ND outlined three distinguishing types of reciprocity: a) Reciprocity as a transactional pattern of

interdependent exchanges; b) Reciprocity as a folk belief; and c) Reciprocity as a moral norm.

a) Reciprocity as an interdependent exchange: Generally, reciprocity takes place between two
parties, e.g. employee and employer to exchange the monetary value of things such as cash,
reward, incentives and services. According to Cropanzano
105
and Mitchell (2005), exchange relationship requires a bidirectional transaction; for example,
giving something in the return of an obtained thing. Literally, in the work setting an employer
and employees are interdependent on each other. For example, no any organisation can
accomplish its mission and vision without the support of staff members. Similarly, employees
need the opportunity to utilise their knowledge, skills and talents. Hence, complete independence
and complete dependence do not imply in social exchange. Therefore, interdependence that
involves mutual and complementary arrangements is considered as the characteristic of social
exchange (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Molm, 1994). b) Reciprocity as a folk belief: The
second reciprocity rule by Gouldner (1960) is ‘folk belief’ that involves the cultural expectations
people have with each other. In this type of reciprocity trade relationships, participants accepted
some combination of: a) a sense that over time all exchanges reach a fair equilibrium; b) those
who are unhelpful will be punished; and c) those who are helpful will receive help in future
(Malinowski, 1932 cited by Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). In terms of the Pakistani context,
an organisation may expect more by their employees due to contextual factors (e.g. social,
cultural and unemployment issue) and failure to meet high targets may result in termination or
dismissal from their jobs.
c) Reciprocity as a norm and individual orientation: A norm involves a quality or standard that
describes how one should behave at the workplace, and those who follow the norms are obliged
to behave reciprocally (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Many scholars including Gouldner
(1960) speculate that the norm of reciprocity is a human universal principle (Gouldner, 1960;
Malinowski, 2013; Tsui and Wang, 2002). However, even if reciprocity is a universal principle,
all individuals may value reciprocity differently because of cultural and individual differences.
For example, there is strong evidence that individuals differ in the degree they endorse
reciprocity (Clark and Mills, 1979; Murstein et al., 1977). According to these scholars, those
who are high in exchange orientation carefully track obligations for score keeping. Those who
are low in exchange orientation were found less concerned about obligations and were less likely
to care if exchanges are not reciprocated. In this connection, Eisenberger et al. (1986, 1990,
2001) have a remarkable contribution to explore exchange ideology; in their investigations of
perceived organisational support (POS) they found that the
106
relationship was stronger for individuals with a high exchange ideology compared with those
with a low exchange ideology. Subsequently, the number of studies has suggested that exchange
ideology strengthens the relationship of perceived organisational support with realised obligation
(Eisenberger et al., 1990, 2001; Wayne et al., 1997). However, the effects of exchange ideology
are not limited to perceived organisational support; instead, the literature review revealed many
other antecedents such as job dimensions perceived managerial support, rewards and recognition,
organisational justice and fair treatment have been found positive for developing and maintaining
successful relationships with employees. Arguably, although the norms of reciprocity may be
universally accepted principles as described by Gouldner (1960), yet the degree of reciprocity
people demonstrate in the work setting may vary depending on the relationship between the
employee and the employing organisation. For example, the highly structured hierarchical and
power distance organisational culture of developing context of Pakistan may have affected the
social exchange relationship and hence the engagement level of employees. Hence, this study
attempts to evaluate the management approach of managing talent and employee perception
towards HR practices to understand the complex relationships between organisational work
attributes and the employees’ attitude of feeling valued and engaged in the Pakistani banking
organisations.
Therefore, this thesis draws broadly on the concept of the psychological contract that is
particularly helpful to understand how employees perceive HR practices and their reactions in
terms of attitudinal and behavioural outcomes (Hutchinson, 2013) and social exchange
relationships (Blau, 1964) as adapted by Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) and to integrate this
with the AMO model to inform the concept of discretionary behaviour. It highlights a number of
organisational work attributes which shape employee perceptions of the nature of the
employment exchange relationship and, in turn. job and attitudinal effects. Figure 3.6 p.137
underscores the linkages between HR practices and employee perceptions that can be affected
positively or negatively and eventually affects performance outcomes.
The previous sections have discussed the nature of talent and how talent can be conceptualised.
The AMO model as the theoretical basis of the thesis has also been discussed and the proposal
made that the AMO model can be broadened in two significant
107
ways by: 1) considering the nature and scope of employee engagement; and 2) considering the
impact of contextual factors on the people performance process. The following sections move on
to discuss the nature and scope of talent management and the process and activities that fall
under the talent management umbrella. It is argued that the talent management strategy and
practice within organisations will reflect organisational (and possibly national) conceptualisation
of talent.
3.4 Differentiating talent management from HR management
There is considerable tension about the nature and orientation of talent management in the
academic and practitioner literature asking how talent management is different than HRM or is it
rhetoric or reality (Nicky, 2013; Zesik, 2016). However, out of the number of discrepancies most
debated, concern is about the differences or boundaries between talent management and HRM
practice. Even though some scholars, including Meyers et al. (2014), argue that talent
management differs from HR practice in some ways by saying that HRM focuses on the whole
workforce, whereas talent management deals with the talent pool of employees who are high in
potential, value and distinctiveness (Berrell et al., 2008). Notwithstanding, following the close
connection between HRM and talent management, Meyers et al. (2014, p.192) describe ‘talent
management as the systematic utilisation of human resource management (HRM) activities to
attract, identify, develop and retain individuals who are considered to be ‘talented (in practice,
this often means the high potential employees, the strategically important employees, or
employees in key positions)’ and they argue that there is the conceptual overlap between talent
management and HR practices. In this connection, Lewis and Heckman (2006) identified three
basic components of talent management: First, a set of typical HR functions and practices such
as recruitment and selection, training and career development. Second, perception of talent
management is that it predicts the role and demand of human resources or workforce planning
throughout the organisation. Third is a generic view of talent management that suggests talent
(high potential and high performers) must be managed on a performance basis. These approaches
to talent management are discussed in the following sub-sections.
3.4.1 Talent management as a typical set of HR practice
This approach takes the view that talent management is not different from human resource
management, or all those practices used to recruit, develop, deploy, consult, negotiate with,
motivate and retain employees and to terminate the employment
108
relationship (Boxall and Macky, 2009). Some authors (Adamsky, 2003; Iles et al., 2010a; Lewis
and Heckman, 2006) argue that talent management is merely a label or substitute for typical
HRM activities and that talent management is simply a euphemism for HRM. However, others
(Ashton and Morton, 2005; Berrell et al., 2008) see talent management as a holistic and strategic
activity which represents a new route to organisational effectiveness. Following this point, even
though talent management is integrated with HRM and may use the same tools and techniques as
does HR, but talent management has a selective focus on specific activities of HRM (Iles, Chuai,
et al., 2010) which might be more advanced and useful for today’s competitive business
environment. Berrell et al. (2008) suggest that talent management is much different from
traditional HRM, it consists of those activities which incorporate new knowledge and rationale
procedures that can help in success and creating competitive advantage for the organisation. For
instance, talent management practice directs and focuses on certain groups or cohorts called
‘talent’, which is different from traditional HR practice. Hence, talent management practice
should not be seen as being simple and the repackaging of old techniques/ideas with new labels.
In this regard, Ashton and Morton (2005) assert that talent management is more than a new
language for old HR work or just the next ‘new hot thing’ for HR practitioners to get involved in,
that's why talent management has become strategically imperative for many organisations. The
second perception on talent management by Lewis and Heckman (2006) is human resources
planning that focuses on talent pools.
3.4.2 Talent management as HR planning
The concept of human resource planning HRP is an established part of HRM. In its early
treatment according to Vetter (1967) cited by Jackson and Schuler (1990, p.223), human
resource planning is ‘the process by which management determines how the organisation should
move from its current manpower position to its desired position. Through planning, management
strives to have the right number and the right kinds of people, at the right places, at the right
time, doing things which result in both the organisation and the individual receiving maximum
long-run benefits.’ In a similar vein, Lewis and Heckman (2006) observed that talent
management focuses on talent pools, whereby employees would be secured and developed for
current and future specific positions. Rothwell (2010) refers to this perspective of talent
management as related with HR planning and development. Human resource planning has
experienced a chequered past. During 1960s and 1970s, it was considered as a critical tool for
successful business, and in the 1980s-1990s HRP was viewed as an appropriate tool for handling
downsizing and
109
redundancies. However, planning has always been accused of having feasibility and
implementation problems so is no longer meaningful in the age/era of discontinuous change
(Torrington et al., 2002).
Jackson and Schuler (1990) state that human resource planning under past conditions were used
to organise the right person on the right job at the right time, where the focus remained on short-
term business objectives and plans, and was dictated by line management’s concern. However,
rising environmental-stability, demographic-shifts, technological-changes and massive global
competitions are changing the need for the landscape of human resource planning within the
organisations. In this regard, Taylor (2010) points out that HR planning is an area of planning
and development that has often been denigrated, as a result it has received little attention in the
literature and less widely used in the organisations. Nevertheless, the techniques of HRP are
most involved and complex activities and are related with resourcing and talent management
professionals (Taylor, 2010). Similarly, Cappelli (2008) also relates talent management with
forecasting and planning for satisfying the current and upcoming staffing needs of the
organisation. So, HR planning is necessary and may be one of the significant interventions of
talent management that can be used for attracting, developing and deploying high potential
employees.
Talent management is the integration of different concepts or initiatives into a coherent
framework of activities (Ashton and Morton, 2005). Hence, aligning human resource planning
with talent management strategy may offer a more positive and focused approac