No abstract

International, 2010, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.125-145. ABSTRACTHRD practitioners have long shown concerns about the status and legitimacy of the occupation, and, arguably, this has not been unconnected to the range of titles HRD has been given over the years. Has there been an element of "management fashion" about this, or have they reflected some real change at the level of practice? The paper considers whether "Talent Management" (TM), as a recently-emerged area of interest for HRD, can be argued to display features of a management fashion. On the basis of a review of three main perspectives, we conclude that it is too early to say with regard to two of them, given TM"s recent emergence and the paucity of empirical material, but that TM displays features of institutionalism in TM talk in the business and professional literature. A research agenda, based primarily on institutional theory, is developed and a number of research questions outlined.

The article distinguishes between leaders and leadership on the one hand, and leader and leadership development on the other. It then explores a particular mode of leadership development, based upon membership of the UK Academy of Chief Executives (ACE). Semi-structured interviews, documentary analysis, and participant observation were used to study the experiences and obtain the views of members of the North East England branch of the ACE. It is argued that leadership development has often been equated with leader development, with the resulting focus upon the individual, as against attending to the social, political, collective and other contexts of action and meaning. Social capital theory, following Day (2000), is drawn upon in order to help conceptualize and apply leadership development in context, where the emphasis is upon understanding and building relationships and networks, coordinating activities, and developing commitments.

No abstract

The concept of communities of practice has generated considerable debate among scholars of management. Attention has shifted from a concern with the transmission and reproduction of knowledge towards their utility for enhancing innovative potential. Questions of governance, power, collaboration and control have all entered the debate with different theorizations emerging from a wide mix of empirical research. We appraise these key findings through a critical review of the literature. From a divergent range of findings, we identify four main ways in which communities of practice enable and constrain innovative capabilities as (a) enablers of learning for innovation, (b) situated platforms for professional occupations, (c) dispersed collaborative environments and (d) governance structures designed for purpose. Our conclusion signals the way forward for further research that could be used to improve our understanding of different contextual forms and how they may align with organizations in enabling rather than constraining innovative capabilities.