Purpose Change management (CM) and project management (PM) literatures examine the key roles (change agent, project manager, project or change sponsor) played during projects or changes only from their respective points of view. They do so even in cases where projects and changes occur at the same time – or are so-called change projects. In such cases, effective management should utilize both scientific fields’ bodies of knowledge (BoK). The purpose of this paper is to unfold how and in which domain(s) typical roles of the two disciplines correspond to each other. Design/methodology/approach This paper is a systematic, bi-disciplinary meta-review that simultaneously studies relevant literature on roles performed during projects and changes. The common domain of CM and PM was identified; the systematic review and comparison of role definitions followed. Findings This paper examines and illustrates the correspondence of 7 CM and 14 PM roles; e.g., “sponsor” refers to the same role and “change agent” and “project manager” are corresponding ones, referring to the same role up to a certain degree. Research limitations/implications This paper does not provide an exhaustive overview of various instances of different role (and stakeholder) interpretations. Practical implications Findings should facilitate the better management of changes that require CM-type and PM-type capabilities and actions. Originality/value As a result of the meta-review, two CM roles were re(de)fined. Linking PM and CM roles provides common ground on which practitioners of both fields can rely. A step-by-step tool for the identification of such cases in practice, when both types of roles should be played and both BoK can be utilized complementarily, was developed.

Simon recognized the limitations of the classical normative decision theory and established descriptive theory. His concept of bounded rationality and administrative behavior was a big step ahead, but the world has changed dramatically since then. Multiple, continuous changes have become normal, which brings up new problems on the decision maker"s and on the organization"s level as well. It became usual that the decision maker is not able to define preferences for lack of knowledge and have to learn or delegate much more frequently than before. In the same time the organization should be more resilient or nimble in this everchanging environment. The authors outline a research agenda on both levels: some about the continuous learning and frequent delegating, and some about the HRM and IT-management issues of organizational nimbleness.

Talent management (TM) has become a key area in HRM in the recent years. In the center of any TM program, there are talented employees themselves, even though currently there are significant differences in approaches to talents within TM. Socalled talent tensions exist, for example, the object-subject, the exclusive-inclusive, the high potential-high performer, to name a few. In this work, the focus on the last tension with the following question to be answered: How often and in what way(s) are high potentials and high performers defined in the peer-reviewed TM literature. Therefore, as part of this systematic literature review, we examined 507 English-only articles and reviews published before December 31, 2018 in the Web of Science database containing the phrase 'talent management' in the topic field (Title, Abstract, Author Keywords, Keywords Plus®) to identify and analyze the conceptualizations of high potentials and high performers. The results show that a remarkable portion of TM articles are concentrating on high potentials and/or high performers, however, regarding the conceptualization, some differences are noticeable, which have significant effects on the operationalization and success of TM programs.

Talent management (TM) has become a key business issue recently, while finding and keeping talents are also crucial in higher education (HE). However, no study summarizes the knowledge on TM of academics. Hence, we conducted a comprehensive systematic literature review searching for existing knowledge about and common processes of TM in HE, and the specialties of TM of academics. We searched for all publications on TM related to academia in Web of Science and Scopus. Non-English and non-article items were excluded resulting in 68 and 108 items, respectively. Eventually, 26 articles were found relevant for a deeper analysis. Besides descriptive statistical analyses, we reviewed the articles in light of our suggested new process-based TM model, which is based on Gagné's work. Findings advance the field by enhancing its theoretical bases, summarizing current knowledge, and posing important questions for future research, while also offering a model as an underlying structure.

No abstract