forms that endure across differences in place and time and are important to
users’.
2. While Table 3 provides an overview of our findings according to our embedded
units of analysis, additional specifics about our case organisation, the six units,
and our interview sample are omitted to ensure anonymity.
3. The purposeful sampling of business unit managers resulted in the unequal number
of interviewees from each unit.
4. Although pivotal in attracting and recruiting talent, the perspectives of this func-
tional HR group are not considered in this study as they were not involved in
internal talent management practices.

Data availability statement

Data not available due to Ethical and confidentiality restrictions: Due to the nature of
this research, participants of this study asked for anonymity, and the confidentiality
agreement between the researchers and hosting University dictates that individuals and
the organisation will not be identified in any publication or presentation.

References
Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (7th ed.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Berger, L., & Berger, D. (Eds.). (2003). The talent management handbook: Creating a
sustainable competitive advantage by selecting, developing and promoting the best
people. McGraw-Hill Professional.
Björkman, I., Smale, A., Sumelius, J., Suutari, V., & Lu, Y. (2008). Changes in institu-
tional context and MNC operations in China: Subsidiary HRM practices in 1996
versus 2006. International Business Review, 17(2), 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ibusrev.2008.02.001
Bondarouk, T., Parry, E., & Furtmueller, E. (2017). Electronic HRM: Four decades of
research on adoption and consequences. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 28(1), 98–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1245672
Bussler, L., & Davis, E. (2001). Information Systems: The Quiet Revolution in Human
Resource Management. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42(2), 17–20.
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27

Calo, T.J. (2008). Talent management in the era of the aging workforce: The critical
role of knowledge transfer. Public Personnel Management, 37(4), 403–416. https://
doi.org/10.1177/009102600803700403
Ceriello, V., & Freeman, C. Human Resource Management Systems: Strategies, Tactics,
and Techniques. Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass (1991).
CIPD. (2006). Talent management: Understanding the dimensions. Retrieved from London
http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/recruitmen/general/_tlmtmgtdim.htm?IsSrchRes=1
Collings, D.G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and re-
search agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304–313. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.04.001
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches. Sage Publications.
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the
Research Process. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Dery, K., Grant, D., & Wiblen, S. (2009, 27 August 2009). Human resource information
systems: Replacing or enhancing HRM. Paper presented at the 15th World Congress
of the International Industrial Relations Association IIRA 2009 ‘The New World of
Work, Organisations and Australia.
Dery, K., Hall, R., Wailes, N., & Wiblen, S. (2013). Lost in translation? An actor-net-
work approach to HRIS implementation. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
22(3), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2013.03.002
Devine, M., & Powell, M. (2008). Talent management in the public sector 360.The Ashridge
Journal, Autumn 2008, 1–6.
Dries, N. (2013). The psychology of talent management: A review and research agen-
da. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
hrmr.2013.05.001
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
Fairhurst, G.T. (2009). Considering context in discursive leadership research. Human
Relations, 62(11), 1607–1633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709346379
Farndale, E., Paauwe, J., & Hoeksema, L. (2009). In-sourcing HR: shared service cen-
tres in the Netherlands. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
20(3), 544–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802707300
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Thunnissen, M., & Scullion, H. (2020). Talent management:
Context matters. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(4),
457–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1642645
Grant, D., Hall, R., Wailes, N., & Wright, C. (2006). The false promise of technologi-
cal determinism: the case of enterprise resource planning systems. New Technology,
Work and Employment, 21(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2006.00159.x
Gueutal, H., & Stone, D. L. (2005). The Brave New World of eHR: Human Resources
in the Digital Age. San Francisco, USA: Jossey Bass.
Heizmann, H., & Fox, S. (2019). O Partner, Where Art Thou? A critical discursive
analysis of HR managers’ struggle for legitimacy. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 30(13), 2026–2048. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.131
4974
Hartmann, E., Feisel, E., & Schober, H. (2010). Talent management of western MNCs
in China: Balancing global integration and local responsiveness. Journal of World
Business, 45(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.013
28 S. WIBLEN AND J. H. MARLER

Iles, P., Chuai, X., & Preece, D. (2010). Talent management and HRM in multination-
al companies in Beijing: Definitions, differences and drivers. Journal of World Business,
45(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.014
Jesuthasan, R., & Boudreau, J. (2018). Reinventing jobs: A 4-step approach for applying
automation to work. Harvard Business Review press.
Jooss, S., Burbach, R., & Ruël, H. (2019). Examining talent pools as a core talent
management practice in multinational corporations. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1579748
Keegan, A., & Francis, H. (2010). Practitioner talk: The changing textscape of HRM
and emergence of HR business partnership. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 21(6), 873–898. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585191003729341
Keegan, A., Huemann, M., & Turner, J.R. (2012). Beyond the line: Exploring the HRM
responsibilities of line managers, project managers and the HRM department in four
project-oriented companies in the Netherlands, Austria, the UK and the USA. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(15), 3085–3104. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.610937
Kellogg, K.C., Valentine, M.A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at Work: The new
contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. https://
doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
Leonardi, P. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do
these terms mean? How are they related? Do we need them? In P. Leonardi, B.
Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and organising: Social interaction in a tech-
nological world (pp. 25–48). Oxford University Press.
Leonardi, P.M., & Barley, S.R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action,
materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Academy
of Management Annals, 4(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416521003654160
Lewis, R.E., & Heckman, R.J. (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human
Resource Management Review, 16(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.001
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2002). Judging the quality of case study reports. In: A.
M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion (pp.
205–215). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Maguire, S. (2004). The co-evolution of technology and discourse: A study of substi-
tution processes for the insecticide DDT. Organization Studies, 25(1), 113–134. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0170840604038183
Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2009). Discourse and deinstitutionalisation: The decline of
DDT. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 148–178.
Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2013). Organising processes and the construction of risk: A
discursive approach. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 231–255. https://doi.
org/10.5465/amj.2010.0714
Mäkelä, K., Björkman, I., & Ehrnrooth, M. (2010). How do MNCs establish their
talent pools? Influences on individuals’ likelihood of being labeled as talent. Journal
of World Business, 45(2), 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.020
MarketsandMarkets. (2017). Talent management software market worth $11,367.0 mil-
lion by 2019.
Marler, J.H., & Dulebohn, J. (2005). A Model of Employee Self-Service Technology
Acceptance. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 24, 137–180.
Marler, J.H., & Fisher, S.L. (2013). An evidence-based review of e-HRM and strategic
human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 23(1), 18–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.06.002
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 29

Marler, J.H., & Parry, E. (2016). Human resource management, strategic involvement
and e-HRM technology. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
27(19), 2233–2253. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1091980
McCauley, C., & Wakefield, M. (2006). Talent management in the 21st century: Help
your company find, develop, and keep its strongest workers. Journal for Quality &
Participation, 29(4), 4–7.
McDonnell, A. (2011). Still fighting the war for talent? Bridging the science versus
practice gap. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 169–173. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10869-011-9220-y
McDonnell, A., Collings, D.G., Mellahi, K., & Schuler, R. (2017). Talent management:
A systematic review and future prospects. European Journal of International
Management, 11(1), 86–128. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2017.081253
Meijerink, J., Bondarouk, T., & Kees Looise, J. (2012). Value creation through HR
shared services: Towards a conceptual framework. Personnel Review, 42(1), 83–104.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481311285246
Meijerink, J., Bondarouk, T., & Maatman, M. (2013). Exploring and comparing HR
shared services in subsidaries of multinational corporations and indigenous organi-
sations in the Netherlands: A strategic response analysis. European Journal of
International Management, 7(4), 469–492.
Meijerink, J., Boons, M., Keegan, A., & Marler, J.H. (2018). Call for papers: Special
Issue of The International Journal of Human Resource Management: Digitalization
and the transformation of human resource management. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1503845.
Meijerink, J.G., Bondarouk, T., & Lepak, D.P. (2016). Employees as active consumers
of HRM: Linking employees’ HRM competences with their perceptions of HRM
service value. Human Resource Management, 55(2), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/
hrm.21719
Meyers, M.C., van Woerkom, M., Paauwe, J., & Dries, N. (2020). HR managers’ talent
philosophies: Prevalence and relationships with perceived talent management prac-
tices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(4), 562–588.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1579747
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source-
book (2nd ed.). Sage.
Minbaeva, D., & Collings, D.G. (2013). Seven myths of global talent management. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(9), 1762–1776. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09585192.2013.777539
Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
(4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Orlikowski, W.J., & Scott, S.V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of
technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.
https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211644
Orlikowski, W., & Scott, S. (2015). The algorithm and the crowd: Considering the
materiality of service innovation. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 201–216. https://doi.
org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.09
Renkema, M., Meijerink, J., & Bondarouk, T. (2016). Advancing multilevel thinking
and methods in HRM research. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and
Performance, 3(2), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-03-2016-0027
Renkema, M., Meijerink, J., & Bondarouk, T. (2017). Advancing multilevel thinking in
human resource management research: Applications and guidelines. Human Resource
Management Review, 27(3), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.03.001
30 S. WIBLEN AND J. H. MARLER

Roulston, K., deMarrais, K., & Lewis, J. B. (2003). Learning to interview in the social
sciences. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(4), 643–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403252736
Ruël, H., Bondarouk, T., & Van Der Velde, M. (2007). The contribution of e-HRM to
HRM effectiveness: Results from a quantitative study in a Dutch Ministry. Employee
Relations, 29(3), 280–291.
Sillince, J. A. A. (2007). Organisational context and the discursive construction of
organising. Management Communication Quarterly, 20(4), 363–394. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0893318906298477
Silzer, R., & Church, A.H. (2009). The potential for potential. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 2(4), 446–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01172.x
Stahl, G. K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S. S., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P., Trevor, J.,
& Wright, P. M. Global Talent Management: How Leading Multinationals Build and
Sustain their Talent Pipeline. INSEAD Working Paper (34).
Stainton, A. (2005). Talent management: Latest buzzword or refocusing existing pro-
cesses? Competency and Emotional Intelligence, 12(1), 39–43.
Stake, R.E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. The Guilford Press.
Stone, D.L., & Dulebohn, J.H. (2013). Emerging issues in theory and research on
electronic human resource management (eHRM). Human Resource Management
Review, 23(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.06.001
Strauss, A. L., Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro-
cedures for developing grounded theory (J. M. Corbin, Trans. 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks
Sage Publications.
Strohmeier, S. (2009). Concepts of e-HRM consequences: A categorisation, review and
suggestion. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3), 528–543.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802707292
Strohmeier, S., & Kabst, R. (2009). Organisational adoption of e-HRM in Europe: An
empirical exploration of major adoption factors. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
24(6), 482–501. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940910974099
Tams, S., Grover, V., & Thatcher, J. (2014). Modern information technology in an old
workforce: Toward a strategic research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 23(4), 284–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2014.10.001
Tansley, C. (2011). What do we mean by the term “talent” in talent management?
Industrial and Commercial Training, 43(5), 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197851
111145853
Wiblen, S. (2016). Framing the usefulness of eHRM in talent management: A case
study of talent identification in a professional services firm. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 33(2),
95–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1378
Wiblen, S. (2019). e-talent in talent management. In M. Thite (Ed.), e-HRM: Digital
approaches, directions and applications, London: Routledge, (pp. 153–171).
Wiblen, S., Dery, K., & Grant, D. (2012). Do you see what I see? The role of technol-
ogy in talent identification. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(4), 421–438.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00037.x
Wiblen, S., & McDonnell, A. (2020). Connecting ‘talent’ meanings and multi-level
context: A discursive approach. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 31(4), 474–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1629988
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine. The Future of Work and Power.
Oxford: Heinemann Professional Publishing Ltd.