IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cposxx/v34y2013i3p291-309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Has the British National Health Service (NHS) got talent? A process evaluation of the NHS talent management strategy?

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Powell
  • Jo Duberley
  • Mark Exworthy
  • Fraser Macfarlane
  • Phil Moss

Abstract

In 2004, the British National Health Service (NHS), an organisation with one of the largest workforces in the world, adopted a new approach to identifying and developing managers, which was refreshed in 2009 with ‘guidance for NHS talent and leadership plans'. This paper explores the introduction of talent management (TM) in the British NHS, focusing on process evaluation. It discusses the introduction of TM in the NHS before examining the stated principles, objectives and measures of TM in the NHS. It draws on a mix of research methods, including a literature review, focus groups, qualitative interviews with policy-makers, qualitative interviews with managers, a questionnaire survey, and qualitative interviews in high performing organisations. It is found that there are a number of issues that may undermine the TM strategy, including unclear definitions, conflicting principles, problematic measures; exclusive focus, sustainability; and lack of necessary infrastructure, culture and data.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Powell & Jo Duberley & Mark Exworthy & Fraser Macfarlane & Phil Moss, 2013. "Has the British National Health Service (NHS) got talent? A process evaluation of the NHS talent management strategy?," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(3), pages 291-309.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:34:y:2013:i:3:p:291-309
    DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2013.798533
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01442872.2013.798533
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01442872.2013.798533?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:34:y:2013:i:3:p:291-309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cpos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.