Talent management, talent mindset competency and job performance: the mediating role of job satisfaction

By Roberto Luna Arocas, M. Morley. 2015

105 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This study advances and tests four interlinked hypotheses explicating the relationship between talent mindset competency, job satisfaction and job performance. Talent mindset competency is dimensionalised as: (a) value and goal alignment with the organisation, (b) manager's talent mindset, (c) talent application in everyday behaviours, (d) autonomy using talent and (e) development of talent in organisation. Results generated from a series of path analyses from a data set of 198 public and private sector employees suggest that strategies centred on talent management impact job performance, but through job satisfaction which acts as a mediator. Thus, it is not postulated that we have to pursue job satisfaction as a main underlying contributor to job performance, but rather that if we develop and institutionalise a comprehensive talent system, this can affect both job satisfaction (directly) and job performance (indirectly).

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b9015898a8c13f91cdce1625cdd1bbbe372be8d4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

1. Maria Christina Meyers
2. G. D. Boeck
3. Nicky Dries

Citations in the corpus

• Employee reactions to talent management: Assumptions versus evidence (2018, background): “…interesting finding that emerged from these studies is that the effects of TM on behavioral outcomes were mediated by perceived supervisor and organizational support (Du Plessis et al., 2015) and justice perceptions (Gelens et al., 2014), as well as by job satisfaction (LunaArocas & Morley, 2015).”
• The Relationship Between “Job Satisfaction” and “Job Performance”: A Meta-analysis (2021, unknown): “…0.047 0.212 3.047 0.002 70 Paggi (Paggi & Jopp, 2015) 0.110 −0.001 0.218 1.945 0.052 71 Iyer (Iyer & Johlke, 2015) 0.308 0.212 0.398 6.032 0.000 72 Luna-Arocas (Luna-Arocas & Morley, 2015) 0.459 0.341 0.562 6.927 0.000 73 Barakat (Barakat et al., 2015) 0.360 0.263 0.450 6.836 0.000 74 Hur (W.…”