Governance of talent management systems and national innovativeness: The moderating role of culture

2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.22495/jgrv15i3art27
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

This study conceptualizes talent management (TM) systems as a governance mechanism influencing national innovation performance. Building on contextual talent-management research and the Hofstede (1984) cultural framework, the paper examines the association between country-level talent competitiveness and national innovativeness and assesses whether individualism/collectivism changes this relationship (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2020; Hofstede, 2011). Using 2022 Global Talent Competitiveness Index (GTCI) and Global Innovation Index (GII) ranking data, together with The Culture Factor Group (2023) (formerly Hofstede Insights) cultural indicators, the study applies simple regression, moderated regression, independent-samples t-tests, and group-specific regression models for 70 countries. The results show a strong positive association between talent-management rankings and innovation rankings, meaning that countries with stronger talent systems tend to occupy better innovation positions. Cultural context differentiates the level and pattern of this relationship: individualist and collectivist groups show statistically significant differences in GTCI, GII, and related components, although interaction effects require cautious interpretation. The study contributes to governance and regulation literature by positioning TM as an institutional and policy-driven system and by highlighting the need for culturally adaptive human-capital and innovation policies.