Talent
Management: An Empirical Analysis of Recruiting, Managing and Retaining Top
Talent in Indian Academic Institutions
Dr. C. S. Yadav
Professor,
School of
Management,
Graphic Era Hill
University
Shivani Monga
Assistant
Professor,
Personality
Development Programme,
Graphic Era Hill
University
Abstract:
Human
resources are the most invaluable asset of a country to improve its economy and
social development
and it all depends on the employability of potential skilled manpower. Be it
any sector, shaping tomorrow’s professionals has to take place on strong
substrata of education. Without a proper education or degree, one may not land
a job after an academic career of two decades. There should not be a short
supply of educated manpower in India. Literacy rate has to be pushed beyond
80%. For this, emphasis is laid on higher education institutes; and generation of
human resources has to be structured and streamlined.
This
present paper is an attempt to understand and suggest possible ways to
understand the prevalent talent
management
systems. The paper aims at suggesting decisive factors for creation of talent
pool, which involves talent recruitment, management
and retention. The study would aim at identifying whether the management
focuses on various factors for
talent
retention in educational institutions and have conducive working environment for faculty
attraction and retention. Does management
cater to faculty
need for
learning and growth.
Key
Words: Talent pool, Attrition, Retention, Perception
Introduction:
The education sector consists of
administration, finance, quality but predominantly teaching. For our
population, we need to double the number of universities and other institutions
of higher learning apart from schools with equal participation of public and
private sectors. We need to analyze what is the importance of talent management
in education sector.
The core component mainly poised
to attract, develop and retain quality teachers through effective human
resources management. The human capital thus mobilized has to be distributed on
levels of ‘teacher demand and supply’ in rural, urban and metro areas. The
channeling parameters are: employment requirement, grade separation, domain
expertise, training level, working conditions, individual career options,
performance monitoring system and continuous knowledge update for development.
It is the management’s responsibility that the manpower recruited is utilized
fully to the optimum level. Never should skilled staff be underutilized or
ignored for want of basic infrastructure, non-availability of students,
inadequate compensation and poor working conditions.
A flexible lucrative system will
definitely facilitate a continuous inflow of high quality personnel who will
join the workforce, year after year. The sixth Pay Review Commission
recommended fixing the age of superannuation of all college and university
teachers throughout India at 65 years and selective reemployment on contract
basis up to the age of 70. This will ensure optimum utilization of resources
for the rest of the years. This concept applies to high school, secondary level
and university faculty members also. At any point of time, more number of
seniors will be available in buffer.
The last decade has seen a proliferation
of business schools in India. This rapid growth has posed some serious
challenges for attracting and retaining the quality faculty in the business
schools. There is a scarcity of good faculty in the country to cater to the needs of more than 900
business schools in India. It is therefore, imperative that faculty members in these business schools should be provided a
right environment to enable their retention and long-term growth in the
organization. However, the incidences of high faculty turnover in most business schools raise various issues
relating to faculty.
The concept of talent management is
firmly embedded within enterprise from small business to global organizations
and its existence, definition and growth have been charted through reports,
analysis and commentary. Existing research has, however, predominantly focused
on the employer’s perspective, those responsible for talent strategy and
investment in talent management interventions.
Opportunities to understand the
employee view are often limited to internal feedback forms and employee
engagement surveys. As a result, we do not really understand the employee
perspective on what it feels like to be part of the talent management process.
This gap in our knowledge may be significant. Those who are being actively talent-managed
through talent programmes or talent pools are often an organisation’s most
valued employees and by not understanding their needs we could be misdirecting
talent management efforts to the detriment of both the employee and the
organization.
If organization is looking for creating
a vivacious talent pool, then it has to look the talent pool from different
direction. The three vital aspects for talent pool for any higher education
institution are: quality of faculty, infrastructure facilities and learning
environment. With the increasing demand-supply gap, organizations are facing
gigantic war for talent. Like business and industry, education field too is
discovering the need for talent so as to meet the new quality standards
demanded by the society and is also facing leadership crisis. While most higher
education institutions, are able to develop the needed skills in students for
success in the working world, experience shows that the management of upcoming
technical and management institutions has failed to be just and fair in the
treatment of their faculties.
This paper has used the survey method
based on which faculty members of the various management and technical schools
were being interviewed. The objective of the paper is to investigate the issues
and factors related to recruitment, talent management and talent retention in
business and technical schools, which can contribute to the growth and
development of these institutions. For the study faculty are being considered
as talent. The finding of this study may be helpful for the management of these
institutions and the policy makers for developing a more effective and better
education system. Talent management is a process that emerged in the 1990s and
continues to be adopted as more companies come to realize that their employees'
talents and skills drive their business success.
Talent Management (TM) is an integrated process,
activities and tools in the areas of recruitment, compensation, performance
management, succession planning, career planning and learning in order to
identify, promote, and retain talents and to increase their performance
contribution.” The future success of the company is based on having the right
talent, so managing and nurturing talent is part of everyday process of organizational
life. Talent is needed for success and talent management is the process, which
can retain talent. Typical in an organizations talent is judged from the
assignments being allocated according to how well they performed on their last
assignment. Or we can say organization is a place where the development of
every individual's talent is paramount and appreciated, and it also allows
people to explore and develop their talent and make it a part of the work
routine.
There is the competitive perspective
underpinned by the belief that talent management is about identifying talented
people, finding out what they want, and giving it to them. This tends to be the
default perspective if no other perspective is taken, if only as a retention
strategy. It is also seen in the professional services firms where they
generally adopt the competitive approach because their business proposition is
based on the talents of their people. There is the developmental perspective
that proposes talent management as about accelerated development paths for the
highest potential employees, applying the same personal development process to
everyone in the organization, but accelerating the process for high potentials.
Hence the focus is on developing high potentials or talents more quickly than
others.
Effective Talent Management helps
increase organizational efficiency and effectiveness and has a proven strong
link to financial returns: eg. in a study of high-performing companies across
industries and geographies, those organizations with the top financial results
were five times more likely to run mature career development processes than the
bottom performers.
Talent Management is about:
·
Filling positions with the right
(knowledgeable and productive) candidates
·
Promoting high potentials in order to
increase their organizational impact on productivity
·
Developing staff to increase their
efficiency in their current role
·
Increasing performance and consistently
retaining the best employees
These inbuilt factors become more
relevant in light of the well known demographic factors such as aging,
globalization of the workforce and generation x syndrome. Knowledge,
experience, competencies and skills are the ingredients of human capital that
need to be sustained and increased, not only in service organizations but in
all industries that includes education sector also previous research into the
subject reveals that the business school labour market is largely a seller’s
market demand for suitably qualified and skilled people outstrips supply. There
is a serious projected shortfall in staff numbers.
An institution with talented faculties can develop a reputation for being great
place to work, with great learning environment where quality in education is
expected. An institution in higher education therefore needs to be able to
develop and deploy faculty who can articulate the passion and vision of
institution and satisfaction of students. Faculty members as internal customers
satisfy the working environment of universities. This implies that in order to
enhance faculty performance certain aspects and functions of their job have to
be prioritized.
The issues related to faculty are
sufficiently significant for an analysis to be appropriate, to understand the
'whole picture' and suggest possibilities to sustain quality and leadership in
institution of higher education. The first important aspect to consider in
structured talent management process for institutions is to align the complete
process with the institutes' vision, mission, and strategy as this will define
the talent of faculties for that institution, it may vary from research focused
or teachings focused institutions. With the idea of competencies required for
faculties to define them as talent, institutions can draw the talent management
initiatives and model for that institution. This will enable knowledge creation
and tapping the full potential of talent available, ultimately results in
effective learning. The objective was to understand the factors important for
faculty and their satisfaction so as to suggest factors to be considered in
designing talent management process and in attracting, developing and retaining
star faculties.
How can institutions attract talent they
need? The first step is determining what
talent is needed and then being smart about where and how to find it. Many
organizations deploy traditional recruitment tactics such as on-campus
recruiting at higher education institutions, where they offer attractive
financial incentives and multifaceted compensation packages that address
salary, bonus, cost of living, research funding, paid leaves and more. One of
the biggest attracters of talent into an organization (or sector) is the
prevalence of talent already there. Talent attracts talent, and so it is with
mediocrity. In any organization, there are “A player” (exceptional performers
who inspire others), “B players” (solid performers who show potential), and “C
players” (who under-perform and undermine teamwork) “A player” should be
promoted, “B players” should be developed, and “C players” should be shown the
door. Once an organization earns a reputation as one that rewards excellence
and shuns mediocrity, it will become a magnet for talent.
Once talented people are on board, they
must be trained and developed. Faculties are increasingly realizing that
training and faculty development programs must go beyond being an afterthought
and become an integral part of an institute’s competitiveness initiatives.
While few organizations have these kinds of training resources, forward-looking
organizations are placing similar emphasis on faculty development,
knowledge-sharing, cross-functional development, resource availability for
research, creativity, and network creation. These talent-minded organizations
have learned that talent development requires talent empowerment. The larger
point here is that talent development cannot remain merely a function of an
active human resources department or the domain of a single executive charged
with overseeing this process. For talent to thrive, talent development must be
an explicit priority across the board, and the organizational culture,
structures, systems, and investments must be aligned with faculty growth plans.
Proactive organizations are recognizing
the importance not only of getting talent in the
door but also of keeping it through
effective retention efforts. Not only does retention help build and sustain an
organization’s culture and enhance its chances for long-term success, it yields
significant savings in time and money.
“Employee retention is of utmost importance. With entry of each employee, a
unique set of skills is brought. Where talent is already rare and people with
requisite skills and experience are difficult to find, retention becomes a
critical component of organization building.” Where monetary compensation --
salary, perks, paid holidays, incentives – are a given, it is the intangible
benefits like career roadmap and bonding of the employee with the organization
which determines whether one will seek out greener pastures., The pull is on
the side of the people today, with more opportunities and avenues, organizations
are increasingly at the mercy of employees making a choice. Recruiting is
expensive, and without active focus on retention, the model becomes
unsustainable.
Organizations
that think that “cash” is the name of the game cannot be more wrong on the
front. Yes, it is the most perceptible aspect of the employment deal, but of
course not the complete deal itself. The best bet to retain employees is to
provide them the vehicle of opportunity to grow in their career. Retention
efforts must be part of an organization’s strategic business initiatives and
must be carefully aligned with who, what, where, when and how for an organization.
That means that there must be complete clarity on who needs to be retained, why
they need to be retained, where their skills and expertise is to be used and
when they need to be ready to share those skills and that expertise
Methodological Framework
The
present study is exploratory in nature. The findings of this study are based on
a survey conducted with majority of the responses from Delhi-NCR. The objective
was:
·
To
study the factors required for creating talent pool of any organization.
·
To study the attribute based perceptual
map of employees towards talent recruitment, talent management and talent
retention.
Understand the factors important for
faculty and their satisfaction so as to suggest factors to be considered in
designing talent management process and in attracting, developing and retaining
star faculties. A structured questionnaire was used in the survey. Faculties
and directors of management institutions were asked to fill the responses. The
questionnaire contained about the expectations of faculties and their
satisfaction with the actual. Various parameters were used in the questionnaire
to analyze the expectations of faculties at different business schools.
Data
Collection
A questionnaire was developed to gather
information from the faculty members of management & technical
institutions, keeping in view the nature of their work as mentioned in their
websites. Faculties have been asked to rate fifteen variables in a 5-point
scale on their importance level. Questionnaires were distributed to 200 faculty
members of the business institutes. 150 completed questionnaires were received
who satisfy conditions of Experience and publications. The questionnaire was
analyzed with the help of SPSS 16 version to perform factor analysis and
discriminant analysis.
Analysis:
Factor Analysis
|
KMO and Bartlett's Test |
||
|
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Measure of Sampling Adequacy. |
.773 |
|
|
Bartlett's
Test of Sphericity |
Approx.
Chi-Square |
212.414 |
|
Df |
105 |
|
|
Sig. |
.000 |
|
Kaiser-
mayer-olkin: A measure of whether our distribution of values is adequate for
conducting factor analysis. In this case it is .773 is meritorious.
The
test of sphericity measures the multivariate normality of our set of
distribution. It also tests whether the correlation matrix is an identity
matrix. A significant value < .05 indicates that these data do NOT produce
an identity matrix and are thus approximately multivariate normal and
acceptable for factor analysis
|
Component
Matrix |
||||||
|
|
Component |
|||||
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
Work ethics |
-.751 |
.058 |
.166 |
.063 |
.096 |
.015 |
|
Attitude |
.674 |
-.313 |
-.031 |
-.064 |
-.013 |
-.016 |
|
Problem
solving |
.637 |
.038 |
-.139 |
.046 |
.001 |
-.035 |
|
Social |
.531 |
.268 |
.249 |
.313 |
-.296 |
-.118 |
|
Self
confidence |
.126 |
.501 |
.347 |
-.302 |
-.037 |
.001 |
|
Motivation |
.104 |
-.485 |
-.113 |
.298 |
.427 |
.245 |
|
Adaptability |
.351 |
.190 |
.582 |
-.087 |
.145 |
-.175 |
|
Regulation |
.087 |
-.306 |
.565 |
-.202 |
.225 |
.473 |
|
Criticism |
.075 |
.481 |
-.517 |
.271 |
-.097 |
.267 |
|
Empathy |
.085 |
.270 |
.323 |
.596 |
.005 |
.049 |
|
Pressure |
-.190 |
.128 |
.120 |
.490 |
.297 |
.144 |
|
Awareness |
-.337 |
-.204 |
.058 |
-.084 |
-.590 |
.064 |
|
Communication |
-.352 |
-.126 |
.344 |
.245 |
-.425 |
.156 |
|
Time
management |
-.383 |
.361 |
.008 |
-.122 |
.418 |
-.382 |
|
Team player |
.052 |
.500 |
-.097 |
-.310 |
.037 |
.668 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Rotated Component Matrixa |
||||||
|
|
Component |
|||||
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
Work ethics |
-.756 |
-.040 |
.042 |
.149 |
.096 |
-.043 |
|
Attitude |
.693 |
-.089 |
.171 |
-.107 |
-.120 |
-.123 |
|
Problem
solving |
.611 |
.038 |
-.078 |
-.214 |
.040 |
.044 |
|
Time
management |
-.550 |
.235 |
-.163 |
-.458 |
-.007 |
-.136 |
|
Social |
.518 |
.365 |
-.121 |
.104 |
.428 |
-.067 |
|
Motivation |
.115 |
-.653 |
.292 |
-.199 |
.153 |
-.051 |
|
Self
confidence |
-.013 |
.647 |
.121 |
-.095 |
.029 |
.194 |
|
Adaptability |
.190 |
.517 |
.353 |
-.202 |
.223 |
-.197 |
|
Regulation |
.025 |
-.014 |
.847 |
.070 |
.031 |
.103 |
|
Awareness |
-.146 |
.012 |
-.059 |
.670 |
-.204 |
-.054 |
|
Communication |
-.221 |
.010 |
.110 |
.632 |
.238 |
-.079 |
|
Empathy |
.039 |
.104 |
-.016 |
.053 |
.726 |
-.015 |
|
Pressure |
-.252 |
-.191 |
.044 |
-.120 |
.544 |
.057 |
|
Team player |
-.031 |
.201 |
.124 |
-.066 |
-.063 |
.861 |
|
Criticism |
.093 |
-.097 |
-.527 |
-.067 |
.211 |
.560 |
|
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization. |
|
|
||||
|
a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations. |
|
|
|
|
||
The output of
factor analysis is obtained by requesting principal component analysis and
specifying the rotation. There are two stages in factor analysis. Stage one
being the factor extraction process, wherein the objective is to identify how
many factors are to be extracted from the data. There is a rule of thumb based
on the computation of an eigen value, to determine how many factors to be
extracted. The higher the eigen value of a factor, the higher is the amount of
variance explained by the factor.
Looking at the
rotated component matrix we see that variable Positive attitude and problem
solving have loadings of .693 & .611 on factor
1.this suggests that factor 1 is a combination of these two variable. Therefore,
this factor can be interpreted as Analytical Skills. Now for factor 2 we see that variable adaptability and
self-confidence have loadings of .517 &
.647 on factor 2. this suggests that factor 2 is a combination of these two
variables. Therefore, this factor can be interpreted as Leadership skills. Now
for factor 3 we see that variable
regulation have loadings of .847 on factor 3. Since
factor 3 is a single variable so we can leave this factor.
Now for factor 4 consists of variable Cultural awareness and
Communication and have loadings of .670 &
.632 on factor 4 this suggests that factor 4 is a combination of these two
variables. Therefore, this factor can be interpreted as Interpersonal Skills.
And for factor
5 & 6 we see that variable
empathy, pressure and social skills together loads up for factor 5 called
Coping Skills and variable team player and criticism votes up for factor 6
called up as Group Interacting Skills
Discriminant analysis:
|
Tests of Equality of Group Means |
|||||
|
|
Wilks' Lambda |
F |
df1 |
df2 |
Sig. |
|
Salary |
.723 |
27.960 |
2 |
146 |
.000 |
|
Learning |
.974 |
1.959 |
2 |
146 |
.145 |
|
Growth |
.985 |
1.139 |
2 |
146 |
.323 |
|
Performance |
.994 |
.418 |
2 |
146 |
.659 |
|
Recognition |
.822 |
15.847 |
2 |
146 |
.000 |
|
Work life
balance |
.669 |
36.100 |
2 |
146 |
.000 |
|
Job
satisfaction |
.841 |
13.847 |
2 |
146 |
.000 |
|
Excellence |
.904 |
7.742 |
2 |
146 |
.001 |
|
Paid leaves |
.942 |
4.491 |
2 |
146 |
.013 |
|
Respect |
.995 |
.360 |
2 |
146 |
.698 |
|
Teaching load |
.938 |
4.850 |
2 |
146 |
.009 |
|
Role clarity |
.769 |
21.884 |
2 |
146 |
.000 |
|
Study &
research |
.887 |
9.326 |
2 |
146 |
.000 |
|
Attrition
rate |
.751 |
24.218 |
2 |
146 |
.000 |
|
Support |
.907 |
7.519 |
2 |
146 |
.001 |
Here the value
of Wilks’Lambda indicates group differences. A low value of degree of
significance also indicates higher group differences. However in this case, the
values of wilks lambda are for salary, role clarity and attrition rate. But
looking at the last column, all attributes except learning, growth, performance
and respect seem to be significantly between the brands.
|
Eigenvalues |
||||
|
Function |
Eigenvalue |
% of Variance |
Cumulative % |
Canonical Correlation |
|
1 |
4.656a |
77.5 |
77.5 |
.907 |
|
2 |
1.350a |
22.5 |
100.0 |
.758 |
|
a. First 2 canonical
discriminant functions were used in the analysis. |
||||
The Eigen value is the ratio of the
between-group sum of squares to the within-groups sum of squares. The largest
Eigen value corresponds to the Eigen vector in the direction of the maximum spread
of the groups mean. The second largest Eigen value corresponds to the Eigen
vector in the direction that has the next largest spread, and so on. The
percentage of variance column allows you to evaluate which canonical variable
accounts for most of the spread. Here, the first Eigen value is able to explain
77% of the variance.
|
Wilks' Lambda |
||||
|
Test of
Function(s) |
Wilks' Lambda |
Chi-square |
Df |
Sig. |
|
1 through 2 |
.075 |
359.601 |
30 |
.000 |
|
2 |
.426 |
118.753 |
14 |
.000 |
This table is used to identify the
function, which is significant in explaining the differences among the groups.
Wilks Lambda is the proportion of the total variance in the discriminant scores
not explained by differences among the groups. wilks lambda ranges between 0
and 1. Value close to 0 indicates the group means are different. Value close
to1 indicate that the group means are not different. Here since both the wilks
lambda values are close to zero they are able to explain the differences in the
groups. Thus both the functions are significant.
|
Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients |
||
|
|
Function |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
Salary |
.751 |
.205 |
|
Learning |
2.191 |
.962 |
|
Growth |
.952 |
.969 |
|
Performance |
1.921 |
.995 |
|
Recognition |
-.889 |
1.054 |
|
Work life
balance |
.076 |
.748 |
|
Job
satisfaction |
.240 |
.034 |
|
Excellence |
2.536 |
-.479 |
|
Paid leaves |
.901 |
.713 |
|
Respect |
.957 |
.137 |
|
Teaching load |
.701 |
1.179 |
|
Role clarity |
1.931 |
.354 |
|
Study &
research |
1.046 |
.055 |
|
Attrition
rate |
1.222 |
1.137 |
|
Support |
.555 |
.641 |
When variables are measured in different
units, the magnitude of an unstandardised coefficient provides little
indication of the relative contribution of the variable to the overall
discriminant function. Standardizing the coefficient allows one to examine the
relative standing of the measurements. The higher value of the coefficients
allows one to examine the relative standing of the measurements. The higher
value of the coefficients for a particular attribute on a function indicates
the higher loading of the same on that function.
|
Structure Matrix |
||
|
|
Function |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
Work life
balance |
-.309* |
-.192 |
|
Study &
research |
.164* |
-.040 |
|
Support |
.145* |
.061 |
|
Growth |
.057* |
-.022 |
|
Performance |
.034* |
.019 |
|
Respect |
.032* |
-.011 |
|
Job
satisfaction |
-.025 |
-.372* |
|
Recognition |
-.123 |
.330* |
|
Role clarity |
.194 |
.304* |
|
Salary |
-.241 |
-.288* |
|
Attrition
rate |
.220 |
.281* |
|
Excellence |
.067 |
-.251* |
|
Teaching load |
.007 |
.221* |
|
Paid leaves |
-.084 |
-.146* |
|
Learning |
-.020 |
.136* |
|
|
||
|
*. Largest absolute correlation
between each variable and any discriminant function |
||
The structure
matrix contains within group correlations of each predictor variables with the
canonical function. For each variable, an asterisk marks its largest absolute
correlation with one of the canonical functions.
|
Functions at Group Centroids |
||
|
Pool |
Function |
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
Recruitment |
.433 |
1.601 |
|
Management |
-2.838 |
-.604 |
|
Retention |
2.349 |
-1.010 |
|
Unstandardized canonical
discriminant functions evaluated at group means |
||
This
table displays the canonical variable means by groups. Within-groups means are
computed for each canonical variable.
As
seen from the graph talent recruitment, talent management and talent retention
have their unique positions on the map. In addition, on the same map, we have
now plotted values of the attributes on the same two dimensions. As we can see,
dimension 1 seems to be combination of Learning, performance, role clarity,
study & research, job satisfaction, respect, growth and Attrition rate.
This is also evident from the standardized discriminant coefficients for these
factors.
Dimension
2 seems to comprise mainly excellence, teaching load and recognition, the
vector (arrow) that is closest to the vertical axis. This is also evident from
standardized discriminant coefficient of this variable.
Talent
recruitment seems to be
stronger on dimension1 (a combination of Learning, performance,
role clarity, study & research, job satisfaction, respect, growth and
Attrition rate) and Talent Retention on dimension 2(excellence, teaching load and
recognition). However Talent Management seems to score low
on both the dimensions compared to its compitetiors.
While generalizing the finding of the study for different academic institutions, caution should be made, considering sample size and area of study and that study was conducted in private business schools with similar vision and purpose. Since the study focused only on faculty as talent, other contributors in educational institutions also need to be identified. Future research is needed in establishing a model, which can guide academicians and bureaucrats in understanding and establishing effective learning and research environment.
Conclusion:
Faculties as talent for business schools require their competencies as per the
vision and objectives of business schools. As evident in the conceptual
framework, specific competencies required in faculties, which will decide
attracting; selecting and developing strategies need to be according to the
vision and objective of institution. This study shows that Analytical Skills,
interpersonal; Skills, group interaction skills
and leadership skills are important factors for creating talent pool.
Therefore effective talent pooling should be made in line with the above
mentioned skills of faculties with institution vision. A research focused
institution will need different competencies in faculties as compared to those
in a teaching focused and student centered institute. Present study shows that
faculties in business schools consider Learning, performance,
role clarity, study & research, job satisfaction, respect and growth as important factors for recruiting talent in an
institution. Considering faculty as talent and establishing effective talent
management practices with focus on excellence, teaching
load and recognition would reduce
attrition. A facilitating working environment and support from administration
may positively result in internal growth of faculties, which is also ranked an
important factor by them. With effective practices of learning and growth
opportunities, quality faculties can be built within the business schools which
would help in building leadership position of the institution while also
achieving internal career growth aligned with the vision and strategies of the
institution.
References: :
Abdul Rauof Quraishi, U. & Kalim R. (2007), "Development of a Faculty
Satisfaction Model for Higher Education", CIE Conference, Alexandria,
Egypt available at: http://www.cie37.net, retrieved on 14/6/ 2008.
Chen, S. H., Yang, C. C., Shiau, J.Y. & Wang H. H. (2006), "The
Development of an Employee Satisfaction Model for Higher Education", The
TQM Magazine, 18(5): 484-500.
Cornesky, R.(1991), Implementing Total Quality Management in Higher Education,
Magnar Publications and Madison, WI.
Einstein, W. & Bacdayan P. (2001), "Developing Mission-Driven Faculty
Performance Standards", Journal of the Academy of Business Education, 2.
Farley, C. (2005). "HR's Role in Talent Management and Driving Business
Results", Employment Relations Today, 32(1): 55-61.
Jyotsnarani, K. (2007), "Attainment of Excellence through Higher
Education" Orrisa Review, Feburary- March 2007.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001), The War for
Talent, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Shagbemi, T. (1997a), "Job Satisfaction Profiles of University
Professors", Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12 (1): 27-39.
Rauof, A. (2004), "Quality in Higher Education", Pakistan Academy of
Science (Proceedings), 42(2): 165-74.
Shagbemi, T. (1997b), "Job Satisfaction Profiles of University
Professors", Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12 (1): 27-39.
Barbeito, C,
& Bowman, J. (1998). Nonprofit compensation and benefits practices: John
Wiley
& Sons Inc.
Barney, J, &
Wright, P. (1998). 'On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human
resources inmgaining competitive advantage', Human Resource Management, 37: 1,
31-46.
Brown, W,
Yoshioka, C, & Munoz, P. (2004). 'Organizational mission as a core
dimension in
employee
retention', Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 22: 2, 27–42.
O'Reilly III, C,
Chatman, J, & Caldwell, D. (1991). 'People and organizational culture: A
profile
comparison
approach to assessing person-organization fit', Academy of management
journal, 34: 3,
487-516.
Osborn-Jones, T.
(2001). 'Managing talent Exploring the new psychological contract'.
29 | Page
Srivastava, P,
& Bhatnagar, J. (2008). 'Talent acquisition due diligence leading to high
employee
engagement: case
of Motorola India MDB', Industrial and Commercial Training, 40: 5,
253-260.
Vigoda, E, &
Cohen, A. (2003). 'Work congruence and excellence in human resource
management',
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23: 3, 192.
Watson, M, &
Abzug, R. (2005). 'Finding the ones you want, keeping the ones you find:
Recruitment and
retention in nonprofit organizations', RH Associates, The Jossey-Bass
Handbook of
Nonprofit Leadership and Management, 623-659.
.
