Review status
This summary is based on the full article text.
The DOI and source URL have been verified through the official Wiley article page.
The article is an empirical study published in Human Resource Management Journal. It uses two factorial survey studies to examine employee fairness perceptions of inclusive versus exclusive talent management. One study experimentally manipulates talent status, while the other uses field data on employees’ meta-perceived talent ratings. The article contributes to talent management research by testing assumptions about fairness, self-interest, merit, equality, and talent philosophy justification.
Research question
Do employees find inclusive talent management fairer than exclusive talent management?
More specifically, the article asks whether fairness perceptions are driven mainly by self-interest or by principle.
Self-interest means whether the employee personally benefits from exclusive talent management because they are seen as talented.
Principle means whether the employee generally prefers equality-based or merit-based allocation of organizational resources, regardless of whether they personally benefit.
The article focuses on a central assumption in talent management research: that most employees, especially employees not identified as talents, perceive exclusive talent management as less fair than inclusive talent management. Dries and Kaše test this assumption directly across two studies.
Hypotheses
The article tests several hypotheses across two studies.
Hypothesis 1 predicts that, on average, most employees will find inclusive talent management fairer than exclusive talent management.
Hypothesis 2 predicts that employees who have been allocated talent status will find exclusive talent management fairer, and inclusive talent management less fair, than employees who have not been allocated talent status.
Hypothesis 2b extends this idea to real-life perceptions. It predicts that the higher an employee’s meta-perceived talent rating, the fairer they will find exclusive talent management and the less fair they will find inclusive talent management.
Hypothesis 3 predicts that employees with a stronger preference for merit-based allocations will find exclusive talent management fairer and inclusive talent management less fair.
Hypothesis 3b predicts that preference for merit-based allocations will affect fairness perceptions only when the organization clearly justifies its underlying talent philosophy.
Hypothesis 4 predicts that talent status and preference for merit-based allocations will reinforce each other, such that talents with a strong preference for merit will find exclusive talent management especially fair.
Hypothesis 5 predicts that employees will find a talent philosophy fairer when an explicit justification is provided for it.
Method
The article uses two factorial survey studies, also called vignette experiments.
Both studies compare employee fairness perceptions of two talent management scenarios. One scenario represents inclusive talent management. The other represents exclusive talent management.
The inclusive scenario describes an organization that allocates training and promotion opportunities equally among employees.
The exclusive scenario describes an organization that allocates training and promotion opportunities primarily to a selected group of employees with unique and valuable skills, labelled as talents.
Study 1 uses an experimental manipulation of talent status. Participants were randomly assigned to imagine that they either would be considered a talent in their industry or would not specifically be considered a talent, although still seen as a solid performer.
Study 1 included 300 full-time Dutch-speaking employees from Belgium and the Netherlands. The sample was recruited through Prolific. Respondents were 44% female and 56% male. The average age was 29.22 years, with a standard deviation of 8.57. Average work experience was 8.28 years, with a standard deviation of 7.96. Participants came from multiple sectors, especially professional services at 27%, trade at 12%, construction at 10%, and healthcare at 9%. Most had higher education: 49% held a bachelor’s degree and 24% held a master’s degree. Participants were mainly professionals, support staff, and managers.
Study 1 measured perceived fairness of the inclusive and exclusive scenarios with four items each, based on Goldman and Cropanzano. Preference for merit-based allocation was measured with six items from Davey and colleagues. One example item was that people who do their job well ought to rise to the top.
Study 2 largely replicated Study 1 but changed two design features.
First, talent status was measured as meta-perceived talent rating rather than experimentally assigned as a talent or non-talent condition. Meta-perceived talent rating means what employees believe their organization or supervisor thinks of their talent level compared with colleagues in similar positions.
Second, Study 2 added a talent philosophy justification manipulation. Half of the participants received the same short talent philosophy descriptions as in Study 1, with no justification. The other half received descriptions that explicitly justified the organization’s choice.
For the inclusive scenario, the justification stated that the organization allocates training and promotion opportunities equally because it believes all employees have unique strengths that should be acknowledged and capitalized on.
For the exclusive scenario, the justification stated that the organization gives more opportunities to selected talents because it believes the most talented employees contribute disproportionately to organizational performance and competitiveness.
Study 2 included 209 Dutch-speaking employees from Belgium and the Netherlands. Respondents were recruited through personal and professional networks and snowball sampling. The sample was 63% female and 37% male. The average age was 35.14 years, with a standard deviation of 9.24. Average work experience was 11.21 years, with a standard deviation of 9.35. The largest sectors were professional services at 32% and healthcare at 26%. Most respondents had higher education: 39% held a bachelor’s degree and 51% held a master’s degree. Twenty-five percent held a management position.
The authors used paired-samples t-tests, chi-square tests, and hierarchical linear regression analyses to test the hypotheses.
Results / key findings
The first major finding is that inclusive talent management was perceived as fairer on average.
In Study 1, the inclusive scenario was rated significantly fairer than the exclusive scenario, with d = 2.30, p = 0.00, and t = 19.33. Across the full sample, 85% of respondents, or 254 out of 300, rated the inclusive scenario as fairer. Only 3%, or 9 respondents, rated both scenarios as equally fair. Twelve percent, or 37 respondents, rated the exclusive scenario as fairer.
In Study 2, the inclusive scenario was also rated significantly fairer than the exclusive scenario, with d = 1.50, p = 0.00, and t = 9.78. Across the full sample, 57% of respondents, or 119 out of 209, rated the inclusive scenario as fairer. Twenty-eight percent, or 58 respondents, rated both scenarios as equally fair. Fifteen percent, or 32 respondents, rated the exclusive scenario as fairer.
These findings support Hypothesis 1. On average, employees found inclusive talent management fairer than exclusive talent management.
The second major finding is that talent status strongly influenced fairness perceptions.
In Study 1, respondents randomly assigned to the talent condition were more likely to rate exclusive talent management as at least equally fair compared with respondents assigned to the non-talent condition. Among respondents assigned talent status, 22% found exclusive talent management at least as fair as inclusive talent management. Among respondents not assigned talent status, only 9% did so. The chi-square test was significant, χ²(1, N = 300) = 8.61, p = 0.00.
The regression analysis in Study 1 confirmed this effect. Respondents randomly assigned talent status rated the inclusive scenario as significantly less fair, b = -0.33, p = 0.01, and the exclusive scenario as significantly fairer, b = 0.74, p = 0.00, than respondents not assigned talent status.
This supports Hypothesis 2. Talent status changed fairness perceptions in a direction consistent with self-interest.
The third major finding is that real-life meta-perceived talent ratings showed the same pattern.
In Study 2, employees who believed their organization saw them as more talented rated exclusive talent management more favorably. The chi-square test showed significant differences across meta-perceived talent rating groups, χ²(2, N = 209) = 10.89, p = 0.00.
Figure 3 shows the pattern clearly. Among bottom-tier respondents in meta-perceived talent rating, 73% rated the inclusive scenario as fairer and 27% rated the exclusive scenario as at least equally fair. Among mid-tier respondents, 52% rated the inclusive scenario as fairer and 48% rated the exclusive scenario as at least equally fair. Among top-tier respondents, only 45% rated the inclusive scenario as fairer, while 55% rated the exclusive scenario as at least equally fair.
The regression analysis confirmed this pattern. Higher meta-perceived talent rating predicted lower fairness ratings for the inclusive scenario, b = -0.43, p = 0.03, and higher fairness ratings for the exclusive scenario, b = 0.69, p = 0.00.
This supports Hypothesis 2b. Employees who believed they were seen as more talented by their organization found exclusive talent management fairer and inclusive talent management less fair.
The fourth major finding is that preference for merit-based allocation did not work exactly as expected.
In Study 1, the authors expected that employees with stronger merit preferences would rate exclusive talent management as fairer and inclusive talent management as less fair. Instead, preference for merit-based allocation had a small positive effect on perceived fairness of the inclusive scenario, b = 0.19, p = 0.02, which was opposite to Hypothesis 3. It had no significant effect on perceived fairness of the exclusive scenario.
In Study 2, the same unexpected pattern appeared before considering justification. Preference for merit-based allocation again showed a positive relationship with fairness of the inclusive scenario, b = 0.33, p = 0.06, and no meaningful main effect on the exclusive scenario.
The authors interpret this unexpected result through the idea of talent philosophy justification. If an organization does not explain why it allocates opportunities in a certain way, employees who care about merit may suspect that decisions are based on politics, favoritism, or unclear criteria rather than genuine merit.
The fifth major finding is that justification changed how merit preferences affected fairness perceptions.
In Study 2, the interaction between preference for merit-based allocation and talent philosophy justification was significant for the inclusive scenario, b = -0.88, p = 0.00.
When a justification was provided, respondents with a higher preference for merit-based allocation rated the inclusive scenario as less fair, b = -0.55, SE = 0.22, p = 0.01. This fits the theoretical argument: if someone strongly believes organizational resources should follow merit, they may see fully equal allocation as unfair once the principle behind the system is made clear.
When no justification was provided, respondents with a higher preference for merit-based allocation rated the inclusive scenario as fairer, b = 0.33, SE = 0.18, p = 0.06. The authors suggest that without justification, people high in merit preference may respond negatively to unclear allocation systems because of suspicion or sinister attribution.
This partly supports Hypothesis 3b. Preference for merit matters, but the effect depends on whether the organization explains its talent philosophy.
The sixth major finding is that the interaction between talent status and merit preference was not supported.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that talent status and preference for merit-based allocation would reinforce each other. This was not supported in either study. The interaction between talent status and preference for merit was not significant for either talent philosophy scenario in Study 1 or Study 2.
This means self-interest and principle operated independently. Being seen as talented did not simply make people more supportive of merit-based allocation as a general principle.
The seventh major finding is that justification alone did not directly increase fairness perceptions.
Hypothesis 5 predicted that providing a justification would make the talent philosophy seem fairer. This was not supported. In Study 2, talent philosophy justification did not have a significant main effect on the fairness of either the inclusive or the exclusive scenario.
However, justification still mattered as a boundary condition. It changed the relationship between preference for merit-based allocation and fairness perceptions.
The eighth major finding is theoretical and practical: fairness perceptions are not purely moral judgments.
The authors argue that talent management fairness perceptions are shaped by both self-interest and principle. Employees may prefer inclusive talent management because they believe equality is fair. But they may also prefer it because exclusive talent management would not benefit them personally.
Similarly, employees may prefer exclusive talent management because they believe merit should be rewarded. But they may also prefer it because they believe they themselves are, or would be, among the selected talents.
The article therefore challenges a simple claim that inclusive talent management is always perceived as fairer. On average, it is. But the answer depends on whether employees see themselves as talents, how strongly they value merit, and whether the organization explains its talent philosophy.
Practical implications
For managers, the article’s main implication is that talent management fairness cannot be reduced to “inclusive equals fair” and “exclusive equals unfair.”
Inclusive talent management will likely be preferred by many employees on average, because it distributes training and promotion opportunities more equally. But employees who believe they are highly talented may see exclusive talent management as fairer because it rewards higher inputs, stronger skills, or greater contribution.
This matters for organizations designing talent systems. A fully inclusive approach may feel fair to many employees, but it may frustrate high performers or employees who strongly believe in merit-based allocation. A highly exclusive approach may motivate selected employees, but it may create unfairness perceptions among those who are excluded.
The study suggests that organizations need to decide what outcome they value most. Merit-based systems may support stronger performance and resource focus, but they can also create internal competition and exclusion. Equality-based systems may support harmony and inclusion, but they may be perceived as unfair by employees who believe higher contribution should lead to greater opportunity.
The article also shows that organizations should not redesign talent management purely based on assumptions about employee preferences. Some organizations may shift toward inclusive talent management because they fear negative employee reactions to exclusion. Others may shift back to exclusive systems when inclusive systems do not deliver desired performance outcomes. Dries and Kaše argue that these decisions should be evidence-based rather than driven by untested assumptions.
A major practical implication is the importance of justification. Organizations should clearly explain why they choose an inclusive, exclusive, or hybrid talent philosophy. Even a short justification can change how employees interpret the fairness of the system.
If an organization chooses an inclusive approach, it should explain that it values broad employee strengths, equal access to opportunity, and development across the workforce. If it chooses an exclusive approach, it should explain how talent status is defined, why differentiated investment is necessary, and how the system connects to performance, contribution, or strategic roles.
The article also warns that self-interest can look like principle. Employees may oppose exclusive talent management on fairness grounds partly because they do not benefit from it. Conversely, employees may support exclusive talent management partly because they believe they would benefit from it. Managers should take employee reactions seriously, but also recognize that fairness claims may be mixed with personal advantage or disadvantage.
For practitioners, useful diagnostic questions include:
- Do employees understand why the organization uses an inclusive, exclusive, or hybrid talent approach?
- Are training and promotion opportunities allocated mainly by equality, merit, need, or a combination?
- Do employees believe talent decisions are based on clear criteria or on politics and favoritism?
- How do selected and non-selected employees perceive the fairness of the system?
- Do high performers perceive fully equal access to opportunities as unfair?
- Do non-selected employees perceive differentiated opportunities as exclusionary?
- Is the organization measuring employee reactions rather than assuming what employees prefer?
- Could a hybrid talent management system balance fairness concerns across different employee groups?
- Are talent philosophy choices being communicated clearly enough to prevent suspicion?
- Is the organization prepared to justify both the ethical and strategic logic of its talent system?
Theoretical implications
The article contributes to talent management research by testing a widely held assumption: that employees find inclusive talent management fairer than exclusive talent management.
The results support this assumption on average, but also show that the picture is more complex. Fairness perceptions depend on talent status, meta-perceived talent rating, preference for merit-based allocation, and justification.
The article contributes methodologically by introducing experimental logic into talent management research. The authors note that most talent management research is case-based and struggles with causal inference. Factorial survey designs allow researchers to isolate the effects of talent philosophy, talent status, and justification more cleanly than many field studies.
The article also contributes to employee reactions research. Talent management research often focuses on organizational design or managerial intent, but this article examines how employees themselves evaluate talent systems.
The study contributes to organizational justice theory by showing that fairness perceptions in talent management are shaped by multiple allocation norms. Equality matters, but merit also matters. Employees do not judge fairness only by whether everyone receives the same outcome. They also consider whether higher inputs, skills, effort, or contribution deserve greater opportunities.
The article also contributes by separating self-interest from principle. Talent status and merit preference were not strongly related, suggesting that they are distinct drivers of fairness perceptions. A person can benefit from exclusive talent management without having a strong general preference for merit-based allocation, and a person can prefer merit-based allocation even when it does not directly benefit them.
The paper also challenges fairness rhetoric in debates over inclusive and exclusive talent management. Some opposition to exclusive talent management may reflect genuine concern about justice, but some may reflect personal disadvantage. Similarly, some support for exclusive talent management may reflect genuine belief in merit, but some may reflect expected personal benefit.
Finally, the article suggests that future theory should consider hybrid talent management systems. A more productive research question may be how organizations can design systems that address fairness concerns of both selected and non-selected employees, rather than assuming one philosophy is universally fairer.
Limitations
The studies use factorial survey scenarios rather than observing real talent management systems over time.
Although Study 2 includes real-life meta-perceived talent ratings, the fairness judgments still concern hypothetical inclusive and exclusive scenarios.
The samples are Dutch-speaking employees from Belgium and the Netherlands. The findings may not generalize fully to countries with different cultural assumptions about equality, merit, competition, hierarchy, or individualism.
Both samples are relatively highly educated. In Study 1, 49% held a bachelor’s degree and 24% held a master’s degree. In Study 2, 39% held a bachelor’s degree and 51% held a master’s degree. Fairness perceptions might differ in samples with more lower-educated, frontline, manual, or precarious workers.
The inclusive and exclusive scenarios are archetypal. Real organizations often use hybrid talent systems where all employees receive some development while selected employees receive additional opportunities.
The article measures perceived fairness, not actual employee behavior or long-term outcomes. It does not test whether different talent systems improve performance, retention, engagement, well-being, or organizational effectiveness.
The study does not directly observe actual talent ratings, supervisor ratings, or HR records. Study 2 uses meta-perceived talent rating, which is highly relevant for employee reactions but still reflects employee perception.
The article does not deeply examine ethical questions beyond fairness perceptions. A system may be perceived as fair by some employees but still raise broader ethical, diversity, or power-related concerns.
The study does not test whether talent identification criteria themselves are fair, valid, biased, or transparent.
Future research
Future research could test similar questions in real organizations with active inclusive, exclusive, or hybrid talent management systems.
Researchers could combine employee surveys with archival HR data to compare actual talent status, supervisor-rated talent status, meta-perceived talent status, and employee fairness perceptions.
Longitudinal studies could examine how fairness perceptions change after employees are selected into, excluded from, removed from, or promoted through talent programmes.
Future research could study hybrid talent management systems. Many organizations combine broad access to development with special investments in high-potential or strategically critical employees. Researchers could test which combinations produce the best balance of performance, fairness, motivation, and employee well-being.
Cross-cultural studies could examine whether the findings generalize across countries. Preferences for equality and merit may vary across cultures, labour markets, institutional systems, and welfare regimes.
Researchers could investigate whether employees react differently when talent status is based on skills, performance, potential, strategic role, learning agility, or leadership promise. These criteria may carry different fairness implications.
Future studies could test whether transparent criteria reduce suspicion and unfairness perceptions in exclusive talent systems.
Researchers could examine how employees outside talent pools interpret talent management. Do they see exclusion as a signal of lower worth, temporary non-selection, lack of fit, or unfair treatment?
Future research could also examine the consequences for selected talents. Employees with talent status may experience pride, motivation, pressure, fear of failure, or stronger identification with management.
Another useful direction would be to examine how fairness perceptions interact with diversity and inclusion. If talent identification systems systematically benefit already advantaged groups, employees may judge exclusivity differently.
Finally, future research could study the effects of AI and people analytics in talent identification. Algorithmic talent systems may appear objective, but they still require choices about equality, merit, potential, transparency, and justification.