Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Where do high-impact human resources management practices thrive, and how do they make a difference in environments with limited institutional support? This study delves into the realm of talent management (TM) in Turkey, where institutional coverage is incomplete and unstable. Drawing on survey data, we explore the conditions under which TM succeeds, supplementing previous research on internal networks by examining the impact of external networks that encompass the entire firm. We find that when firms have closer ties with customers, suppliers and competitors (and hence, the basis for formal network tie building), TM is more prevalent and more likely to be successful. While conventional wisdom in comparative institutional literature suggests that such dense ties might be less effective in emerging markets owing to the absence of advanced complementarities found in mature economies, our study challenges these assumptions. In the eyes of managers, TM is not merely a tool to overcome disadvantages; it is perceived as a source of opportunities. This prompts a critical question: what specific advantages does the emerging economy system confer on firms embracing TM? Our study seeks to unravel these dynamics and contribute to a deeper understanding of the interplay between institutional contexts and TM.

Keywords

complementarity emerging markets talent management Turkey uncertainty

Introduction

The empirical research on talent management (TM) has grown considerably, and the focus has evolved from ongoing concerns over a lack of a suitable definition of TM and the opacity with which managers view their talent objectives (Boudreau, 2013; Makram et al., 2017), towards the tensions inherent within the TM agenda (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013; Gelens et al., 2014) and a closer look at how talent philosophies manifest themselves in organizations. Key concerns include how employees react to and experience TM (Clarke and Scurry, 2017; de Boeck et al., 2018; Meyers, 2019); and further investigation of how TM is applied in medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Cui et al., 2018; Krishnan and Scullion, 2017) and in multinational companies (MNEs) (Collings et al., 2019; Tatoglu et al., 2016), and towards specific types of workers (Crowley-Henry and Al Ariss, 2018; Kim et al., 2018); and the link between TM and varying measures of performance (Glaister et al., 2018; Son et al., 2020). TM involves the recruitment, retention, rewarding and career development of highly skilled workers. It aims to empower these individuals to realize their fullest potential. This implies that talented individuals possess unique characteristics that are not easily substituted (Kaliannan et al., 2023; McDonnell et al., 2017). An influential strand of the literature draws a distinction between exceptional and average performers (Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Minbaeva and Collings, 2013). We focus on specific areas of human resources management (HRM) practice commonly associated with TM, TM-centred recruitment, retention, advancement and rewards, and when TM focuses on a group of employees identified as top performers.

The micro-level literature on TM scrutinizes individuals and organizations, while the macro-level literature investigates contextual effects, encompassing both country-specific dynamics and variations in regulation (Khilji et al., 2015). This study focuses on internal TM practices, drawing upon the micro-level literature that delineates core sub-components (Kaliannan et al., 2023; McDonnell et al., 2017). However, it goes beyond merely identifying these components by exploring their relative prevalence in relation to external contextual dynamics, thereby incorporating the macro-level perspective (see Vaiman et al., 2019). This approach allows for a more comprehensive understanding of TM, bridging the micro and macro perspectives to enrich the scholarly discourse in the field.

Responding to the need for empirical research in emerging market contexts (Cooke et al., 2014; Farndale et al., 2010), scholars have examined how institutional imperfections and voids continue to create organizational uncertainty making it much more challenging to implement TM and make it work (Bhatnagar and Budhwar, 2019; Blanco and Golik, 2019; Cooke and Wang, 2019; Outila et al., 2019). At the same time, two important tensions emerge in the literature. The first is a concern with the effects of institutional shortfalls and voids; it is suggested that managers in emerging markets spend much of their time compensating for systemically induced challenges or shortfalls (see Ge et al., 2019; Liedong et al., 2020). However, there are many successful emerging market firms that seem to base their success on the advantages conferred by a seemingly inhospitable environment. In short, it is possible that the same regulatory features may be seen as posing irresolvable challenges by some and providing real advantages to others. This may be true generally and/or specific to TM.

Second, there is a growing body of literature that connects TM to networks, with the majority focusing on internal, intra-employee networks within the firm and their correlation with identifying and supporting talented individuals (Pagan-Castaño et al., 2022). However, the impact of external network relationships between the firm and other actors on the effective management of talent remains an understudied area. Earlier work suggests that dense ties between formally constituted actors in mature institutional environments are conducive to higher value-added managerial practices, characterized by more optimal investments in people (Goergen et al., 2012). Yet, it is not clear how effective such formal ties are in contexts where institutions are much more loosely coupled or supportive and where the existing literature suggests actors are more likely to make recourse to informal networks of support to resolve systemic challenges (McGuinness and Demirbag, 2012; Demirbag and Wood, 2018; Hyden, 1983; Wood and Frynas, 2006). Hence, it is often held that external network ties between players in emerging markets tend to be informal and a way of compensating for systemic weakness (Horak et al., 2020; Hyden, 1983; Koch, 2022). This is seen as distinct from the formal dense ties that interlink actors within some of the more successful mature markets, and that constitutes a core concern in this article (Jackson and Deeg, 2008, 2019).

In this study, we focus on external engagements between firms, rather than the informal extended networks of support involving families, clans or regional peers. Although dense formal ties between actors may be seen as conducive to successful TM (Festing et al., 2013), the literature is rather unclear as to how viable and effective dense network ties, based on formalized engagement and knowledge sharing between industry peers, customers and suppliers, are in emerging markets, and perhaps most importantly, the value key actors assign to this (see Allen, 2014; Hall and Soskice, 2001).

There is much debate around the circumstances under which TM may succeed (Sparrow and Makram, 2015). On the one hand, it has been argued that as a strategic choice, TM has universalistic benefits and that it opens opportunities for managers around the world (Garavan, 2012). On the other hand, it has been suggested that successful TM is dependent on contextual supports, not only including the internal and external availability of skills and training but also a broadly supportive and consistent regulatory environment (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2020).

Turkey represents an interesting context for such an analysis. The country is undeniably one of the more prosperous emerging markets, with a diverse economy and a relatively good physical infrastructure. However, it is also widely seen as having a challenging and unpredictable institutional environment and, indeed, the country has experienced a great deal of macroeconomic volatility over the years (Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 2023; World Economic Forum, 2023). It has also been held that regulations are often inappropriate to the needs of firms (Nibbe and Çamlıca, 2014). There has been growing recognition of the importance of understanding how firms operate under volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (Mack et al., 2015). Although even some mature democracies face such challenges, it can be argued that a country such as Turkey, which is both relatively developed and yet faces economic and political uncertainties, provides an interesting context to understand how firms cope under such circumstances.

In summary, this study aims to address two pivotal issues. First, it seeks to identify the specific contexts in which TM is likely to emerge and thrive within the constraints of an emerging market characterized by institutional deficiencies. In essence, we investigate the factors contributing to the success of TM in seemingly challenging circumstances, exploring managerial perspectives on contextual features often perceived as constraints in the existing literature on business operations. Second, the article delves into the significance of external network ties within an industry, as well as with customers and suppliers, in supporting TM initiatives. This builds upon prior research that primarily focused on internal network ties (Pagan-Castaño et al., 2022). Notably, we conduct this exploration in a context where the prevailing assumption emphasizes the importance of informally constituted networks that support individual actors. By doing so, we contribute insights to both theory and practice, shedding light on the implications of our findings for understanding and implementing TM strategies within unique and often challenging business environments.

This research found that in an emerging market with incomplete institutional coverage, TM was more likely to be encountered in organizations that sought to build formal ties with other actors and that this provided them with a competitive advantage. Hence, this study sheds light on where and how firms in inhospitable environments make effective use of high value-added managerial practices as a basis for superior performance. It might be held that organizations seek to build formal ties with peers and other actors when there are systemic incentives and support for the same (Jackson and Deeg, 2008). However, they may take the initiative themselves, contriving local ecosystems where it is easier to practise higher value-added practices; dense formal ties would mitigate against excessive opportunism by other players (Hall and Soskice, 2001; Jackson and Deeg, 2008), and hence may provide the space to invest in talent.

The viability of talent management in emerging markets: Constraints and networks

There is much debate as to whether TM really enhances returns (see, for example, Minbaeva and Collings, 2013). However, existing research concludes that TM affords the ability to change capabilities and may be enhanced through interactions between network actors (Fainshmidt et al., 2016; Kaše et al., 2009). Glaister et al. (2018) suggest that TM becomes a transmission mechanism enabling organizations to adapt to change through a range of flexible, socially driven, people engagement practices. Latukha et al. (2022a, 2022b) highlight the centrality of development and retention practices on firm performance, and Son et al. (2020) assert that TM helps to foster innovation (Basco et al., 2023). TM has been linked to the enhanced acquisition, assimilation and transformation of knowledge (Latukha, 2018). It is through the building of organizational capabilities via HRM interventions that organizations create resilience, and this relationship is stronger in the presence of uncertainty (Branicki et al., 2019; Cooper et al., 2015; Do et al., 2020). However, there remains much debate around not only whether TM enhances employee capabilities and performance but also whether, in turn, it might contribute to the overall bottom line (e.g. De Boeck et al., 2018). De Boeck et al. (2018) conclude that the mixed results might reflect the omission of context-specific and internal organizational factors.

Moreover, it has been argued that TM is more effective in contexts where there is a strong education and training system, which might raise the question of its viability in many emerging markets (Nankervis, 2013). There are two possible interpretations. The first is that chronic systemic weaknesses will make effective TM rare; efforts at TM are likely to flounder. A second is that actors may forge bottom–up solutions. Institutional shortfalls do not mean that high value-added practices cannot work; indeed, some systemic features may work quite well in seemingly unpromising environments, even though others are less effective (Demirbag et al., 2014; Kwong et al., 2021; Wood and Frynas, 2006).

It is argued that uncertainty creates a range of management constraints including the ability to hire managers with the right skills, to continue to train and develop employees despite austerity measures, to change employment regulations and trade union pressures, and to understand which new management practices to introduce as a suitable response to these external pressures (Kaplan, 2008; Kor and Mesko, 2013; Lai et al., 2016).

Within many uncertain contexts, it is widely noted that informal networks provide a way of compensating for institutional shortfalls (Demirbag and Wood, 2018; Hyden, 1983; Wood and Frynas, 2006). Such networks facilitate exchange relations and help offset failures in regulation and regulatory enforcement, but they also can be associated with patriarchal behaviours and corruption. However, it would be incorrect to assume that networks play a purely compensatory role when institutions are less than effective. It is also the case that in coordinated market countries (i.e. Scandinavia, Rhineland countries and Japan) with complex and, in most instances, highly functional institutional arrangements, dense formal network ties between players are both supported by institutions and provide the basis of complementarities (Jackson and Deeg, 2008, 2019). Inter alia, this is seen as conducive to investment in organizational-specific capabilities and skills and career planning, making for sustained competitiveness (Hall and Soskice, 2001).

Networks can help overcome specific obstacles in a market; they can reduce transaction and knowledge acquisition costs and assist the co-creation of resources and customer value (Chandra and Wilkinson, 2017; Musteen et al., 2010; Peng et al., 2005); they enable actors to develop a shared understanding of diverse pressures and organizational priorities and access information about options that were hitherto inaccessible (Keller et al., 2020; Nayak et al., 2018). The combination of network resources offers opportunities for cost reduction, knowledge development and exchange, further alliance formation and knowledge recombination (Goerzen, 2007; Mitsuhashi and Min, 2016; Srećković, 2018), and an organization’s perceptions and strategic priorities can be informed by these networks (Liu et al., 2010; Rizopoulos and Sergakis, 2010). Again, networks foster knowledge-brokering, the development of social capital and the transfer of fresh thinking into the organization, providing feedback on the feasibility of specific actions (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000: 1108; Ford et al., 2018; Zollo and Winter, 2002). These can help to create simple routines and capabilities that rely on experiential activities, rapidly creating adaptive, situational-based knowledge. Such networks include, inter alia, government bodies, universities and informal and formal personal relationships that may be maintained by a few social-capital-rich gatekeepers who oil the flow of information (Blyler and Coff, 2003; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Salvato and Vassolo, 2018).

Formal network ties may make TM feasible; they mitigate against excessive opportunism in intra-employer interactions and optimize knowledge and skills development. Indeed, it could be argued that coordinated markets may be conducive to broad-based TM (Festing et al., 2013). In contrast, informal network ties are often associated with patronage (Hyden, 1983), and hence may be counter-productive to effective TM. Hence, it is denser formal network ties that may make TM more viable; here, the issue emerges as to whether actors see it as worth engaging with other established actors (e.g. employer associations and industry peers) and sharing knowledge between them. Accordingly, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1: Formal network ties positively mediate the relationship between talent management practices and firm performance in an emerging market setting.

If formal network ties make TM more feasible, the question emerges as to whether their beneficial effects are still valid in contexts with weaker institutions and a much greater level of uncertainty. In other words, can dense formal ties between the firm and other players be conducive to TM in emerging markets, given that the institutional support for such networks might be limited or ineffective? Indeed, if institutions are weak, this might mitigate against their formation in the first place and, indeed, their effectiveness once formed.

There have been many accounts as to what might constrain managerial capabilities. Commonly, it is held that this might encompass the ability to secure skilled managers in the first place, the ability to invest in people and relative knowledge of the potential range of strategies and practices (Bloom et al., 2013). The literature on employment rights and labour law is more ambiguous. On the one hand, it has been argued that restraints on owner and managerial power vis-a-vis employees discourage innovation and result in organizational resources being diverted away from the bottom line, and this is carried over into influential scales of managerial constraints (Botero et al., 2004). On the other hand, it has also been argued that constraints on managerial power may discourage an excessively opportunistic approach to employees; when it is harder to easily shed labour, then firms have greater incentives to invest in their people and employees to build their organization-specific skills (Goergen et al., 2012). It might seem that these two arguments are necessarily contradictory. However, they are both predicated on a high level of institutional effectiveness.

Weaker institutions may mean that employers cannot count on consistency from regulatory authorities. This means that managerial power is constrained by uncertainty; optimal decision making is challenging when the reaction of sometimes capricious authorities is uncertain. Again, while strong security of tenure may incentivize skills and development, if employers and employees are uncertain as to whether the law will be enforced, then any potential benefits are lost. Employers will be discouraged from long-term investment in skills and careers if the environment seems uncertain; legal complexities and the potential capricious enforcement of employment law add to this. Meanwhile, employees cannot be secure in their rights and will inevitably focus on what skills and capabilities are externally marketable. Indeed, regulatory uncertainty is likely to add to opportunism on both sides. Again, labour law in emerging markets may often be conducive to the interests of larger firms but counter-productive to smaller ones; in part, this is because smaller players face uncertainties around law enforcement, which may discourage reinvestment and incentivize opportunism (Bischoff and Wood, 2013). This might suggest that they may constitute managerial constraints in the Turkish context; it is not worker rights or unions per se but rather an unpredictability in their effects that may pose severe challenges, particularly for a specific firm.

In summary, systemically induced uncertainty may weaken managerial capabilities. In turn, it may make it harder to effectively implement TM policies (de Boeck et al., 2018). Hence, there is a need to account for uncertainty and how it impacts what management can achieve in implementing TM policies (Cappelli and Keller, 2014). Accordingly, managerial capabilities (or, more specifically, how much they are constrained by uncertainty) may moderate the relationship between TM practices and performance (that is mediated by formal network ties) (see Wu et al., 2020). Hence, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 2: Constraints on managerial effectiveness moderate the relationship between talent management practices and firm performance (mediated by formal network ties) in an emerging market setting.

Figure 1 illustrates our research framework, outlining the hypothesized links.

Figure 1.

Research framework.

Method

Sample and procedure

A structured questionnaire was adopted to gather firm-level primary data from firms in Turkey. The questionnaire was translated from English into Turkish and then back-translated into English following Brislin (1970) to ensure both accuracy in translation and to identify misinterpretations prior to any administration.

Firms from several industries were sampled from the industrial database of TOBB (The Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey, http://www.tobb.org.tr). This database comprises over 40,000 firms registered within 93 local chambers of commerce in Turkey. We conducted our study by including only firms with 20 or more employees, which was a deliberate choice based on the belief that smaller organizations with fewer than 20 employees might not have a recognizable people management function. Some practitioner-orientated work suggests that typically when organizations reach 20 employees, there is a higher likelihood of having the same (van Vulpen, 2023). However, setting a specific number, like 20 employees, as a universal cut-off for an organization to have a recognizable HRM department may not be universally applicable. The need for an HRM department and its appropriate size can vary significantly, depending on factors such as the organization’s industry, the complexity of tasks, workforce structure and strategic goals (Cardon and Stevens, 2004). It can be argued that TM is more commonly encountered in larger firms. However, it is also worth noting that the figure of 20 employees is frequently utilized as a cut-off point in influential national firm surveys of HRM and industrial relations (Knox and Walsh, 2005), including ones that deal with aspects of TM. However, we chose this smaller figure, considering the importance of small businesses in the Turkish economy.

Through a random sampling selection procedure, a total of 1000 firms was generated and constituted the sampling frame for the study.

A Turkish version of the questionnaire was posted to the general manager of each firm with a cover letter requesting that the survey be completed by a general manager or senior executive with inter-departmental responsibilities with detailed knowledge about TM practices. After two rounds of data collection and one reminder, a total of 251 questionnaires were returned, of which 238 were usable, representing an effective response rate of 23.8%. Although very low response rates can undermine a study’s credibility, there is no fixed rule regarding an acceptable response rate (Baruch and Holtom, 2008: Parry et al., 2021). Again, higher response rates do not necessarily make for a better balance in responses; indeed, it is not only very low but also unusually high response rates that may result in bias (Parry et al., 2021). Our response rate is broadly comparable with, or exceeds, contemporary international surveys of HRM practice (Parry et al., 2021). The characteristics of the sample firms are summarized in Table 1. The sample consists of both Turkish indigenous firms (58%) and subsidiaries of MNEs (42%). In total, 14.3% of the firms have more than 1000 employees, and 66.4% are characterized as small and SMEs employing fewer than 250 workers. In terms of firm age, 46.2% of the firms have been operating for over 20 years, and 26.5% of the firms have been operating between 10 and 20 years. Regarding the managerial roles held by the responding managers, it was noted that 35% occupied top-level managerial positions (e.g. Chief Executive Officers, chairpersons, board members and managing directors). Additionally, 19% held senior-level managerial positions (e.g. Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer and Deputy General Manager). The remaining 46% were in various other senior-level management roles (e.g. HRM Director, Factory Head and Planning Manager).

Table 1.

Characteristics of respondent firms.

Characteristics	N	%
Ownership type
Domestic	138	58.0
MNE subsidiary	100	42.0
Age (years)
Less than 5	33	13.9
5–10	32	13.4
11–20	63	26.5
21–40	66	27.8
More than 40	44	18.4
Size (number of employees)
Less than 250	158	66.4
250–1000	46	19.3
More than 1000	34	14.3
Industry
Low tech	86	36.2
Medium tech	66	27.7
High tech	86	36.1
Total	238	100

To evaluate non-response bias, responses from early and late respondents were compared, and there were no statistically significant differences. A comparison of a randomly selected group of 120 non-participant firms and the 238 participant firms revealed no significant differences for any firm-level characteristics.

Measures

Brief descriptions of the endogenous and exogenous variables, along with the control variables used in this study, are provided below. All constructs were measured using five-point Likert scales that were reflective, except for networks, which was a formative scale.

Firm performance

Our assessment of company performance relied on a subjective measure, drawing upon the perceptions of managers who responded over the last three years. These managers were asked to rate their satisfaction with their firm’s performance in several key areas, including growth in profits, sales, market share, return on assets, return on sales, the ratio of total sales to total assets and overall performance (Huselid, 1995; Kim and Gong, 2009; Pearce et al., 1987; Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe, 2020).

While objective measures provide concrete and quantitative data, utilizing a subjective measure for measuring financial performance offers various justifications. Subjective measures allow for a more holistic, contextually relevant and nuanced understanding of the complex aspects of firm performance. Additionally, they can help overcome challenges related to gaining access to objective financial data. Importantly, subjective measures of firm performance have been found to correlate well with objective measures (Geringer and Hebert, 1991; Powell, 1992).

By employing a subjective measure, we aim to capture the managerial perception and assessment of their firm’s performance, providing valuable insights into the organization’s overall achievements and strategic direction relative to perceived competitor success over a period of time. Multiple measures enable a degree of ‘soft’ triangulation and checking. This approach allows us to explore the human and behavioural aspects that influence financial outcomes, going beyond the strict numerical indicators provided by objective measures. Moreover, it enables us to consider the specific contexts, challenges and opportunities faced by each organization, leading to a more comprehensive analysis of firm performance in our study.

Management constraints

We assessed management constraints by utilizing eight items adapted from Bloom et al. (2011). Following validity and reliability analysis, only five items were retained for the scale. The deleted items include ‘hiring non-managers with the right skills’, ‘bureaucracy within the organization’ and ‘obtaining cost-effective management consultancy’. Those that were retained connect closely to the factors that shape TM. The TM literature suggests that hiring managers with the right skills is particularly problematic in a local setting and therefore the onus is placed on organizations to invest in more training and development internally. This has cost implications and risks associated with employee turnover. The institutional employment regulations and laws further shape and potentially limit workplace practice, setting parameters for action via a range of potentially coercive measures. Further, the presence of trade unions, while beneficial, places further constraints on organizational activities and emphasizes negotiation over unilateral action. These will further impact the predictability of workforce experience and managerial knowledge and understanding of the various practices that could be introduced in a given setting.

Networks

Formal network ties were assessed by rating the importance of three different knowledge sources for the firm drawn from the UK Innovation Survey 2016–2018 (Office for National Statistics (ONS), 2019), including competitors, customers and suppliers. It should be noted that we are not measuring the operation of networks but rather how much value managers assign to relations with competitors, customers and suppliers, which, in turn, will affect the scale and extent they engage with them, and the density of ties they build with them. These networks are particularly important in helping to improve organization outcomes. Competitor networks often involve peer-to-peer learning or communities of practice involving the engagement with sets of new management practices. Suppliers, depending on the extent to which they are integrated, may help the incorporation of new workplace practices to help boost productivity and performance in supply chain issues. Customer networks offer feedback on a range of product offerings and outputs that have the potential to improve and shape future products and therefore the nature of practices and subsequent skill sets of groups of employees.

The currency of the study is perceptions. Perception-based performance indicators have become increasingly common in the literature given the influence of approaches such as the balanced scorecard (Abdel-Maksoud et al., 2005) to promote and encourage a range of activities that may enhance outcomes (Ahmad and Zabri, 2016). A body of research compares managerially reported performance data with actual firm performance and confirms such a linkage; while managers may have incentives to talk up how well the firm is doing, claims on actual returns can, in the case of listed firms, be easily verified, discouraging gregariously false claims (Singh et al., 2016). Nonetheless, we recognize the possibilities for subjectivity. However, the key point to note is in that a grouping of employers does not see a range of critical systemic features as having any negative effect on the ability to manage talent successfully and that they also believe that it yields superior performance outcomes. Such firms are likely to persist with such measures.

TM practices

We adopted a set of TM practices, derived from Bloom and Van Reenen (2010) and Bloom et al. (2012), which include rewarding high performers, promoting excellence and attracting and retaining talent. This was subjected to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify the first-order constructs contributing to TM practices. The measures incorporated in the survey included the attraction of talent involving the provision of rewards and benefits that not only have extrinsic but also intrinsic value, hence the addition of non-financial rewards as a key reward component. Promotion is central to career management and the provision of a ‘line of sight’ career structure. The measures included therefore focus on the performance and the active identification and development of good performers. Rewards are central to the bundle of TM practices, and these were focused on systems of evaluation, the setting of targets and the overall systematization of reward structures ensuring a more open and transparent approach to talent more generally. Retention, arguably the ultimate goal of TM, included proactive (as opposed to reactive) measures to limit turnover and encourage talent to stay within the business.

Control variables

The study controlled for the effects of firm size, age, industry and ownership. Firm size was categorized into eight ordinal groups based on the number of employees. Regarding the industry type, firms are classified into high-tech, medium-tech and low-tech industries based on the OECD’s taxonomy of industries in terms of their extent of research and development (R&D) intensity (Galindo-Rueda and Verger, 2016). By categorizing firms based on R&D intensity into high-tech, medium-tech and low-tech industries, researchers, policymakers and stakeholders can gain insights into the technological landscape of economies, understand the drivers of innovation and tailor policies to foster growth and competitiveness in specific sectors. Firms were categorized into two ownership groups: subsidiaries of MNEs and indigenous firms from Turkey.

Common method bias

Although there has been a tendency against the usage of cross-sectional data, survey-based research of this nature has played a hugely influential role in moulding the field of people management, and well-designed studies continue to find their way into well-regarded journals, including Human Relations (Schulz et al., 2022). In dealing with potential common method bias (CMB), we deploy post hoc remedies, following on earlier work (Gong et al., 2005). We began by employing Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) with EFA and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine CMB. However, recognizing the limitations of Harman’s single-factor test in detecting CMB, which has been found to be insensitive (Nimon, 2017), we subsequently utilized the more informative and sophisticated CFA marker technique as an alternative method (Bozionelos and Simmering, 2022; Simmering et al., 2015).

Harman’s single-factor test with EFA is widely recognized as a prominent approach for evaluating CMB in studies with a single-method research design (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; Podsakoff et al., 2003). In this test, all study items undergo EFA, and the presence of CMB is indicated if either (1) a single factor emerges from unrotated factor solutions or (2) a primary factor accounts for a significant portion of the variance in the variables (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). In our current investigation, employing Harman’s single-factor test with EFA revealed that it accounted for 19.8% of the variance, indicating that CMB might be of less concern (χ²/df = 1.69, NFI = 0.915, CFI = 0.963, RMSA = 0.054).

As an alternative to EFA, CFA can be employed when conducting Harman’s single-factor test (Liang et al., 2007; Malhotra et al., 2006). In the CFA approach, all observable items are modelled as indicators of a single factor, representing method effects. The presence of CMB is indicated when a substantial portion of the overall covariance is accounted for by this single factor among all factors. In our study, the CFA-based analysis revealed that 8.4% of the variation was explained by the CMB (χ²/df = 1.684, NFI = 0.918, CFI = 0.964, RMSA = 0.054). As a result, we concluded that CMB was not a significant concern in our research.

In our study, we adopted the CFA variant marker variable technique (Simmering et al., 2015) as a robust approach to test CMB in self-report data (Lindell and Whitney, 2001; Williams et al., 2010). The fundamental idea behind this marker variable approach using CFA is to identify the variance attributable to CMB if it affects the relationships among variables in the theoretical model. To serve as a CMB marker, we chose the socially relevant objectives (SRO) construct in our survey for two reasons: (1) it is theoretically unrelated to the substantive constructs in our model, and (2) it was measured using a similar Likert-type scale format. SRO was assessed using five items measuring the importance that firms attach to objectives focused on the reduction of energy usage, mitigation of environmental damage, increasing flexibility of production, fulfilling government regulation or standards and reduction in usage of materials. These items have been adapted from the UK Innovation Survey 2016–2018 (ONS, 2019).

Our findings indicated that 6% of the variation was accounted for by the CMB (χ²/df = 1.589, NFI = 0.88, CFI = 0.951, RMSA = 0.05), suggesting that CMB is not an issue in this study.

Endogeneity

Before testing the hypotheses, we also checked if endogeneity was a serious concern by reverse causality (Lu et al., 2018). In particular, there was a possibility of reverse causality between TM practices and networks. The theoretical potential of networks influencing TM practices raises the risk of TM practices being endogenous. The Gaussian copula approach was employed and tested for an endogeneity threat without instrumental variables (Park and Gupta, 2012). To carry out the Gaussian copula approach, one needs to use the latent variable scores of the original model estimation as input. Next, whether the variables are non-normally distributed should be checked (Sarstedt et al., 2020).

A latent variable score of TM practices and networks was checked using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test with Lilliefors correction approaches. The results indicated that none of the latent variables had a normal distribution. Then, the copula approach can be used to check the endogeneity problem in the model. The results indicate that Gaussian copulas labelled as TM practices^C (β = 0.029) are not significant (p > 0.1) in the copula model. Hence, it may be less likely that there is an endogeneity problem in this study.

Analysis and results

Descriptive statistics with the means, standard deviations and correlations are presented in Table 2. TM practices comprise 15 items, and EFA was conducted with varimax rotation to derive the multiple dimensions. The factor analysis revealed four dimensions: attracting human capital, promoting high performers, retaining talent and rewarding high performance. Reliability analysis was performed on these four factors. Based on the loadings and the item-to-total correlations, items with low loadings or correlations were removed from the analysis. Table 3 shows the 12 items that were selected for further analysis and the results from EFA and reliability analysis. The four factors accounted for 64.6% of the observed variance and Cronbach’s alpha >0.7, indicating scale reliability (Nunnally, 1978).

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Firm performance	3.56	0.77	1
2. Management constraints	2.39	0.98	−0.40^**	1
3. Networks	3.91	0.59	0.36^**	0.06	1
4. TM practices: Attracting human capital	3.40	0.79	0.10	0.22^**	0.19^**	1
5. TM practices: Promoting high performers	3.93	0.73	0.13^*	0.09	0.08	0.32^**	1
6. TM practices: Retaining talent	3.64	0.73	0.06	0.18^**	0.19^**	0.43^**	0.28^**	1
7. TM practices: Rewarding high performers	3.43	0.83	0.23^**	0.21^**	0.22^**	0.44^**	0.46^**	0.39^**	1

N = 238; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 (2-tailed).

Table 3.

EFA and reliability analysis for TM practices.

Items	Factor loadings	Construct	Cronbach’s alpha
The rewards and benefits provided by our company are comparable to those offered by others in the sector	0.713	Attracting human capital	0.732
We provide rewards and benefits better than our competitors to encourage talented people to join our company	0.743
There are non-financial rewards for top performers	0.555
People are promoted primarily on the basis of performance	0.796	Promoting high performers	0.735
Our company actively identifies, develops and promotes top performers	0.727
If two people both joined the company five years ago and one was much better than the other, that person would have been promoted ahead of the other	0.762
My company usually works hard to keep top talent	0.643	Retaining talent	0.749
My company will do whatever it takes to retain top talent	0.825
No star performer has ever left the company without someone trying to keep them	0.733
Our company has an evaluation system for the awarding of individual performance	0.827	Rewarding high performance	0.790
Rewards are clearly related to individual performance targets	0.549
There is a systematic approach to identifying individual performance	0.823

KMO = 0.836; Bartlett test of sphericity = 1196.497; p < 0.001.

Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was employed for the data analysis using SmartPLS V4 (Ringle et al., 2015). TM practices was modelled as a second-order reflective-reflective construct (with four first-order constructs, namely attracting human capital, promoting high performers, retaining talent and rewarding high performance). Using the two-stage method (Hair et al., 2018), the repeated indicator approach (with a factor weighting scheme) was used in the first stage to obtain the latent variable scores for the first-order constructs. In the second stage, these latent variable scores were used as reflective items for TM practices to analyse the measurement and structural model (with path weighting scheme), as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Results of measurement and structural model.

Measurement model

All the constructs used in the model were reflective except for networks, which was a formative construct. Table 4 provides the results for the measurement model. Internal consistency reliability was established using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability, which were >0.7 for all the reflective constructs (Dijkstra and Henseler, 2015; Henseler et al., 2016). The average variance extracted (AVE) for all reflective constructs was >0.5, and all loadings were >0.5, indicating convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity was established using the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). HTMT (heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlation) ratios for all reflective constructs were also examined to ensure that they were below 0.9 (Henseler et al., 2015). For networks (formative construct), the variance inflation factors (VIF) were checked, and they were all below 2.5, suggesting that multicollinearity is not an issue (Hair et al., 2018). The outer loadings of items constituting networks were significant (p < 0.05). This indicates the validity of the formative construct (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001).

Table 4.

Measurement model validation.

Constructs		Factor loadings^a	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability	AVE
Firm performance			0.84	0.88	0.61
PERF1	Growth of profits – relative to competitors in the last 3 years	0.84
PERF2	Growth of sales volume – relative to competitors in the last 3 years	0.69
PERF3	Growth of market share – relative to competitors in the last 3 years	0.65
PERF4	After-tax return on total assets – relative to competitors in the last 3 years	0.79
PERF5	The ratio of total sales to total assets – relative to competitors in the last 3 years	0.78
TM practices			0.71	0.82	0.53
TMP1	Attracting human capital	0.72
TMP2	Promoting high performance	0.68
TMP3	Retaining talent	0.73
TMP4	Rewarding high performance	0.83
Networks (Formative)			–	–	–
NW1	Competitors	0.71
NW2	Customers	0.69
NW3	Suppliers	0.76
Management constraints			0.69	0.82	0.62
CONS1	Hiring managers with the right skills	0.64
CONS2	Training and development of existing employees	0.83
CONS3	Employment laws and regulations	0.83
CONS4	Trade unions	0.81
CONS5	Knowing what new management practices to introduce	0.76

All factor loadings are significant at p < 0.001.

Structural model

The bootstrapping procedure was undertaken with 2000 samples to assess the structural model. The overall model fit was evaluated using a standardized root mean square residual, which was 0.067 (p < 0.01) and is less than the cut-off value of 0.08 (Henseler et al., 2016).

Table 5 shows the values of R-square (R²) and Q-square (Q²). The R² value is related to the predictive accuracy and looks at variance in the endogenous variable explicated by exogenous variable(s) (Afum et al., 2020). The R² values of networks and firm performance were calculated as 0.06 and 0.38, respectively. The explanatory power of firm performance was satisfactory though that of networks was relatively small (Chin, 1998).

Table 5.

R-square (R²) and Q-square (Q²).

Dependent variables	R²	Q²
Networks	0.060	0.043
Firm performance	0.380	0.224

The Q² value assists in determining if a model has predictive relevance. As a result of the blindfolding procedure, the Q² values of networks and firm performance were 0.043 and 0.224, respectively. These Q² values of the model were higher than zero, suggesting that the research model has a predictive relevance feature (Afum et al., 2020).

The procedure that allowed testing for mediation with a single model using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) was adopted for this study (Nitzl et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2010). The model was tested with both the indirect and direct paths using a bootstrapping procedure (Nitzl et al., 2016; Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The direct, mediation and moderated-mediation effects are shown in Table 6. The direct effect between TM practices and firm performance is found to be significant (β = 0.22, p < 0.01). Table 6 indicates that the indirect effect is also significant (β = 0.084, p < 0.05), which denotes a positive mediating effect of networks on the relationship between TM practices and firm performance. The indirect path coefficients fall within the bias-corrected confidence intervals [0.033–0.146] (p < 0.05), and zero is not included in this confidence interval. Since both direct and indirect effects are noted to be significant, there is a partial mediation effect of networks on the relationship between TM practices and firm performance (Zhao et al., 2010), supporting Hypothesis 1.

Table 6.

Direct, mediation and moderated-mediation effects.

Paths	Path coefficients
Direct effects
TM practices → Networks	0.24^**
TM practices → Firm performance	0.22^**
Networks → Firm performance	0.35^**
Management constraints → Firm performance	−0.48^**
Mediation effect (Hypothesis 1)
TM practices → Networks → Firm performance	0.084^**
Interaction effect
Management constraints × Networks → Firm performance	−0.123^*
Moderated-mediation effect (Hypothesis 2) TM practices → Networks → Firm performance
Management constraints (Low)	0.117^**
Management constraints (Medium)	0.084^**
Management constraints (High)	0.056^**
Control variables
Age → Firm performance	0.018
Size → Firm performance	−0.023
Ownership → Firm performance	0.047
Industry → Firm performance	−0.120^*

N = 238; Bootstrapping N = 2000; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Hypothesis 2 is tested through a moderated-mediation model, where TM practices is taken as the independent variable, management constraints as the moderator, networks as the mediator and firm performance as the dependent variable. As shown in Table 6, the interaction of networks and management constraints showed significant effects on firm performance (β = −0.123, p < 0.05). These results indicate that the mediating effect of networks on the relationship between TM practices and firm performance is moderated by management constraints. Figure 3 displays a plot analysis of our moderated-mediation model. The effect of TM practices on firm performance through networks becomes stronger at a low level of management constraints (β = 0.117, p < 0.01) than at a high level (β = 0.056, p < 0.01). Moreover, the pairwise contrasts between conditional indirect effects (Contrast = 0.117–0.056, p < 0.05) are also found to be significant, thus confirming Hypothesis 2.

Figure 3.

Plot analysis of moderated-mediation model.

Additionally, f² values were also examined in the study since the path coefficients did not provide complete information about the effect size. According to Cohen (1988), if the f² value is greater than 0.35, it is considered to have a strong effect; between 0.15 and 0.35, a moderate effect; and between 0.02 and 0.15, a weak effect. In the light of intervals, management constraints (0.349) and networks (0.182) have a strong effect on firm performance. On the other hand, TM practices (0.07) and the interaction term (0.023) have a weak effect on the firm performance.

Among the control variables, only the industry type was found to affect firm performance significantly (p < 0.01).

Robustness of the model

The robustness of the model is also checked by investigating whether there is a nonlinear relationship between the dependent and independent constructs using Ramsey’s (1969) regression equation specification error test (RESET).

To implement the RESET test in a variance-based structural equation model, construct scores should first be computed. Then quadratic and cubic effects should be considered to check whether the specification of a nonlinear effect yields a significant result (Sarstedt et al., 2020). In the model, firm performance was used as a dependent construct, and TM practices, networks and management constraints were used as independent constructs. Quadratic and cubic terms are added together to the model to check the potential nonlinear effect using STATA MP 18th Version software.

Ramsey’s RESET results indicate that both quadratic (Y² = 0.062) and cubic (Y³ = −0.08) nonlinear effects were found to be insignificant. Therefore, it is concluded that our linear model is robust.

Discussion and conclusions

This study examines the impacts of managerial constraints on the use of TM and its impact on firm performance. We acknowledge that the relationship between TM (and, indeed, HRM more generally) and performance is a complex one and is never likely to be definitively settled. We know that TM does not always result in performance enhancements. However, managers perceived it to make a difference; earlier work suggested that managerial perceptions of performance most commonly provide an accurate reflection of actual returns. In any event, managers are more likely to persist with, and extend such practices, if they perceive them as working. Our study found that formal network ties may make TM more viable. This may be because denser ties between actors mitigate against short-term opportunism (Hall and Soskice, 2001; Jackson and Deeg, 2008); this may provide firms with more space to invest in their people and deepen their pool of high performers. Such ties may facilitate knowledge sharing and mutual investment in skills development and promote longer-termism (Allen, 2014; Jackson and Deeg, 2008; Hall and Soskice, 2001); all these may be conducive to TM. The study confirms that when a higher value is assigned to engagement with other formally constituted groupings (business groups, competitors, customers, consulting firms, suppliers, universities and public/private non-profit research institutes), TM practices are more likely, and in turn, that the latter is more effective in terms of performance outcomes.

The comparative institutional literature would suggest that not only are formal linkages less prevalent in emerging market settings such as Turkey (as adverse to extended informal personal and group-based networks of support) but also that they may be less effective, given the absence of advanced institutional complementarities (see Crouch et al., 2005; Schotter et al., 2021). We found otherwise; more specifically, the comparative institutionalist theoretical literature suggests that dense formal ties between actors are less common when institutions are more loosely coupled and less effective, as is the case in Turkey (and other emerging markets) when compared with the mature economies (Darwish et al., 2024; Demirbag and Wood, 2018; Hall and Soskice, 2001). Nonetheless, this study highlights where they may emerge, persist and make a genuine difference. This helps answer the puzzle as to why firms that base their competitiveness on high value-added production paradigms may prosper in challenging settings; in short, bottom–up solutions are contrived that may approximate some of the features of a mature market setting. In other words, our study confirms the valuable role denser formal ties may play between players (Jackson and Deeg, 2008), even in uncertain contexts with weaker institutions. However, in the absence of systemically conferred incentives, managerial decisions to engage in such tie building with peers and other formally constituted actors very much represent an ad hoc choice with potential benefits being only visible down the line. This study suggests that contexts such as Turkey are more complex than might initially be assumed; it is easy to dismiss emerging markets as largely dysfunctional or beset with institutional voids (Ge et al., 2019; Liedong et al., 2020). However, this study highlights how even in such settings, formal dense ties between established actors may emerge and persist, and this is conducive to the addition of high value-added intra-organizational practices. Hence, it could be argued that there is a need for a more nuanced understanding of institutions in settings such as Turkey; institutions are complex and multi-faceted. Even if some may be dysfunctional, this does not mean that this is uniformly the case. Instead, islands of functionality in both rules and practice may emerge and persist, making for firm-level outcomes that cannot readily be dismissed as sub-optimal in world terms. Indeed, the relative success of certain Turkish industries, such as electrical machinery, automotive, heavy engineering and apparel (and exports), would suggest some merit to this argument.

Again, the study found that when management operates under fewer systemically induced restraints, the effect of TM practices on firm performance via formal network ties becomes stronger than under high management constraints. It is important to note that the article deals with perceptions of restraints rather than actual facts on the ground. As some of the variables (e.g. employment laws and regulations) are common to all firms captured by the survey, differences in employer responses would suggest that the system is seen in a more positive light by some players than others. For example, some employers may see trade unions as an opponent that diverts resources from the bottom line and others as an important partner. When institutional regulation is uneven, such diversity in views is particularly likely; stronger regulation is likely to result in greater uniformity of outcomes. What is interesting about the study is that it showed that more successful managers in making use of TM did not perceive the system simply in terms of disadvantages that are impossible to overcome, even if they believed they operated under greater systemic constraints. It may be that better-resourced and higher-profile firms are not only more likely to practise TM but also, being higher profile, are more conspicuous to the authorities and hence be more likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny. In other words, they are indeed subject to greater constraints than their lower-profile counterparts. However, they seem nonetheless capable of adopting practices such as TM that enhance their competitive advantage rather than simply playing a compensatory role.

Practical implications

Clearly, effective TM can make a difference, at least in terms of managerial perceptions thereof; this study showed that many managers believed it made a material difference to the bottom line. In turn, this means that they are more likely to persist with and extend such practices, perhaps even towards broadening the base thereof. However, if managers think that TM works for a few, it does not mean that they necessarily believe it will work for the bulk of employees. On the one hand, some contexts are much more conducive to TM than others, based on the relative availability of skills and training and regulatory support. On the other hand, the study did suggest that even within a seemingly challenging context, TM can make a difference. It may be the case that firms that were more effective in operating in the Turkish environment in other areas of management practice were more successful, and TM was simply a by-product. However, this would still demonstrate the importance for managers to transcend views of context that see national systems largely in terms of posing difficulties; even if the latter do genuinely pose problems, it is nonetheless possible to contrive solutions that add value. This study underscores strategies to enhance the likelihood of success in TM within emerging markets. Achieving this goal involves cultivating more robust connections – beyond mere arm’s-length contracting – not only with customers and suppliers but also with competitors. Establishing dense ties with all these stakeholders not only facilitates efficient knowledge flows but also contributes to greater stability and a long-term perspective (see Allen, 2014). Despite the challenges associated with forging formal relations in emerging markets, our study illustrates the feasibility and desirability of such endeavours. By emphasizing the importance of comprehensive network development, this research provides valuable insights for optimizing TM practices in dynamic and evolving business environments. Again, systemic uncertainty may often make for excessive short-term adversarialism; the study highlighted the importance of valuing other actors and formally engaging with them as a basis of competitiveness, even when systemic pressures may encourage moving in the opposite direction.

Limitations and avenues for further research

This study is specifically centred on the Turkish case, indicating the potential value of conducting comparative studies within other similarly structured systems. Exploring how TM may thrive in less favourable institutional environments could provide valuable insights. Our focus has been on narrow-based TM, a strategy often adopted owing to the relatively limited pool of existing skills and capabilities, making broader-based TM particularly challenging. However, investigating instances of broader-based TM in contexts such as Turkey and understanding how formalized links between organizations and other actors facilitate this presents an intriguing avenue for future research. This prompts questions about the specific advantages the Turkish system might offer to such firms, necessitating qualitative inquiry methods to delve into organizational rationales for building relationships and the factors influencing the range and scope of such ties.

Despite our meticulous evaluation using various alternative methods, including the CFA marker technique, the presence of CMB persists in our data. Recognizing the methodological limitations associated with cross-sectional data, further complementary studies are recommended to corroborate and potentially refine our findings.

Since our study focuses solely on one country, a comparative contextual analysis is beyond its scope. Nevertheless, we aspire that our study serves as a catalyst for future comparative research in this domain. This could encompass investigations into other emerging markets with distinct pockets of competitiveness, such as South Africa, Mexico and Brazil, facilitating a nuanced understanding of institutional effects in these settings rather than viewing them merely as challenges to be navigated.

Footnotes

This article is dedicated to our beloved friend and esteemed colleague,Professor Smitha R Nair,who sadly passed away during the final draft of the article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research,authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Mehmet Demirbag

Geoffrey Wood

Mehmet Demirbag is a Professor of International Business and Deputy Dean of Essex Business School at the University of Essex,UK. Mehmet’s research has been published in prestigious journals such as the Journal of International Business Studies,Journal of Management Studies,British Journal of Management,Business History,Human Resource Management,Journal of World Business,and Human Resource Management Journal,among others. Mehmet’s research interests center on the relationship between institutional settings,internationalization,and market entry by emerging market multinational enterprises. Additionally,he focuses on post-acquisition dynamics and knowledge creation in emerging markets. [Email: mdemirc@essex.ac.uk ]

Ekrem Tatoglu is a professor of International Business and affiliated with Gulf University for Science & Technology,Kuwait and Ibn Haldun University,Istanbul,Turkey. His research interests include global management strategies,operations management,and strategy in emerging countries. He has published over 120 scholarly articles in esteemed international journals,including the British Journal of Management,Journal of World Business,International Business Review,Human Resource Management,Omega,Industrial Marketing Management,among other distinguished publications. He also served on several editorial boards,including Employee Relations,International Journal of Emerging Markets and European Journal of International Management . He has been a Fellow of the Turkish Academy of Sciences since 2015. [Email: tatoglu.e@gust.edu.kw ]

Geoffrey Wood is Professor and DanCap Private Equity Chair,and Department Chair DAN Management at Western University in Canada,and Professor at the University of Bath and Cranfield University,UK. Geoff’s research interests centre on the relationship between institutional setting,corporate governance,firm finance and firm-level work and employment relations. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences,a Fellow of the British Academy of Management,and is also in receipt of an Honorary Doctorate in economics from Aristotle University,Greece. [Email: gwood23@uwo.ca ]

Alison J Glaister is an Associate Professor in International Human Resource Management. Her research focuses on the international and strategic aspects of human resource management with a particular specialism in global talent management and the transfer of people practices across borders. After having worked in industry for over a decade in international customer relationship management,Alison has developed a keen research interest in the impact of institutional settings on the nature of people practices and practice transfer with a specialist focus on emerging markets. Her work examines the way in which practices are hybridized and then reabsorbed,and their subsequent impacts on various hard and soft measures of firm performance. She has published articles in a range of internationally leading and peer-reviewed academic journals including Journal of World Business,Human Resource Management Journal,International Journal of Human Resource Management and Management International Review,and she has authored a series of industry reports for personnel specialists. [Email: alison.glaister@york.ac.uk ]

Selim Zaim is a Distinguished Professor within the Management Department at Ibn Haldun University. He has authored over 70 articles featured in esteemed journals such as the International Journal of Production Research,Technological Forecasting and Social Change,Journal of Business Research,Decision Support Systems and Supply Chain Management,among others. Dr Zaim’s scholarly pursuits encompass multivariate data analysis,supply chain management,data analytics and knowledge management,reflecting his commitment to advancing these domains. Notably,he has played pivotal roles in several European Union projects dedicated to enhancing education quality in Turkey. [Email: selim.zaim@ihu.edu.tr ]

The late Smitha R Nair was a Professor of International Business and Strategy at Rajagiri College of Management and Applied Science in India. Before her position in India,she served as a senior lecturer at the Norwich Business School,University of East Anglia,UK. Her research focused on international knowledge transfers,organizational innovation and the internationalization of emerging market multinational corporations. She held a PhD in International Business from the University of Sheffield,UK. Smitha authored or co-authored book chapters and scholarly articles in leading journals such as the British Journal of Management,International Business Review,Management International Review and International Journal of Management Reviews .

References

Abdel-Maksoud

Dugdale

Luther

(2005) Non-financial performance measurement in manufacturing companies. The British Accounting Review 37(3): 261–297.

Afum

Agyabeng-Mensah

Sun

, et al. (2020) Exploring the link between green manufacturing, operational competitiveness, firm reputation and sustainable performance dimensions: A mediated approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 31(7): 1417–1438.

Ahmad

Zabri

(2016) The effect of non-financial performance measurement system on firm performance. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues 6(6): 50–54.

Allen

(2014) Business systems theory and employment relations. In: Wilkinson

Wood

Deeg

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Employment Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 86–113.

Baruch

Holtom

(2008) Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations 61(8): 1139–1160.

Basco

Bassetti

Dal Maso

, et al. (2023) Why and when do family firms invest less in talent management? The suppressor effect of risk aversion. Journal of Management and Governance 27(1): 101–130.

Bhatnagar

Budhwar

(2019) Macro talent management in India: A contextual analysis of the challenges, opportunities and emerging patterns. In: Vaiman

Sparrow

Schuler

, et al. (eds) Macro Talent Management in Emerging and Emergent Markets. Oxon: Routledge, 85–103.

Bischoff

Wood

(2013) Selective informality: The self-limiting growth choices of small businesses in South Africa. International Labour Review 152(3–4): 493–505.

Blanco

Golik

(2019) Macro talent management in Argentina. Application of the macro perspective in volatile environments. In: Vaiman

Sparrow

Schuler

, et al. (eds) Macro Talent Management in Emerging and Emergent Markets. London: Routledge, 104–122.

10.

Bloom

Van Reenen

(2010) Why do management practices differ across firms and countries? Journal of Economic Perspectives 24(1): 203–224.

11.

Bloom

Eifert

Mahajan

, et al. (2013) Does management matter? Evidence from India. Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(1): 1–51.

12.

Bloom

Genakos

Sadun

, et al. (2012) Management practices across firms and countries. Academy of Management Perspectives 26(1): 12–33.

13.

Bloom

Lemos

, et al. (2011) Constraints on developing UK management practices. BIS Research Paper 58: 1–52.

14.

Blyler

Coff

(2003) Dynamic capabilities, social capital, and rent appropriation: Ties that split pies. Strategic Management Journal 24(7): 677–686.

15.

Botero

Djankov

Porta

, et al. (2004) The regulation of labor. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 119(4): 1339–1382.

16.

Boudreau

(2013) Appreciating and ‘retooling’ diversity in talent management conceptual models: A commentary on the psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review 23(4): 286–289.

17.

Bozionelos

Simmering

(2022) Methodological threat or myth? Evaluating the current state of evidence on common method variance in human resource management research. Human Resource Management 32(1): 194–215.

18.

Branicki

Steyer

Sullivan-Taylor

(2019) Why resilience managers aren’t resilient, and what human resource management can do about it. International Journal of Human Resource Management 30(8): 1261–1286.

19.

Brislin

(1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1(3): 185–216.

20.

Cappelli

Keller

(2014) Talent management: Conceptual approaches and practical challenges. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1(1): 305–331.

21.

Cardon

Stevens

(2004) Managing human resources in small organizations: What do we know? Human Resource Management Review 14(3): 295–323.

22.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2018) Middle East: Turkey – The World Factbook – Central Intelligence Agency. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/turkey-turkiye/ (accessed on 2 May 2023)

23.

Chandra

Wilkinson

(2017) Firm internationalization from a network-centric complex-systems perspective. Journal of World Business 52(5): 691–701.

24.

Chin

(1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides

(ed.) Modern Methods for Business Research. Mahwah, NJ and London: Erlbaum, 295–336.

25.

Clarke

Scurry

(2017) The role of the psychological contract in shaping graduate experiences: A study of public sector talent management programmes in the UK and Australia. International Journal of Human Resource Management 31(8): 965–991.

26.

Cohen

(1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

27.

Collings

Mellahi

(2009) Strategic talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review 19(4): 304–313.

28.

Collings

Mellahi

Cascio

(2019) Global talent management and performance in multinational enterprises: A multilevel perspective. Journal of Management 45(2): 540–566.

29.

Cooke

Wang

(2019) Macro talent management in China: Institutional, cultural and technological influences and employer strategy. In: Vaiman

Sparrow

Schuler

, et al. (eds) Macro Talent Management in Emerging and Emergent Markets. Oxon: Routledge, 64–84.

30.

Cooke

Saini

Wang

(2014) Talent management in China and India: A comparison of management perceptions and human resource practices. Journal of World Business 49(2): 225–235.

31.

Cooper

Liu

Tarba

(2015) Resilience, HRM practices and impact on organizational performance and employee well-being. International Journal of Human Resource Management 25(17): 2466–2471.

32.

Crouch

Streeck

Boyer

, et al. (2005) Dialogue on ‘Institutional complementarity and political economy’. Socio-Economic Review 3(2): 359–382.

33.

Crowley-Henry

Al Ariss

(2018) Talent management of skilled migrants: Propositions and an agenda for future research. International Journal of Human Resource Management 29(13): 2054–2079.

34.

Cui

Khan

Tarba

(2018) Strategic talent management in service SMEs of China. Thunderbird International Business Review 60(1): 9–20.

35.

Darwish

Singh

Batsakis

, et al. (2024) Cross-country analysis of HRM parameters in emerging markets: An assessment of measurement invariance. British Journal of Management 35(2): 692–705.

36.

de Boeck

Meyers

Dries

(2018) Employee reactions to talent management: Assumptions versus evidence. Journal of Organizational Behavior 39(2): 199–213.

37.

Demirbag

Wood

(eds) (2018) Comparative Capitalism and the Transitional Periphery: Firm Centred Perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

38.

Demirbag

Collings

Tatoglu

, et al. (2014) High-performance work systems and organizational performance in emerging economies: Evidence from MNEs in Turkey. Management International Review 54: 325–359.

39.

Diamantopoulos

Winklhofer

(2001) Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research 38(2): 269–277.

40.

Dijkstra

Henseler

(2015) Consistent partial least squares path modelling. MIS Quarterly 39(2): 297–316.

41.

Patel

Budhwar

, et al. (2020) Institutionalism and its effect on HRM in the ASEAN context: Challenges and opportunities for future research. Human Resource Management Review 30(4): 100729.

42.

Eisenhardt

Martin

(2000) Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal 21(10–11): 1105–1121.

43.

Fainshmidt

Pezeshkan

Lance Frazier

, et al. (2016) Dynamic capabilities and organizational performance: A meta-analytic evaluation and extension. Journal of Management Studies 53(8): 1348–1380.

44.

Farndale

Scullion

Sparrow

(2010) The role of the corporate HR function in global talent management. Journal of World Business 45(2): 161–168.

45.

Festing

Schäfer

Scullion

(2013) Talent management in medium-sized German companies: An explorative study and agenda for future research. International Journal of Human Resource Management 24(9): 1872–1893.

46.

Ford

Verreynne

Steen

(2018) Limits to networking capabilities: Relationship trade-offs and innovation. Industrial Marketing Management 74: 50–64.

47.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.

48.

Galindo-Rueda

Verger

(2016) OECD taxonomy of economic activities based on R&D intensity. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2016/04. Paris: OECD Publishing.

49.

Gallardo-Gallardo

Dries

González-Cruz

(2013) What is the meaning of ‘talent’ in the world of work? Human Resource Management Review 23(4): 290–300.

50.

Gallardo-Gallardo

Thunnisen

Scullion

(2020) Talent management: Context matters. International Journal of Human Resource Management 31(4): 457–473.

51.

Garavan

(2012) Global talent management in science-based firms: An exploratory investigation of the pharmaceutical industry during the global downturn. International Journal of Human Resource Management 23(12): 2428–2449.

52.

Carney

Kellermanns

(2019) Who fills institutional voids? Entrepreneurs’ utilization of political and family ties in emerging markets. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 43(6): 1124–1147.

53.

Gelens

Hofmans

Dries

, et al. (2014) Talent management and organisational justice: Employee reactions to high potential identification. Human Resource Management Journal 24(2): 159–175.

54.

Geringer

Hebert

(1991) Measuring performance of international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies 22(2): 249–263.

55.

Glaister

Karacay

Demirbag

, et al. (2018) HRM and performance—The role of talent management as a transmission mechanism in an emerging market context. Human Resource Management Journal 28(1): 148–166.

56.

Goergen

Brewster

Wood

, et al. (2012) Varieties of capitalism and investments in human capital. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 51: 501–527.

57.

Goerzen

(2007) Alliance networks and firm performance: The impact of repeated partnerships. Strategic Management Journal 28(5): 487–509.

58.

Gong

Shenkar

Luo

, et al. (2005) Human resources and international joint venture performance: A system perspective. Journal of International Business Studies 36: 505–518.

59.

Hair

Sarstedt

Ringle

, et al. (2018) Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. London: Sage.

60.

Hall

Soskice

(2001) An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In: Hall

Soskice

(eds) Varieties of Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 21–27.

61.

Henseler

Hubona

Pauline

(2016) Using PLS path modelling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems 116(1): 2–20.

62.

Henseler

Ringle

Sarstedt

(2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43(1): 115–135.

63.

Horak

Afiouni

Bian

, et al. (2020) Informal networks: Dark sides, bright sides, and unexplored dimensions. Management and Organization Review 16(3): 511–542.

64.

Huselid

(1995) The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 38(3): 635–672.

65.

Hyden

(1983) No Shortcuts to Progress: African Development Management in Perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

66.

Jackson

Deeg

(2008) Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies 39(4): 540–561.

67.

Jackson

Deeg

(2019) Comparing capitalisms and taking institutional context seriously. Journal of International Business Studies 50(1): 4–19.

68.

Kaliannan

Darmalinggam

Dorasamy

, et al. (2023) Inclusive talent development as a key talent management approach: A systematic literature review. Human Resource Management Review 33(1): 100926.

69.

Kaplan

(2008) Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science 19(5): 729–752.

70.

Kaše

Paauwe

Zupan

(2009) HR practices, interpersonal relations and intrafirm knowledge transfer in knowledge-intensive firms: A social network perspective. Human Resource Management 48(4): 615–639.

71.

Keller

Wong

S-S

Liou

(2020) How social networks facilitate collective responses to organizational paradoxes. Human Relations 73(3): 401–428.

72.

Khilji

Tarique

Schuler

(2015) Incorporating the macro view in global talent management. Human Resource Management Review 25(3): 236–248.

73.

Kim

Gong

(2009) The roles of tacit knowledge and OCB in the relationship between group-based pay and firm performance. Human Resource Management Journal 19(2): 120–139.

74.

Kim

Halliday

Zhao

, et al. (2018) Rewarding self-initiated expatriates: A skills-based approach. Thunderbird International Business Review 60(1): 89–104.

75.

Knox

Walsh

(2005) Organisational flexibility and HRM in the hotel industry: Evidence from Australia. Human Resource Management Journal 15(1): 57–75.

76.

Koch

(2022) Strategic responses of MNCs in emerging markets: Addressing institutional voids associated with informal institutions. Critical Perspectives on International Business 18(2): 137–156.

77.

Kor

Mesko

(2013) Dynamic managerial capabilities: Configuration and orchestration of top executives’ capabilities and the firm’s dominant logic. Strategic Management Journal 34(2): 233–244.

78.

Krishnan

Scullion

(2017) Talent management and dynamic view of talent in small and medium enterprises. Human Resource Management Review 27(3): 431–441.

79.

Kwong

Demirbag

Wood

, et al. (2021) Human resource management in the context of high uncertainties. International Journal of Human Resource Management 32(17): 3569–3599.

80.

Lai

Saridakis

Blackburn

, et al. (2016) Are the HR responses of small firms different from large firms in times of recession. Journal of Business Venturing 31(1): 113–131.

81.

Latukha

(2018) Talent development and its role in shaping absorptive capacity in emerging market firms: The case of Russia. Advances in Developing Human Resources 20(4): 444–459.

82.

Latukha

Michailova

Ott

, et al. (2022a) Gender, talent management and firm performance: MNCs’ female-focused talent management practices in Russia. Employee Relations 44(4): 850–869.

83.

Latukha

Michailova

Selivanovskikh

, et al. (2022b) Talent management, organizational ambidexterity, and firm performance: Evidence from Russian firms. Thunderbird International Business Review 64(5): 379–392.

84.

Liang

Saraf

, et al. (2007) Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly 31(1): 59–87.

85.

Liedong

Peprah

Amartey

, et al. (2020) Institutional voids and firms’ resource commitment in emerging markets: A review and future research agenda. Journal of International Management 26(3): 100756.

86.

Lindell

Whitney

(2001) Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1): 114–121.

87.

Liu

C-L

Ghauri

Sinkovics

(2010) Understanding the impact of relational capital and organizational learning on alliance outcomes. Journal of World Business 45(3): 237–249.

88.

Ding

Peng

, et al. (2018) Addressing endogeneity in operations management research: Recent developments, common problems, and directions for future research. Journal of Operations Management 64: 53–64.

89.

McDonnell

Collings

Mellahi

, et al. (2017) Talent management: A systematic review and future prospects. European Journal of International Management 11(1): 86–128.

90.

McGuinness

Demirbag

(2012) The multinational enterprise, institutions and corruption. In: Wood

Demirbag

(eds) Handbook of Institutional Approaches to International Business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 274–296.

91.

Mack

Khare

Krämer

, et al. (eds) (2015) Managing in a VUCA World. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

92.

Makram

Sparrow

Greasley

(2017) How do strategic actors think about the value of talent management? Moving from talent practice to the practice of talent. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance 4(4): 259–378.

93.

Malhotra

Kim

Patil

(2006) Accounting for common method variance in IS research: Reanalysis of past studies using a marker-variable technique. Management Science 52(12): 1865–1883.

94.

Meyers

(2019) The neglected role of talent proactivity: Integrating proactive behavior into talent-management theorizing. Human Resource Management Review 30(2): 100703.

95.

Minbaeva

Collings

(2013) Seven myths of global talent management. International Journal of Human Resource Management 24(9): 1762–1776.

96.

Mitsuhashi

Min

(2016) Embedded networks and suboptimal resource matching in alliance formations. British Journal of Management 27(2): 287–303.

97.

Musteen

Francis

Datta

(2010) The influence of international networks on internationalization speed and performance: A study of Czech SMEs. Journal of World Business 45(3): 197–205.

98.

Nankervis

(2013) Building for the future? Government and industry responses to the challenges of talent management in China following the GFC. Asia Pacific Business Review 19(2): 186–199.

99.

Nayak

Bhatnagar

Budhwar

(2018) Leveraging social networking for talent management: An exploratory study of Indian firms. Thunderbird International Business Review 60(1): 21–37.

100.

Nibbe

Çamlıca

(2013) Ernst and Young’s attractiveness survey: Turkey 2013 – The shift, the growth and the promise. Available at: http://www.iberglobal.com/Archivos/turkey_attractiveness_2013.pdf (accessed 7 December 2023).

101.

Nimon

(2017) HRDQ submissions of quantitative research reports: Three common comments in decision letters and a checklist. Human Resource Development Quarterly 28(3): 281–298.

102.

Nitzl

Roldan

Cepeda

(2016) Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems 116(9): 1849–1864.

103.

Nunnally

(1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

104.

Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2019) UK Innovation Survey 2016 – 2018. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/903593/UK_innovation_survey_2019_questionnaire.pdf (accessed 7 December 2023).

105.

Outila

Vaiman

Holden

(2019) Macro talent management in Russia: Addressing entangled challenges in managing talent on the country level. In: Vaiman

Sparrow

Schuler

, et al. (eds) Macro Talent Management in Emerging and Emergent Markets. Oxon: Routledge, 25–45.

106.

Pagan-Castaño

Ballester-Miquel

Sánchez-García

, et al. (2022) What’s next in talent management? Journal of Business Research 141: 528–535.

107.

Park

Gupta

(2012) Handling endogenous regressors by joint estimation using copulas. Marketing Science 31(4): 567–586.

108.

Parry

Farndale

Brewster

, et al. (2021) Balancing rigour and relevance: The case for methodological pragmatism in conducting large-scale, multi-country and comparative management studies. British Journal of Management 32(2): 273–282.

109.

Pearce

Robbins

Robinson

Jr (1987) The impact of grand strategy and planning formality on financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 8(2): 125–134.

110.

Peng

Lee

S-H

Wang

DYL

(2005) What determines the scope of the firm over time? A focus on institutional relatedness. Academy of Management Review 30(3): 622–633.

111.

Podsakoff

Organ

(1986) Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12(1): 69–82.

112.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.

113.

Powell

(1992) Strategic planning as competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 13(7): 551–558.

114.

Preacher

Hayes

(2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40(3): 879–891.

115.

Ramsey

(1969) Tests for specification errors in classical linear least squares regression analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 31(2): 350–371.

116.

Ringle

Wende

Becker

(2015) SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt, Germany: SmartPLS GmbH. Available at: http://www.smartpls.com (accessed 31 October 2023).

117.

Rizopoulos

Sergakis

(2010) MNEs and policy networks: Institutional embeddedness and strategic choice. Journal of World Business 45(3): 250–256.

118.

Salvato

Vassolo

(2018) The sources of dynamism in dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 39(6): 1728–1752.

119.

Sarstedt

Ringle

Cheah

, et al. (2020) Structural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM. Tourism Economics 26(4): 531–554.

120.

Schotter

Meyer

Wood

(2021) Organizational and comparative institutionalism in international HRM: Toward an integrative research agenda. Human Resource Management 60(1): 205–227.

121.

Schulz

Valizade

Charlwood

(2022) The effect of intra-workplace pay inequality on employee trust in managers: Assessing a multilevel moderated mediation effect model. Human Relations 75(4): 705–733.

122.

Simmering

Fuller

Richardson

, et al. (2015) Marker variable choice, reporting, and interpretation in the detection of common method variance: A review and demonstration. Organizational Research Methods 18(3): 473–511.

123.

Singh

Darwish

Potočnik

(2016) Measuring organizational performance: A case for subjective measures. British Journal of Management 27(1): 214–224.

124.

Son

Park

Bae

, et al. (2020) Double-edged effect of talent management on organizational performance: The moderating role of HRM investments. International Journal of Human Resource Management 31(17): 2188–2216.

125.

Sparrow

Makram

(2015) What is the value of talent management? Building value-driven processes within a talent management architecture. Human Resource Management Review 25(3): 249–263.

126.

Srećković

(2018) The performance effect of network and managerial capabilities of entrepreneurial firms. Small Business Economics 50(4): 807–824.

127.

Tatoglu

Glaister

Demirbag

(2016) Talent management motives and practices in an emerging market: A comparison between MNEs and local firms. Journal of World Business 51(2): 278–293.

128.

Vaiman

Sparrow

Schuler

, et al. (eds) (2019) Macro Talent Management in Emerging and Emergent Markets: A Global Perspective. Oxon: Routledge.

129.

van Vulpen

(2023) The optimal HR to employee ratio. Academy to Innovate HR. Available at: https://www.aihr.com/blog/hr-to-employee-ratio/#:~:text=Organizational%20size.&text=Smaller%20organizations%20will%20hire%20their,employees%20is%20a%20normal%20ratio (accessed 2 November 2023).

130.

Wickramasinghe

GLD

(2020) Effects of HRM practices, lean production practices and lean duration on performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management 31(11): 1467–1512.

131.

Williams

Hartman

Cavazotte

(2010) Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods 13(3): 477–514.

132.

Wood

Frynas

(2006) The institutional basis of economic failure: Anatomy of the segmented business system. Socio-Economic Review 4(2): 239–277.

133.

World Economic Forum (2023) The global risks report, 18th edn. Insight Report. Available at: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2023.pdf (accessed 25 November 2023).

134.

Wood

Chen

, et al. (2020) Strategic ambidexterity and innovation in Chinese multinational vs. indigenous firms: The role of managerial capability. International Business Review 29(6): 101652.

135.

Zhao

Lynch

Jr Chen

(2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 37(2): 197–206.

136.

Zollo

Winter

(2002) Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science 13(3): 339–351.

Building higher value-added firm practices in challenging contexts: Formal networks and talent management in Turkey

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The viability of talent management in emerging markets: Constraints and networks

Method

Sample and procedure

Measures

Firm performance

Management constraints

Networks

TM practices

Control variables

Common method bias

Endogeneity

Analysis and results

Measurement model

Structural model

Robustness of the model

Discussion and conclusions

Practical implications

Limitations and avenues for further research

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iDs

References