شرکت های چند ملیتی، چگونه مجموعه های با استعدادشان را ایجاد می کنند؟ تاثیرات بر احتمال اینکه بتوان افرادی را استعداد نامید

Addressing the research question of what influences the likelihood of an individual being labeled as ‘talent’ in MNCs, this paper seeks to understand the decision processes involved in the identification of MNC-internal talent. We develop a framework suggesting that the decision to include an employee in a corporate talent pool is a two-stage decision process in which mostly experience-based (on-line) performance appraisal evaluations are used as an input in largely cognition-based (off-line) managerial decision making. Consequently, talent pool inclusion is determined not only by performance appraisal evaluations, but also a number of factors that influence the decision making in the second stage of the talent identification process. Using empirical insights from an in-depth case study as illustrations, we identify three such factors—cultural and institutional distance between the locations of a potential member of the talent pool and the decision makers; homophily between the individual and the decision makers; and the network position of the person in question.

Innovation through creativity is an important factor in the success and competitive advantage of organizations (Woodman et al., 1993) as well as for a strong economy (Drucker, 1985). Today, almost all organizations face a dynamic environment characterized by rapid technological change, shortening product life cycles, and globalization. Organizations, especially technologically- driven ones, need to be more creative and innovative than before to survive, to compete, to grow, and to lead (Jung et al., 2003; Tierney et al., 1999). The literature includes several definitions of creativity and innovation. A widely accepted definition states that creativity is the production of novel and useful ideas, and innovation is the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization (Amabile, 1983, 1998;Amabile et al., 1996). Thus, creativity is at the individual level, while innovation is at the organizational level (Oldham and Cummings, 1996).

This paper has both theoretical and methodological contributions to the literature. This study is the first to investigate the effects of transformational leadership on creativity-related outcomes at multiple levels within organizations. The findings suggest that transformational leadership has important effects at both individual and organizational levels. At the individual level, transformational leadership positively relates to followers' creativity. This finding is valuable for two reasons. First, previous findings were inconsistent and further research in real settings was needed to support the positive proposition in favor of this leadership (Mumford and Licuanan, 2004). In line with the findings of Shin and Zhou (2003), this research, conducted in real-work settings, finds a positive relationship between transformational leadership and followers' individual creativity. Second, this positive relationship exists in collectivist Turkey (Hofstede, 1980), supporting the arguments by Bass (1990a) that transformational leadership is more likely to emerge in collectivist cultures than in the individualist cultures of the West and that collectivists perform better under transformational leadership. A number of studies report a stronger positive effect of transformational leadership on the creative performance of collectivists as compared to individualists (e.g., Jung and Avolio, 1999; Jung and Yammarino, 2001).