Keywords

Talent Management; Inclusive Approach; Exclusive Approach; Talent Retention; Talent Engagement.

Introduction

Research Background and Purpose

Past studies have pointed out that when there are important job vacancies in an institution, directors should consider the question of whether to focus resources on developing specific talents (exclusive approach) or to make good use of each employee (inclusive approach). The results of past studies also showed that when an institution needs to hire faculty, besides considering the fit between the talent and the job (Ho, 2012), it is also important to consider whether the hired person can or cannot stay in the job for a long time. Because of the high cost of the job vacancy period, which institutions cannot afford, sometimes retention is more important than new hires (Neelam et al., 2013). In addition, the willingness of the hired staffs to devote themselves to their works (Hajikaimisari et al., 2010; Phillips, 2014) is also a key consideration. Therefore, finding talents, retaining them, and making them willing to be engaged at work have always been key issues in talent management (Ellepola, 2013; Grecu & Titan, 2016; Kale, 2009; Schwartz & Erickson, 2011; Tucho, 2009). Therefore, hiring talent requires the consideration of both retention and engagement factors. There are two approaches to hiring talent in institutions: the exclusive approach, which focuses resources on developing specific talents, and the inclusive approach, which makes good use of each employee. Each one has its own considerations and characteristics and has different impacts on institutions.

The inclusive approach devotes resources to cultivate institutional talents, and when a position becomes vacant, the more appropriate candidate can be selected from a pool of talents the institution has frequently cultivated for promotion. The exclusive approach concentrates resources on the development of key personnel, so that when a position becomes vacant, the appropriate candidate can be selected from the key personnel developed by the institution (Cappelli & Keller, 2014; Marinakou & Giousmpasoglou, 2019). When analyzing these two types of hiring practices, the inclusive approach gives faculty within an institution the opportunity for advancement and career development, and perhaps employees are more likely to be retained, because of the opportunity for development and they are more willing to devote themselves to their work in the hope of getting a promotion reward.

The problem is that an institution may not always be able to find the best person for a vacant position among internally trained employees, and it takes a lot of resources to train all employees. As a result, some managers adopt the exclusive approach, focusing their resources on key talents, so that the institution does not have to spend huge resources on training all employees, but only on specific key talents. However, adopting this approach may lead to a loss of promotion opportunities within the institution and may undermine members’ perceptions of organizational justice (Cappelli & Keller, 2014), which is detrimental to overall employee engagement and retention (O’Connor & Crowley-Henry, 2019; Pandita & Ray, 2018; Ramli et al., 2018). Educational institutions are important institutions for the development of a nation’s citizens, and the engagement and retention of teachers and caregivers in educational institutions are important for student learning. Therefore, the choice of talent management approach in educational institution is an important issue in educational management and administration for teacher retention and engagement.

Which talent management approach is better for employee engagement and retention? Eyring (2014) suggests that an inclusive approach to talent management allows for employee development and leads to higher employee engagement. The results of literature analysis by O’Connor and Crowley-Henry (2019) suggest that an exclusive approach to management may marginalize unnoticed employees and cause them to lose enthusiasm for their work. Therefore, it seems that an inclusive approach is more conducive to work engagement. However, from face-to-face interviews with 27 luxury hoteliers in four countries - United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Greece - Marinakou & Giousmpasoglou (2019) find that a mix of inclusive and assertive approaches to talent management is more conducive to engagement. Therefore, which is more conducive to engagement, the inclusive or the assertive approach? It is still worthwhile to further explore and analyze.

Pandita & Ray (2018) point out that talent management is one of the most important tools to ensure talent engagement and to promote employees’ willingness to stay in an institution for a long time (Pandita & Ray, 2018). Ramli et al. (2018) also suggest that successful talent management initiatives should produce a high level of employee engagement and low turnover. Abioro et al. (2020) argue that failure to manage talents well will lead to organizational inefficiency and poor retention of talents. These studies infer that talent management approaches may influence talent engagement and retention. However, which approach is most effective for talent engagement and retention? It remains to be determined.

Another factor to consider is whether the two different approaches, inclusive and exclusive, affect employees’ perceptions of organizational justice. Saad & Sudin (2020) mention that perceptions of organizational justice have a strong impact on retention. If the exclusive approach, which places resources on special talent, positively affects their willingness of retention, then does it affect the perception of organizational justice and retention willingness of employees who are not regarded as important? Many studies have also suggested that organizational justice perceptions relate to talent retention (Addai et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2015; Parker & Kohlmeyer, 2005; Ribeiro & Semedo, 2014). Therefore, researchers need to include organizational justice perceptions as a research factor when exploring inclusive and exclusive approaches for talent management. In addition, it has also been found that perceptions of organizational justice affect work engagement (Alvi & Abbasi, 2012; Ghosh et al., 2014), suggesting that perceptions of organizational justice are an important factor that should be explored when exploring the effects of inclusive and exclusive approaches on work engagement and talent retention.

In conclusion, this study has two purposes. The first is to investigate the effects of different talent management approaches (exclusive and inclusive) on talent engagement and retention in educational institutions and to identify the talent management approaches that are the most conducive to talent retention and engagement. The second purpose is to understand the possible role of organizational justice perception in the relationship between talent management approaches, talent retention, and talent engagement, in order to provide operators with an understanding of the effects of different talent management approaches.

Literature Review

Talent Management Approach

Exclusive approach/inclusive approach. There are two different schools of thought about talent management: one believes that all employees in an institution are talents of the institution and every employee is in the scope of talent management, which is called inclusive approach; the other believes that only those important faculty who have excellent abilities and high potential and can bring high value to an institution can be called talents and are the target of talent management in the institution, which is called exclusive approach (Cappelli & Keller, 2014; Marinakou & Giousmpasoglou, 2019). The inclusive approach suggests that managers should use each employee appropriately to create added value, while the exclusive approach suggests that they should focus on specific employees to create the best value (Cappelli & Keller, 2014).

Talent pooling and core capability are important strategies for an inclusive approach for talent management (Eyring, 2014). The talent pooling strategy refers to the recruitment and development of talents on a broad base in order to select appropriate talents (Eyring, 2014; Kececioglu & Yilmaz, 2014), and institutions that adopt this strategy usually invest their resources extensively in the development of the skills of most employees (Eyring, 2014). A core capability strategy focuses on developing employees with skills that are important to a company, familiarizing them with the core skills of a large number of positions within the company, and building their competencies across positions and expertise to enhance their ability to expand business (Eyring, 2014). Basically, the concept of the inclusive approach is based on the workplace rule of equal treatment of employees, which argues that talent management should be applied to all employees (Cappelli & Keller, 2014). The characteristic of companies that adopt the inclusive approach is to recruit talent and cultivate a wide range of members within the institution; when a position is vacant, talents within the institution are often considered first for the position. For example, Eyring (2014) notes that, in companies that adopt a talent pooling strategy, a high percentage of managers are promoted internally. This talent management approach gives each employee the opportunity to be promoted, which may lead to a higher perception of organizational justice.

Key talent strategy and position planning are important strategies for talent management with an exclusive approach (Eyring, 2014). Key talent strategy means that an organization classifies talents into levels and then focuses resources on the top A-level talent to actively develop their capabilities. Position planning refers to focusing on a few key positions within an institution and investing in these positions in a differentiated manner (Eyring, 2014). Basically, the exclusive approach believes that unequal investments yield greater total returns and that institutions should disproportionately invest scarce resources in individuals for whom they expect the greatest returns (Cappelli & Keller, 2014). Institutions that adopt the exclusive approach differentiate their investments for only a few individuals and a few positions. When positions become vacant, there may not be many suitable candidates internally as a result of the differentiated investment, and so it then often becomes necessary to recruit talents externally.

According to past studies, institutions adopting an exclusive approach outnumber those adopting an inclusive approach. For example, Eyring (2014) finds that the key talent strategy (which is an exclusive approach) is used the most by institutions and the talent pooling strategy (which is an inclusive approach) is used the least by institutions. This might be due to the fact that the inclusive approach consumes more resources in an institution as it bets on the most amounts of faculty and positions. When institutions have limited resources and limited funds to invest in talent management, it is necessary to adopt an exclusive approach and invest in just key talents. Eyring (2014) argues that the exclusive approach is suitable for workplace environments with low turnover and slow market growth. The inclusive approach, which advocates developing a wide range of talents and building a talent pooling to turn B-level talent into A-level, is particularly suitable for workplace environments where turnover rates are high or the market for the occupation is growing rapidly (Eyring, 2014). The workplace environment of private education institutions features high turnover rates (inclusive approach for talent management suits well) and slow market growth (exclusive approach for talent management suits well). As this issue has rarely been studied in the context of education institutions, the results of this study can test the applicability of Eyring’s findings to education institutions.

Talent Management, Work Engagement, and Talent Retention

Many researchers indicate that talent management has a significant impact on employee engagement and turnover (O’Connor & Crowley-Henry, 2019; Pandita & Ray, 2018; Ramli et al., 2018). For example, the studies of both Ramli et al. (2018) and Pandita & Ray (2018) show that talent management is an important tool for ensuring work engagement and that successful talent management leads to high work engagement and makes employees willing to stay with the institution for a long time and less likely to leave. Ogbeibu et al. (2021) analyze 372 employees in 49 manufacturing industries in Nigeria and note that talent management predicts quit intentions well. In addition, Bui & Chang (2018) survey 336 public officials in Vietnam and show that talent management affects work engagement and turnover. Therefore, the use of talent management strategies has an important impact on employee engagement and turnover. Talent management consists of two different perspectives: inclusive approach and exclusive approach. What are the effects of these two different talent management approaches on work engagement and turnover (retention)?.

After collecting data from more than 30 multinational companies in India, China, and Indonesia, Eyring (2014) finds that the adoption of two different talent management approaches, inclusive and exclusive, affects employee turnover. Companies adopting an exclusive approach, as a result of differentiated investment in a small group of faculty, may lead to disengagement of unnoticed faculty and high turnover - for example, companies with a position planning and key talent management strategy, both of which are exclusive approaches, have high turnover. The turnover rate of companies with a position planning strategy is 40%-60% (highest of all) greater than other companies. On the contrary, companies with an inclusive approach spend a lot of effort on a wide range of employees and therefore have a low turnover rate. For example, companies with a talent pooling strategy (an inclusive approach) have a 22% lower turnover rate than companies with a key talent strategy (an exclusive approach), and companies with a core capacity strategy (an inclusive approach) have the lowest turnover rate of all companies. Similarly, Abioro et al. (2020) conduct a study on 353 out of 3,000 members of personnel management institutions in Nigeria and present that talent pooling management (inclusive approach) is an important contributor to institutional development and that failure to manage talents in this way leads to low engagement and high turnover rates. O’Connor & Crowley-Henry (2019) also suggest that exclusive talent management, by focusing on a few talents, may marginalize the majority of employees and cause them to lose enthusiasm for work. All of these studies seem to argue that the exclusive approach in talent management is detrimental to employee retention and engagement, while the inclusive approach in talent management is more effective in engagement and retention.

From these findings, it is possible that the inclusionary and dissociative approaches have different effects on work engagement and turnover. Based on the above literature, this study proposes H₁-1 and H₁-2 as follows.

H₁-1: Different talent management approaches (exclusive approach and inclusive approach) have different effects on talent engagement; inclusive approaches are more effective than exclusive approaches in terms of talent engagement.

H₁-2: Different talent management approaches (exclusive approach and inclusive approach) have different effects on talent retention; inclusive approaches are more effective than exclusive approaches in talent retention

Organizational Justice Perceptions, Talent Retention, Talent Engagement, and Exclusive Approach for Talent Management

Many studies have been conducted in the past to show that employees’ perceptions of organizational justice affect their retention intentions (Addai et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2015; Parker & Kohlmeyer, 2005; Ribeiro & Semedo, 2014; Saad & Sudin, 2020). For example, Addai et al. (2018) collect data from 114 teachers in Offinso South District of Ghana by a questionnaire, and the results show that perception of organizational justice significantly and negatively relates to intention to leave, and distributional justice has a significant negative effect on the intention to leave. Khan et al. (2015) analyze data from 182 employees and also find that organizational justice (distributive justice) negatively influences employees’ intention to change jobs. Parker & Kohlmeyer (2005) survey a total of 76 accountants in a Canadian metropolitan area and find that perceptions of organizational justice influence turnover intentions. Saad & Sudin (2020) explore the relationship between retention and organizational justice in the electronics and electricity industries in Malaysia by questionnaire, and the results suggest that organizational justice has a strong impact on talent retention and that interactive justice and distributive justice significantly affect talent retention.

Employee engagement is also influenced by organizational justice (Alvi & Abbasi, 2012; Ghosh et al., 2014) and employees’ perception of not being treated fairly affects their engagement to work. For example, Ghosh et al. (2014) conduct a questionnaire survey on 210 employees of public sector banks in India, and the results show that organizational justice has a very important impact on employee engagement - in particular, distributive justice and interactive justice have a significant effect, and distributive justice is also the most important factor in determining organizational engagement. Alvi & Abbasi (2012) collect questionnaire data from 312 bank employees in Lahore, the second-largest city in Pakistan, to explore the relationship between organizational justice and employee engagement. The results of the analysis show that distributive justice has the strongest influence, followed by interactive justice, while procedural justice does not have a significant influence. O’Connor and Crowley- Henry (2019) examine the relationship between organizational justice, exclusive approach for talent management, and work engagement, and their findings suggest that the exclusive approach for talent management, because of its selective focus on a few key employees (or positions), may have a negative impact on the engagement of those employees who are not included in the “talent” category, because of the perceived unfairness in resource allocation.

As noted above, different talent management approaches may be associated with the concept of justice. The inclusive approach for talent management is considered to be based on the concept of equality, where employees must be treated equally in the workplace, and therefore talent management should be applied to all employees (Cappelli & Keller, 2014). The exclusive approach for talent management is more concerned with investment effectiveness, where good performers are considered more valuable than average performers. The value of human capital should be determined by the contribution that employees can provide to the competitive advantage of a company, and differentiated investment in employees (or positions) with high value can bring a competitive advantage to an institution, and so differentiated investment of resources can bring the best benefits to the institution (Cappelli & Keller, 2014). Because these two approaches have different perspectives, employees’ perceptions of organizational justice may differ. By adopting an inclusive approach for talent management, an organization cultivates all or most of its employees, whether they are A or C grade, and selects the best performers or the most appropriate faculty within the organization when a job is vacant. On the contrary, by adopting an exclusive approach for talent management, an organization differentiates and invests in employees (or positions) based on their performance, and these specially cultivated employees or external talents are recruited by the organization when a position becomes vacant. This leads to negative perceptions of organizational justice by employees. However, there is a lack of data on educational institutions for this issue. This study aims to further investigate whether the exclusive or inclusive approach is more beneficial to educational institutions when there are vacancies of important positions. Since the perception of organizational justice may affect talent retention and talent engagement, this study proposes H₂-1 and H₂-2 based on the results of literature analysis as follows.

H₂-1: The different talent management approaches (exclusive approach and inclusive approach) of institutions affect employees’ perceptions of organizational justice. The inclusive approach for talent management leads to a positive perception of organizational justice, while the exclusive approach for talent management leads to a negative impact on employees’ perceptions of organizational justice.

H₂-2: The different talent management approaches (exclusive approach and inclusive approach) affect talent retention and engagement through the mediation of organizational justice perceptions.

Research Design

Research Structure

In order to explore the effects of the two different talent management approaches, inclusive approach and exclusive approach, on talent retention and talent engagement, as well as the role of organizational justice in the relationship between talent management and talent retention and talent engagement, this study constructs a relationship model chart of these variables based on the results of the literature analysis (as shown in Figure 1).

Approach, Organizational Justice, Talent Engagement, And Talent Retention

In the study structure illustrated in Figure 1 with six variables, two talent management variables (inclusive approach and exclusive approach) are the antecedent variables, two organizational justice perceptions (distributive justice and interactive justice) are the mediating variables, and talent engagement and retention are the outcome variables. These six variables are all potential variables, and each one is measured by an observational variable (questionnaire). Based on the literature, this study examines the direct effects of the inclusive approach and exclusive approach on talent engagement and retention as well as the indirect effects of these two approaches on talent engagement and retention through the organizational justice variables of distributional justice and interaction justice.

Study Sample and Variables Measurement

This study used a stratified random cluster sampling method to select the teachers and caregivers of 138 educational institutions (private kindergartens) in 20 cities in Taiwan to conduct a questionnaire survey and collected 986 effective questionnaires from the mailing of “Talent Management Approach Questionnaire for Early Childhood Education Institutions”. The “Talent Management Approach Questionnaire for Early Childhood Education Institutions” was developed by the researcher for the purpose of this study and with reference to relevant literature. The following is a description of the measurement methods for each of the research variables in this study.

1. Talent management approach: The questions were developed with reference to the literature on talent management with an inclusive approach and an exclusive approach (Cappelli & Keller, 2014; Eyring, 2014; Marinakou & Giousmpasoglou, 2019). The inclusive approach refers to the proper use of an institution’s internal workforce and the replacement of vacant positions with internal staff, which may be realized by talent pooling and core capacity. The exclusive approach refers to the establishment of a position planning that focuses on a small number of key positions and the selection of talents from these positions or external recruitment when a job vacancy arises. The validity analysis of the questionnaire was based on the results of factor analysis to obtain two factors: inclusive approach and exclusive approach. The total explained variance was 76.593%, construct validity was 0.706~0.923, and the reliability α value was 0.915, representing good reliability and validity (see Table 1). The higher the score is, the higher is the degree of practice of inclusive or exclusive talent management approach, as measured by the five-point scale (strongly consistent ~ strongly inconsistent).

Table 1 Summary Of Factor Analysis And Reliability Analysis Of Talent Management Approaches
Items	Inclusive approach	Exclusive approach	Inter community
M2 The kindergarten I work at has a complete picture of the human resourcesavailable in the school.	0.923	-0.093	0.774
M3 The kindergarten I work at regularlysurveys and updates the personal information of each teacher and caregiver,	0.864	-0.041	0.714
including academic experience, training, and certificates, to keep track of the human resources situation in thekindergarten.
M1 The kindergarten I work at has a documented profile on the abilities and specialties of teachers and caregivers so that they are well informed of their talentsand characteristics.	0.825	.018	0.696
M5 When there is a vacancy in the kindergarten I work at, the school will select a person with the core competencies of the position to take overthe position.	0.801	0.089	0.722
M4 The kindergarten I work at has established core competencies for each position and has standardized theknowledge and skills required for each position.	0.790	0.173	0.792
M9 The kindergarten I work at often looks for the most appropriate person to fill the key position that the school wants to develop, rather than looking for a staffmember within the school.	-0.168	0.919	0.719
M8 At the kindergarten I work at, there are incentives to attract the appropriate faculty from outside the school to fillimportant positions.	0.042	0.897	0.845
M6 At the kindergarten I work at, thereare a few positions that are planned to be important investment positions.	0.196	0.786	0.811
M7 The kindergarten I work at has highexpectations for some important positions and has a plan to develop them.	0.316	0.706	0.821
Eigenvalue λ	5.479	1.414	---
Percentage of explained variation	60.881	15.712	---
Cumulative percentage of explainedvariance	60.881	76.593	---
Reliability α	0.915	---	---

2. Organizational justice perceptions: items are developed with reference to the organizational justice literature (Addai et al., 2018; Afridi et al., 2017; Basar & Sigri, 2015; Khan et al., 2015; Parker & Kohlmeyer, 2005; Ribeiro & Semedo, 2014; Saad & Sudin, 2020; Sia & Tan, 2016); validity analysis was conducted with the results of factor analysis, which yielded two factors: distributive justice and interactive justice; the total explained variance was 89.610%, the construct validity was 0.913~0.978, and the reliability α value was 0.899, representing good reliability and validity (see Table 2). The higher the score is, the higher is the degree of organizational justice, as measured by the five-point scale (strongly consistent ~ strongly inconsistent.

Table 2 Summary Of Organizational Justice Factors
Questions	Distributive justice	Interactive justic e	Inter community
J2 I feel that the workload I am burdened with is fair.	0.957	-0.026	0.887
J3 I feel that the work responsibilities I am burdened with are fair.	0.915	0.039	0.881
J1 I feel that the pay I receive is fair.	0.913	- 0.007	0.826
J4 My supervisor (principal or director) treats me with kindness and care.	-0.012	0.978	0.944
J5 My supervisor (principal or director) treats me with respect and dignity.	0.014	0.962	0.942
Eigenvalue λ	3.581	0.900	---
Percentage of explained variance	71.615	17.994	---
Cumulative percentage of explained variance	71.615	89.610	---
Reliability α	0.899	---	---

3. Talent retention: questions are developed with reference to the literature on turnover and talent retention (Addai et al., 2018; Basar & Sigri, 2015; Khan et al., 2015; Neelam et al., 2013; Ogbeibu et al., 2021; Parker & Kohlmeyer, 2005; Qureshi & Aleemi, 2018; Ribeiro & Semedo, 2014; Saad & Sudin, 2020; Scanlan et al., 2013), and the validity analysis was performed with the results of factor analysis, which yielded 1 factor. The total explained variance was 89.942%, construct validity was .938~.955, and the reliability α value was .944, representing good reliability and validity (see Table 3). The higher the score is, the higher is the retention level, as measured by the five-point scale (strongly consistent ~ strongly inconsistent).

Table 3 Summary Of Factor Analysis And Reliability Analysis Of Talent Retention
Questions	Talent retention	Inter community
R2 The kindergarten is a place where staff want to stay and work.	0.955	0.912
R3 The kindergarten is a place where competent teachers and caregiverslike to stay and do not want to leave or change jobs.	0.952	0.907
R1 The kindergarten is a place where the teachers and caregivers do not orrarely think about changing jobs or schools.	0.938	0.880
Eigenvalue λ	2.698	---
Percentage of explained variation	89.942	---
Confidence α	0.944	---

(4) Talent input: questions are developed with reference to the literature on work engagement (Khan et al., 2015; Kuok & Taormina, 2017; Ramli et al., 2018; Rich et al., 2010; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Suk-Bong et al., 2015), and the validity analysis was performed with the results of factor analysis, which yielded 1 factor. The total explained variance was 89.493%, construct validity was 0.940~0.950, and reliability α value was 0.941, representing good reliability and validity (see Table 4 for details). The higher the score is, the higher is the level of talent engagement, as measured by the five-point scale (strongly consistent ~ strongly inconsistent).

Table 4 Summary Of Factor Analysis And Reliability Analysis Of Talent Engagement
Questions	Talent engagement	Inter community
E1 This is a kindergarten where the teachers and caregivers are enthusiastic about their work, persevere in their work, and are resilient inthe face of difficulties.	0.950	0.903
E2 This is a kindergarten where teachers and caregivers always feel strong and energetic at work.	0.948	0.899
E3 This is a kindergarten where teachers and caregivers feel that their work is challenging and that they are willing to devote themselves to it.	0.940	0.883
Eigenvalue λ	2.685	---
Percentage of explained variance	89.493	---
Confidence α	0.941	---

Data Analysis Methods

The statistical analysis methods used in this study include reliability analysis, factor analysis, correlation analysis, and SEM structural equation model analysis, with data being analyzed via SPSS and LISREL.

Research Results And Discussion

Current Status and Correlation Analysis of Talent Management Approaches, Organizational Justice, Talent Engagement, and Talent Retention

Table 5 summarizes the mean and standard deviation of talent management approaches, organizational justice, talent engagement, and talent retention of the respondents after the survey. From the data in the table, we see that the mean number of single questions for the inclusive approach is 3.72, and the mean number of single questions for the exclusive approach is 3.21, displaying that educational institutions (private early childhood education institutions) are more likely to adopt the inclusive approach. In terms of organizational justice, the mean number of single questions for interactive justice is 4.04, and the mean number of single questions for distributive justice is 3.63, denoting that the respondents rated institutions higher in terms of interactive justice. On the other hand, the mean number of single questions for the talent engagement is 3.60, and mean number of single questions for the talent retention is 3.62, or both are below the level of “consistent”, indicating that both talent engagement and talent retention have room for improvement.

Table 5 Summary Of Mean Number Of Talent Management Approach, Organizational Justice, Talent Engagement, And Talent Retention
Research variables		Number	Mean number	Standard deviation	Mean of a single question
Talent	Inclusive approach	986	18.6232	3.82186	3.7246
management	Exclusive approach	986	12.8216	3.65607	3.2054
Organizational justice	Distributive justice	986	10.8793	2.56304	3.6264
	Interactive justice	986	8.0833	1.49698	4.0417
Result variables	Talent engagement	986	10.8084	2.62471	3.6028
	Talent retention	986	10.8745	2.72041	3.6248

Table 6 shows the results of the correlation analysis of this study. From the data in the Table, the inclusive approach has a significantly positive correlation with distributive justice and interactive justice (p<.05), with correlation coefficients r of 0.65 and 0.61, respectively. There is also a significantly positive correlation between exclusive approach and distributive justice and interactive justice (p<0.05), but the correlation coefficients are lower at 0.44 and 0.36, respectively. Schober et al. (2018) conclude that the absolute value of the correlation coefficient r falling between 0.40 and 0.69 is moderate correlation, 0.10 to 0.39 is low correlation, 0.70 to 0.89 is high correlation, and above 0.90 is very high correlation. Accordingly, the correlation between inclusive approach and distributive justice and interactive justice is “moderate or high”, while the correlation between exclusive approach and distributive justice is “moderate or low” and the correlation with interactive justice is “low”.

Table 6 Summary Of The Correlation Analysis Between Talent Management Approach, Organizational Justice, Talent Engagement, And Talent Retention
	Inclusive approach	Exclusive approach	Distributive justice	Interactive justice	Talent engagement	Talent retention
Inclusiveapproach	1	0.576**	0.654**	0.608**	0.702**	0.663**
Exclusive approach	0.576**	1	0.435**	0.355**	0.485**	0.466**
Distributivejustice	0.654**	0.435**	1	0.571**	0.633**	0.634**
Interactive	0.608**	0.355**	0.571**	1	0.562**	0.537**
justice
Talent engagement	0.702**	0.485**	0.633**	0.562**	1	0.823**
Talentretention	0.663**	0.466**	0.634**	0.537**	0.823**	1

The inclusive approach also significantly and positively correlates with talent engagement and talent retention, with the correlation coefficient r being 0.70 and 0.66, respectively, while the exclusive approach is 0.49 and 0.47, respectively. This indicates that the inclusive approach “highly” correlates with talent engagement and “moderately-to-highly” correlates with talent retention, and that exclusive approach “moderately” correlates with talent engagement and talent retention.

As for the relationship between organizational justice and talent engagement and talent retention, according to Table 6, distributive justice significantly and positively correlates with talent engagement and talent retention (p<0.05) with a correlation coefficient of 0.63, which is a “moderately high” correlation. Interactive justice also significantly and positively correlates with talent engagement and talent retention. The correlation coefficients are 0.56 and 0.54, respectively, which are also “moderately high” correlation. However, from the magnitude of the values, we can see that there is a higher correlation between distributive justice and talent engagement and talent retention compared to interactive justice. From the analysis, we see that the inclusive approach has a higher correlation with organizational justice (distributive justice, interactive justice) than the exclusive approach and also a higher correlation with talent engagement and talent retention.

Test of a Model of the Relationship between Talent Management Approach, Organizational Justice, Talent Engagement, and Talent Retention

This study constructs and hypothesizes the relationship between the six variables of inclusive approach, exclusive approach, distributive justice, interactive justice, talent engagement, and talent retention based on the research literature and conducts a structural equation model analysis with LISREL to examine the relationship patterns of these six variables. From the results of the data analysis, the final model is shown in Figure 2 and Table 7.

In Figure 2 the factor loadings between the six potential variables and their estimated parameters are 0.76, 0.83, 0.77, 0.86, and 0.82 for inclusive approach; 0.90, 0.92, 0.85, and 0.66 for exclusive approach; 0.85, 0.91, and 0.92 for distributive justice; 0.93 and 0.95 for interactive justice; 0.92, 0.92, and 0.90 for talent engagement; and 0.89, 0.93, and 0.92 for talent retention. These values range from a minimum of 0.66 to a maximum of 0.95, which is consistent with the model’s basic fitness criterion of factor loadings being no less than 0.50 and no more than 0.95 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Moreover, after parameter estimation, the error variances of the model reach a significant level of 0.05, and none of them are negative, which is consistent with the basic fitness criterion of the model (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). In terms of the model’s overall fitness, the values of the indicators are shown in Table 7, with GFI of 0.90, which is consistent with the criterion being greater than 0.80 (Doll et al., 1994). IFI, NFI, NNFI, and CFI values are 0.98, which are consistent with the criterion being greater than 0.90 (Bentler, 1988; Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hu & Bentler, 1999). The RMSEA value is 0.076, which is consistent with the criterion being less than or equal to .08 (McDonald & Ho, 2002) and shows that the model fits well.

Table 7 Adaptive Pointer Value Of The Final Model Of The Relationship Between Talent Management Approach, Organizational Justice, Talent Engagement, And Talent Retention Impact Relationship
Indicator name	Examination result	Acceptance value
Chi square values	1087.86 (P=0.0)	p>0.05
GFI(goodness-of-fit index)	0.90	>0.80(Doll et al., 1994)
IFI(incremental fit index)	0.98	>0.90(Hu & Bentler,1999)
NFI(normal fit index)	0.98	>0.90(Bentler & Bonett,1980)
NNFI(non- normal fit index)	0.98	>0.90(Bentler & Bonett,1980)
CFI(comparative fit index)	0.98	>95(Bentler,1988)
RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation)	0.076	≦0.08(McDonald & Ho, 2002)

The next step is to analyze the relationship between the six potential variables. The effect variances of talent engagement and talent retention are first explored. As shown in Figure 2, the three variables with significant influence (p<0.05) on talent engagement are inclusive approach (β=0.59), distributive justice (β=0.26), and interactive justice (β=0.07). The influence of the inclusive approach is the strongest, followed by distributive justice, and then by interactive justice. This result indicates that the adoption of the inclusive approach for talent management is beneficial to member engagement, and the higher are distributive justice and interactive justice of an organization, the higher is member engagement; the higher are distributive justice and interactive justice, the higher is member engagement. An exclusive approach for talent management exerts no significant effect on talent engagement (p>0.05). The only two variables with significant influence (p<0.05) on talent retention are the inclusive approach (β=0.53) and distributive justice (β=0.20). From the standardized coefficients, it can be seen that talent management with an inclusive approach has the strongest influence on talent retention; in addition, the higher is distributional justice, the higher is talent retention; and the higher is distributive justice, the higher is talent retention. Exclusive approach and interactive justice have no significant influence on talent retention (p>0.05).

Notes: Inclu: Inclusive approach for talent management; exclu: exclusive approach for talent management; dis: distributive justice; int: interactive justice; FR: talent engagement; ret: talent retention; M1~M9 questions are shown in Table 1; J1~J5 questions are shown in Table 2; and R1~R3 questions are shown in Table 3; E1~E3 questions are shown in Table 4. The numbers in the figure are standardized coefficients.

In terms of the relationship between talent management approach and organizational justice, Figure 2 shows that talent management with inclusive approach has a significantly positive effect on distributive justice and interactive justice (p<0.05) with standardized coefficients of 0.73 and 0.75, respectively, indicating that educational institutions with inclusive approach have a higher evaluation of distributive justice and interactive justice among teachers and caregivers. Adoption of an exclusive approach for talent management has no significant effect on distributive justice (p>0.05) and has a negative effect on interactive justice (p<.05), meaning that the adoption of an exclusive approach for talent management in educational institutions is detrimental to the evaluation of interactive justice by teachers and caregivers.

Table 8 Path And Effect Of Talent Management Approach On Talent Engagement And Retention
Analysis of the relationship between variables	Direct effect	Indirect influence path	Total influence	Mediating variables
Inclusive approach on talent engagement	Inclusive approach→ talent engagement => 0.59	Inclusive approach→ distributive justice→ talent engagement => 0.73×0.20=0.146 Inclusive approach→ interactive justice→ talent engagement => 0.75×0.07=0.0525	0.7885	distributive justice interactive justice
Inclusive approach ontalent retention	Inclusive approach→talent retention =>0.53	Inclusive approach→ distributive justice→ talent retention=> 0.73×0.26=0.1898	0.7198	distributive justice
Exclusive approach on talentengagement	No significant effect	Exclusive approach→ interactive justice→ talent engagement=> -0.10×0.07=-0.007	0-0.007	interactive justice
Exclusive approach on talent retention	----	----	No	No

Based on the paths and standardized coefficients of the potential variables in the final model of Figure 2, the summarized results are in Table 8. In addition to the strong direct effect of inclusive approach for talent management on talent engagement (β=0.59), it also affects talent engagement indirectly through the mediating effect of distributive justice and interactive justice, and the indirect effect of distributive justice is higher than that of interactional justice. The inclusive approach for talent management also has a strong direct effect on talent retention (β=0.53) and indirectly affects talent retention through the mediating effect of distributive justice. From the perspective of the total effect, the total effect of inclusive approach for talent management on talent engagement and retention is 0.7885 and 0.7198, respectively, indicating that the use of the inclusive approach for talent management not only encourages talent engagement and retention, but also helps to improve the evaluation of institutional members on distributive justice and indirectly affects talent engagement and retention. In addition, the inclusive approach for talent management also helps to improve the evaluation of interactive justice among members of an institution, which in turn affects talent engagement. The exclusive approach for talent management has no significant effect on talent retention and no direct effect on talent engagement, but only slightly affects talent engagement indirectly through interactive justice. It is worth noting that the exclusive approach for talent management has a negative effect on interactive justice, and since interactive justice positively affects talent engagement, the use of such a talent management approach may not be conducive to the evaluation of interactive justice by institutional members and may affect talent engagement.

Discussion of the Study Results

This study finds that the inclusive approach for talent management has a strong direct effect on talent engagement and talent retention, while the exclusive approach has no effect, thus supporting H₁-1 and H₁-2. This means that the different talent management approaches (exclusive and inclusive) do have different effects on talent engagement and retention, and the inclusive approach is more effective than the exclusive approach in both talent engagement and retention. The results of another study, compared with the past literature, show that talent management is influential on the engagement of public employees in Vietnam (Bui & Chang, 2018). The same results are also obtained in this study for educational institutions in Taiwan. Therefore, the influence of talent management on talent engagement is supported by different professional institutions in different countries.

Ogbeibu et al. (2021) analyze manufacturing employees in Nigeria and find that talent management significantly predicts turnover intention (or talent retention). The same results are also obtained for educational institutions in Taiwan. Therefore, the influence of talent management on talent retention is supported by different occupational institutions in different countries. In this regard, the researcher of this study finds in the study with educational institutions being the objects that talent management is influential in talent engagement and retention across different occupational institutions (public service, manufacturing, and educational institutions) in different countries and regions (Vietnam, Nigeria, and Taiwan).

A review on the influence of inclusive approach and exclusive approach for talent management helps to find that the inclusive approach for talent management has a strong direct effect on talent engagement and retention. The results of this study are similar to that of Abioro et al. (2020), who investigate members of personnel management institutions in Nigeria, where talent pooling management (which is inclusive) / inclusive talent management has a strong effect on talent engagement. In addition, our study finds a slight effect on talent engagement and no significant effect on talent retention for talent management with an exclusive approach. This finding is not consistent with Eyring’s (2014) analysis of data collected from over 30 multinational companies in India, China, and Indonesia, where multinational data show that the use of an exclusive approach may lead to the disengagement of unattended faculty. This may be due to the fact that exclusive talent management, by focusing on a few talents, may marginalize unfocused employees and lead to their disengagement (O’Connor & Crowley-Henry, 2019). Therefore, there is some variation in the effect of the exclusive approach on work engagement. Some studies suggest a slight effect (e.g., the results of our study) and others suggest a negative effect (Eyring, 2014; O’Connor & Crowley-Henry, 2019). However, the findings herein suggest that in the case of educational institutions, exclusive talent management has a slight effect on talent engagement, but no significant effect on talent retention Therefore, it is still appropriate for educational institutions to adopt an inclusive approach for talent management, and that focusing on the development of each teacher and caregiver helps the retention and engagement of talent in educational institutions.

In terms of correlation analysis, there is a moderate correlation between the exclusive approach and talent engagement and retention (r=0.49 & 0.47). However, in the structural equation model analysis, the exclusive approach does not exhibit a direct and significant impact on talent engagement and retention, indicating that the use of the exclusive approach in talent management does not significantly help talent engagement and retention. The inclusive approach significantly and highly correlates with talent engagement and retention, with correlation coefficients r=0.70 and 0.66, indicating that the inclusive approach would be a better approach to be adopted in educational institutions.

This study also finds that the adoption of different talent management approaches (exclusive and inclusive) affects employees’ perceptions of organizational justice, as inclusive talent management has a positive effect on distributive justice and interactive justice of an organization. This finding supports H₂-1, whereby “the different talent management approaches (exclusive approach and inclusive approach) of organizations affect employees’ perceptions of organizational justice, and the inclusive approach for talent management leads to a positive perception of organizational justice” and is in line with Cappelli & Keller (2014) who argue that inclusive talent management is based on the concept of justice, and employees perceive to be more fairly treated. This study presents that the effect of the exclusive approach on talent management is only negative for interactive justice, but not for distributive justice. It supports H₂-1 in that the “exclusive approach for talent management leads to a negative impact on employees’ perceptions of organizational justice”, but this negative effect is reflected in interactive justice and not distributive justice. In other words, when private early childhood education institutions adopt an exclusive approach for talent management, teachers and caregivers may not perceive that their workload is unfair or that their salaries are unfairly distributed. However, they do feel that their supervisors give them a different opportunity to express their opinions. This is consistent with O’Connor and Crowley-Henry’s (2019) suggestion that exclusive talent management may lead to negative perceptions of organizational justice. The results of our study further suggest that this perception of injustice is evident in the interactive justice of supervisors and employees and that employees perceive their interaction with supervisors as being differentially treated.

Regarding the relationship between the four variables of talent management, organizational justice, talent engagement, and talent retention, this study finds that organizational justice plays a mediating role in the influence of talent management approach on talent retention and talent engagement, and H₂-2 is therefore supported. The relationship between inclusive approach, exclusive approach, organizational justice, talent engagement, and talent retention has been poorly studied due to the lack of analysis on empirical data in past studies on talent management approaches. Therefore, the findings herein help to understand and confirm the relationship between these variables. The results of this study show that inclusive talent management is associated with higher engagement through higher employee perceptions of distributive justice and interactive justice and higher retention through higher distributive justice. In the case of exclusive talent management, employees’ perceptions of interactive justice are more negative, which may have a negative impact on engagement.

Previous studies have suggested that organizational justice affects work engagement, with distributive justice having the strongest influence (Alvi & Abbasi, 2012; Ghosh et al., 2014), and our study finds that distributive justice and interaction justice both positively affect work engagement, but distributive justice has a stronger influence. As for retention, Addai et al. (2018) & Khan et al. (2015) present that distributive justice negatively affects turnover, while Saad & Sudin (2020) offer that distributive justice and interactive justice both positively affect retention. Our study finds that distributive justice positively affects retention, but interactive justice does not have a significant effect, indicating that distributive justice is indeed an important factor for talent retention.

Previous studies also show that more companies have an inclusive approach than an exclusive one and that an inclusive approach is considered to be particularly suitable for workplace environments with high turnover rates (Eyring, 2014). Our study finds that early childhood education institutions use more inclusive management than exclusive management, because of the consistently high turnover rate of teachers and caregivers (Chen & Cheng, 2012). Therefore, our study shows that inclusive talent management is also applicable to educational institutions.

Conclusion and Suggestions

Whether the exclusive approach or inclusive approach, the question is which talent management approach is better for retention and engagement in educational institutions. Due to a lack of empirical data from large samples of educational institutions, there is a lack of empirical evidence on the paths of talent engagement and retention in the context of talent management with exclusive and inclusive approaches. Therefore, this research collected questionnaires of 986 teachers and caregivers from 138 kindergartens in 20 cities to conduct statistical analysis and understand this issue. Findings show that different talent management approaches have different effects on organizational justice, talent engagement, and talent retention. Inclusive talent management is the best talent management approach in educational institutions, because it is more effective in utilizing all employees, developing them, and investing resources. This talent management approach is good not only for talent retention, but also for talent engagement. Moreover, such a talent management approach makes employees perceive higher organizational justice, including a higher evaluation of distributive and interactive justice. Employees’ high evaluation of distributive and interactive justice can help talent engagement, while employees’ high evaluation of distributive justice can help talent retention. In summary, inclusive talent management has a strong direct effect on talent engagement and retention, and some indirect effects are mediated by organizational justice, in which distributive justice and interactional justice play a mediating role.

Exclusive talent management has no direct effect on talent engagement and retention. However, it produces a negative impact on engagement and retention. Since high employee perceptions of interactive justice help engagement, the negative impact of exclusive talent management on interactive justice may lead to a negative impact on engagement. It is recommended that private early childhood education institutions that intend to adopt talent management take into account the findings of this study and be cautious in understanding the possible effects of an inclusive approach.

In educational institutions, faculties are closely related to each other, where teachers and caregivers are all professionals. If an exclusive approach is adopted and resources are focused on specific key personnel, then those who are not selected might think: Why am I not one of them? What are the criteria for selecting specific talents? This may lead to the perception of unfair treatment by an institution or the perception of unfair interaction, because the selection criteria for specific talent are not disclosed and teachers are not given the opportunity to appeal. All of these factors may affect teachers’ engagement and retention. Therefore, it is better to adopt an inclusive approach for talent management in educational institutions, so that each employee is properly trained and has the opportunity to move up to higher positions that may be vacant in the future.

The influence path model of talent management approaches (exclusive approach, inclusive approach), organizational justice, talent engagement, and talent retention that are developed and established in this study can be used as the basis for subsequent studies. For example, teachers at different levels of schooling (elementary and secondary) could be taken as objects to continue the study to explore the consistency or differences in talent management approaches among educational institutions at different levels. This study finds that talent retention in many educational institutions is also affected by salary and promotion opportunities in the questionnaire. In the future, we may consider adding salary and promotion opportunities as control variables to expand the study model. The findings of this study will be provided to other scholars for a better understanding of talent management approaches in educational institutions in Taiwan, so that more comparative studies on talent management can be conducted in different countries to enrich the academic study results of this topic.

References

1. Abioro, M.A., Olabisi, J., Onigbinde, I.O., & Adedeji, A.M. (2020). Skill mapping, talent pool management and organisational development: Evidence from professional bodies in Nigeria. Scientific Proceedings of RTU: Economics & Business, 34(1), 46-59.
2. Abioro, M.A., Olabisi, J., Onigbinde, I.O., & Adedeji, A.M. (2020). Skill mapping, talent pool management and organisational development: Evidence from professional bodies in Nigeria. Scientific Proceedings of RTU: Economics & Business, 34(1), 46-59.
3. Afridi, A.A., Afridi, S.A., & Baloch, Q.B. (2017). The mediating effect of trust in relationship with organizational justice and job satisfaction: A study on higher education sector in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 11, 323-352.
4. Addai, P., Kyeremeh, E., Abdulai, W., & Sarfo, J. O. (2018). Organizational justice and job satisfaction as predictors of turnover intentions among teachers in the Offinso South District of Ghana. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 2, 235-243.
5. Alvi, A.K., & Abbasi, A.S. (2012). Impact of organizational justice on employee engagement in banking sector of Pakistan. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research,12 (5), 643-649.
6. Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation model. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), 74-94.
7. Bentler, P.M. (1988). Theory and Implementation of EQS: A Structural Equations Program. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
8. Basar, U., & Sigri, Ü. (2015). Effects of teachers' organizational justice perceptions on intention to quit: Mediation role of organizational identification. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(1), 45-59.
9. Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
10. Bui, L.T., & Chang, Y. (2018). Talent management and turnover intention: Focus on Danang city government in Vietnam. International Review of Public Administration, 23(4), 219-236.
11. Cappelli, P., & Keller, J.R. (2014). Talent management: Conceptual approaches and practical challenges. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 305-331.
12. Chen, Y.G., & Cheng, J.N. (2012). The relationships among recruitment channels, understanding of prospective job, job performance, and turnover intention among Taiwanese kindergarten teachers. Social Behavior and Personality, 40(1), 93-104.
13. Doll, W.J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Quarterly, 12(2), 259-274.
14. Ellepola, M.G. (2013). Reducing employee turnover in apparel manufacturing industry: Case study. Journal on Management, 8(3), 42-46.
15. Eyring, J. J. (2014). Talent management strategies for multi-speed growth: Getting your practices in the right gear.People & Strategy, 37(3), 30-34
16. Grecu, M., & Titan, E. (2016). Brain drain - brain gain, evidence from the European Union. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 11(3), 61-69.
17. Hajikaimisari, M.M., Ghalambor, M.A., & Hajikarimi, A.A. (2010). Talent management an effective key to manage knowledgeable workers to fabricate safer steel structure. International Journal of Simulation - Systems, Science & Technology, 11(3), 66-74.
18. Ghosh, P., Rai, A., & Sinha, A. (2014). Organizational justice and employee engagement: Exploring the linkage in public sector banks in India. Personnel Review, 43(4), 628-652.
19. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
20. Kececioglu, T., & Yilmaz, M.K. (2014). An application on the brand of talent management perspective. Journal of Yasar University, 9(35), 6235-6244.
21. Kale, D. (2009). International migration, knowledge diffusion and innovation capacities in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. New Technology, Work & Employment, 24(3), 260-276.
22. Kuok, A.C.H., & Taormina, R.J. (2017). Work engagement: Evolution of the concept and a new inventory.Psychological Thought,10(2), 262-287.
23. Khan, K., Abbas, M., Gul, A., & Raja, U. (2015). Organizational justice and job outcomes: Moderating role of Islamic work ethic. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 235-246.
24. Kuok, A.C.H., & Taormina, R.J. (2017). Work engagement: Evolution of the concept and a new inventory.Psychological Thought,10(2), 262-287
25. Neelam, M., Jatain, D., & Rana, T. (2013). Developing and retaining employees by effective talent management.International Journal of Computer Science & Management Studies, 13(7), 289-295.
26. Marinakou, E., & Giousmpasoglou, C. (2019). Talent management and retention strategies in luxury hotels: evidence from four countries. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(10), 3855-3878.
27. McDonald, R.P., & Ho, M.R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analysis.Psychological Methods, 7, 64-82
28. O’Connor, E.P., & Crowley-Henry, M. (2019). Exploring the relationship between exclusive talent management, perceived organizational justice and employee engagement: Bridging the literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 903-917.
29. Parker, R.J., & Kohlmeyer, J.M. (2005). Organizational justice and turnover in public accounting firms: a research note. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 30(4), 357-369.
30. Ogbeibu, S., Jabbour, C.J.C., Burgess, J., Gaskin, J., & Renwick, D.W.S. (2021). Green talent management and turnover intention: the roles of leader STARA competence and digital task interdependence. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
31. Pandita, D., & Ray, S. (2018). Talent management and employee engagement – a meta-analysis of their impact on talent retention. Industrial and Commercial Training, 50(4), 185-199.
32. Phillips, D.D. (2014). Anchoring talent management to business performance. Journal of Property Management, 79(3), 16-20.
33. Ribeiro, N., & Semedo, A. S. (2014). Human resources management practices and turnover intentions: The mediating role of organizational justice. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(1), 7-32.
34. Qureshi, M.A., & Aleemi, A.R. (2018). Authentic leadership and turnover intention: Mediating role of work engagement and job satisfaction in the healthcare sector of Pakistan. Abasyn University Journal of Social Sciences, 11(2), 400-408.
35. Saad, Z.M., & Sudin, S. (2020). Justice in compensation: How it affects talent retention in Malaysian electric & electronics industry. Global Business & Management Research, 12(4), 548-558.
36. Ramli, A.A., Isa, A., Baharin, N.L., & Ibrahim, H.I. (2018). The role of talent management in the relationships between employee engagement: A study of GLCs. MATEC Web of Conferences, 150,1-6.
37. Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A., & Crawford, E.R. (2010). Job engagement antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3),617-635.
38. Schwartz, J., & Erickson, R. (2011). Talent drain: On the brain. Business Finance, 17(3), 16-18.
39. Scanlan, J.N., Meredith, P., & Poulsen, A.A. (2013). Enhancing retention of occupational therapists working in mental health: Relationships between wellbeing at work and turnover intention. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 60(6), 395-403.
40. Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A.B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92.
41. Tucho, A. (2009). Factors influencing the successful retention of skilled manpower in developing nations: The case of Ethiopia and people of Ethiopian origin in North America. Western Journal of Black Studies, 33(1), 23- 28.