Practitioner Perspectives on Talent Management: Opinion Poll Results

February 2012 marked the launch of the IRC’s new research initiative, Opinion Polls, that address hot topics facing Canadian human resources (HR), labour relations (LR), and organizational development (OD) practitioners. The IRC’s inaugural opinion poll addressed talent management, and the ways in which Canadian organizations recruit, retain, and develop their talent. This article summarizes some of our findings. All reporting is based on aggregated data.


We received a total of 47 complete responses. Of these, 63.8% are female, and 36.2% are male. Our respondents represent diverse sectors: public (46.8%), private (29.8%), non-profit (12.8%), and quasi-profit (10.6%). The majority (42.6%) of respondents is in the human resources profession, while labour relations (17%) and organizational development (17%) professions are equally represented. The remainder of the respondents, 23.4%, listed their profession as “other.”


Our survey data reveal that internal hiring/promotion remains the most popular recruitment strategy. A staggering 89.4% of respondents indicated that they preferred hiring internally and promoting from within. Literature (e.g., Datta & Guthrie, 1994) suggests that internal hiring may stem from the fact that managers and supervisors are well aware of employees’ work ethics, knowledge, and skills, and can accurately predict their success in the new role. Print media is a recruitment technique relied on by 70% of respondents, while recruitment agencies are used by 48.9% of our respondents, and social media is a recruitment method for 46.8% of respondents. Figure 1 lists the recruitment strategies identified in our survey.

Figure 1

Figure 1 - Talent Management Opinion Poll

According to the literature, social media is, indeed, emerging as an effective recruitment tool. For example, research conducted by Emerging Workforce Study (2010a) identified that 44% of companies are using social media to attract talent. Of these, 23% use LinkedIn, followed by a corporate blog (16%), a company Facebook profile (14%), viral video marketing/recruitment (7%), corporate MySpace profile (6%), and second life presence (1%).

Employee Turnover

We provided our respondents with a list of nine factors and asked them to rate the extent to which each of these factors contributes to employee turnover in an organization. Respondents were provided with a five-point scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree). Based on average ratings, the data reveal that the top three factors contributing to employee turnover are: employee/management personality differences (3.89), amount of work/heavy workload (3.74), and low employee engagement (3.72).

As seen in Figure 2, the six remaining factors are also perceived as contributing to employee turnover: lack of employee recognition/appreciation (3.64), lack of role clarity (3.55), lack of talent development initiatives (3.28), employee/organizational value conflicts (3.28), lack of talent retention strategies (3.26), and insufficient compensation (3.21).

Figure 2

Figure 2 - Talent Management opinion poll

The theory of organizational equilibrium (Allen, 2008) can be used to explain employee turnover. According to Allen, this theory suggests that an employee remains with an organization as long as the contributions made by the employee equal inducements offered by the organization (such as, professional development opportunities, salary incentives, working conditions, etc.). Thus, if an employee perceives a low return on personal investment to an organization, he or she may be more inclined to leave the organization.

Our data confirms this theory. For example, when asked to identify the most significant obstacle to retaining talent, 14.9% of respondents indicated that it becomes difficult to retain employees in an organization where management does not take an interest in staff development. Similarly, 19.1% of respondents pointed to failing to adequately recognize or appreciate talent as the primary reason for losing employees. Other obstacles to retaining talent in an organization include lack of resources/financial constraints (31.9%), and conflicting organization priorities (12.8%).

Turnover comes at a high price. Not only is it costly and time consuming to replace an employee, the void created by such a transition can adversely impact customer relationships, business performance, and success (Jacobs, 2011).

Employee Retention

In addition to analyzing employee turnover, we also investigated employee retention. We provided our respondents with a list of eight factors and asked them to rate the importance of each factor in retaining talent in an organization on a five-point scale (1=least effective; 5=most effective). We then calculated the average ratings to determine the top three factors that contribute to talent retention in an organization. The top three retention factors are: employee engagement (4.51), work-life balance (4.19), and learning and development opportunities (4.15). The other five factors also remain significantly important to retaining talented employees: role clarity (4.13), employee/organizational value alignment (4.04), career advancement opportunities (4.02), employee recognition/appreciation (3.96), and compensation (3.68). Figure 3 rank orders the factors that contribute to employee retention.

Figure 3

Figure 3 - Talent Managment Opinion Poll

Interestingly, compensation ranked last in the list of factors contributing to employee retention. This data leads this author to conclude that for employees it is more important to be actively engaged, and receive intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, rewards. Intrinsic rewards include feelings of accomplishment, and sense of meaningfulness, whereas extrinsic rewards are tangible, such bonuses, pay raises, and benefits (Thomas, 2009).

The literature supports this finding. For example, in his article, Thomas (2009) argued that there is a direct correlation between employee engagement and the intrinsic rewards employees receive. He commented that intrinsic rewards are easily sustainable, act as motivators for employees, and offer less likelihood of burnout.

Talent Development

We provided our participants with a five-point scale (1=not at all; 5=frequently), and asked them to indicate the extent to which their organization is currently implementing talent development strategies. Our analysis reveals that performance reviews (including stretch goals) are “frequently” implemented (38.3%), followed by formalized training (28.3%), and sponsoring professional development opportunities (26.1%). Interestingly, only 13.3% of our respondents indicated that action learning is implemented “frequently.”

We next provided our participants with five areas and asked them to indicate how their organization’s talent development strategies rate in each of the areas on a five-point scale (1=ineffective/requires development; 5=effective/fully developed). Data reveal that, in general, respondents do not perceive the talent development strategies currently employed by organizations as “effective/fully developed.” All talent development strategies have an average effectiveness rating of less than 3.25 (see Figure 4).

Figure 4

Figure 4 - Talent Management Opinion Poll


Talent management encapsulates talent acquisition, retention, and development. IRC research indicates that talent management is both an immediate and long-range priority for Canadian organizations (Juniper & Hill, 2011). In this section we summarize some of the ways in which organizations can effectively recruit and manage talent, such as hiring the right employees, providing employees with work-life balance and opportunities for professional development, and measuring employee retention and turnover.

First and foremost, it is important that the right employees are hired. That is, selecting qualified employees who fit the organization’s culture, vision, and mission. Our Talent Management survey results indicate that employees, whose core values are aligned with those of the organization, are more likely to remain employed with the organization.

It is clear that work-life balance contributes to employee satisfaction (Deery, 2008). Many organizations have programs and policies in place to support healthy workplace practices. In 2011, the IRC conducted a survey, An Inquiry into the State of HR in Canada (Juniper & Hill, 2011). Data revealed the top three programs in place to promote work-life balance include: employee benefits packages (94.9%), employee assistance programs (87.8%), and support for workplace learning (e.g., tuition reimbursement/educational leave of absence) (80.0%). Other programs cited include: pension plan arrangements (79.8%), flexible work arrangement (65.4%), workplace health and safety initiatives (64.9%), employee recognition programs and events (69.1%), organization-sponsored wellness workshops or programs (49.2%), fitness subsidy (45.6%), and on-site child care (10.1%). Healthy workplace practices may help organizations to retain talent, while providing a balanced work-life environment. Consequently, these intrinsically rewarding incentives may serve to maintain employee performance and productivity.

Providing cost-effective learning and development opportunities, such as relying on online learning tools, or incorporating podcasts, webinars, discussion forums, or MP3s into professional development plans may also help to retain organizational talent (Emerging Workforce Study, 2010b). In addition, opportunities such as, job rotations, coaching, and mentoring can also be combined with other development and learning opportunities (CIPD, 2010).

It is beneficial for organizations to measure their retention strategies, and observe turnover rate within the organization. Doing so may help to determine root-causes behind turnover and enable organizations to implement corrective actions to mitigate turnover. Exit interviews are an effective strategy to determine why employees are leaving. To ensure confidentiality, these interviews should be conducted by HR, rather than a direct supervisor (CIPD, 2011).

In conclusion, our survey indicates that intrinsic rewards facilitate employee retention and may reduce employee turnover. Based on our data, employee engagement, work-life balance, and learning and development opportunities are the top three factors contributing to employee retention. The top three factors contributing to employee turnover include employee/management personality differences, amount of work/heavy workload, and low employee engagement. While social media is emerging as a popular recruitment strategy, data reveal that traditional forms of recruitment (internal/promote from within, print advertising, and recruitment agency) remain relied upon. Respondents also perceive that there is room for improvement with regard to the development and effectiveness of talent development strategies. As talent management continues to remain a priority, challenge, and opportunity for organizations, this author suggests that companies consider developing and implementing assessment and measurement tools to assist with effectively evaluating the success of their talent management programs and practices.


Allen, David. Retaining Talent: A Guide to Analyzing and Managing Employee Turnover. Alexandria: Society of Human Resource Management, 2008.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). Factsheet: Employee Turnover and Retention. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2011.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). The Talent Perspective: What Does it Feel Like to be Talent-Managed? London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2010.

Datta, K. Deepak, James P. Guthrie. “Executive Succession: Organizational Antecedents of CEO Characteristics.” Strategic Management Journal 15, no. 7 (1994): 569-577.

Deery, Margaret. “Talent Management, Work-Life Balance and Retention Strategies.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20, no. 7 (2008): 792-806.

Jacobs, Elizabeth. Executive Brief: Differences in Employee Turnover Across Key Industries. Alexandria: Society of Human Resource Management, 2011.

Juniper, Paul, and Alison Hill. An Inquiry into the State of HR in Canada: Executive Summary. Kingston: Queen’s University Industrial Relations Centre, 2011.

Thomas, Kenneth. “The Four Intrinsic Rewards That Drive Employee Engagement.” Ivey Business Journal (2009).

Emerging Workforce Study. How Attracting Talent Has Changed. Emerging Workforce Study, 2010a.

Emerging Workforce Study. Maximize Social Media throughout the Employment Lifecycle. Emerging Workforce Study, 2010b.

Recommended Resources

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). Factsheet: Talent Management: An Overview. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2011.

Chartered Management Institute. Talent Management: Maximising Talent for Business Performance. Ashridge School of Business, 2007.

Corporate Leadership Council. Attracting and Retaining Critical Talent Segments: Identifying Drivers of Attraction and Commitment in the Global Labor Market. Corporate Leadership Council, 2006.

Holland, Peter, Cathy Sheehan, and Helen De Ceiri. “Attracting and Retaining Talent: Exploring Human Resources Development Trends in Australia.” Human Resource Development International 10, no. 3 (2007).

Olaniyan, D.A., and Lucas. B. Ojo. “Staff Training and Development: A Vital Tool for Organisational Effectiveness.” European Journal of Scientific Research 24, no.3 (2008): 326-331.

Morton, Lynne. Talent Management Value Imperatives: Strategies for Successful Execution. New York: The Conference Board, 2005.

Ray, Rebecca L. CEO Challenge Reflections: Talent Matters. New York: The Conference Board, 2011.

Williamson, Doug. Talent Management in the New Business World. Human Resource Management International Digest 19, no. 6 (2011).

An Inquiry Into the State of Labour Relations in Canada: Executive Summary

In November 2011, Queen’s IRC launched a 37-question survey, “An Inquiry into the State of LR in Canada.” The purpose of this survey was to describe the state of the labour relations (LR) profession in Canada, based on the perspectives of practitioners. When the survey closed on December 16, 2011, a total of 184 responses were collected.

This practitioner-focused research complements our 2011 exploration of the state of the human resources profession in Canada, and builds on the our 2009 labour relations survey.

This survey was comprised of two sections. In the first section, we explored the varied roles, responsibilities, and credentials of LR professionals. We also probed some of the characteristics of the organizations in which LR professionals are employed. In the second section, we inquired about the level of knowledge, skills, and abilities required for a successful LR professional. We also sought perspectives on the future of the LR profession, including the challenges and opportunities facing the profession and changes that have, and are anticipated to occur, to jobs held by LR professionals. The survey included both closed- and open-ended questions.

This Executive Summary presents an overview of the aggregated survey data.

Download Executive Summary

Exploring Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles

Transactional leadership is a style of leadership that focuses on the transactions between leaders and their followers (Bass, 1990). Transformational leadership, on the other hand, is a leadership approach that causes change in individuals (Bass, 1990). This paper examines both transformational and transactional leadership styles individually then examines how both of these styles exploit reward power and – by making reference to, and providing evidence from, existing literature – will argue that transformational leadership is more effective.

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership is distinguished from transactional leadership in that it aims at innovation, while the latter is focused on planning and execution. Furthermore, transactional leadership focuses on rewards and punishments in order to achieve goals. These characteristics suggest that transformational leadership strives to create new opportunities for employees in an organization, whereas transactional style works off of an existing structure (Tucker, Georgia, Russell, College, and Emory, 2004). Another distinguishing feature between the two styles is that transformational leadership aims at motivating people while transactional leadership focuses on the use of manipulation of power and authority (Tucker, et al, 2004).

The intrinsic characteristics of transformational leaders, as described by Dixon (1998), are the main drivers behind effective behaviours. Dixon’s study revealed that a leader’s behaviour is influenced by four factors: self confidence, integrity, honesty, and personal values. The primary driving force behind effective performance is the leader’s ability to connect his or her life experiences with transformational behaviours. Once such connection is established, it leads to external transformation, resulting in organizational transformation. For example, when a leader starts to believe that his work can make a difference; his intentions transcend beyond personal motives and are geared towards the greater good.

Schuster (1994) states that transformational leadership appeals to higher motivation, while improving the quality of life for the members of an organization. Transactional leadership, conversely, is considered “at best a networking of power” (p 103). Transformational leaders are able to exercise influence in two primary areas, which appeal to the mind and the heart: 1) deep thinking and 2) empathy (Schuster). Using these influences, a transformational leader is able to motivate followers to act on their own behalf and for the needs of others. In transformational leadership, the leader empathizes with the developmental needs of his/her followers. According to Jung, Yammarino and Lee (2009, transformational leaders are good mentors and provide coaching to their followers.

Transformational leadership focuses on people (Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas and Halpin, 2006). Bass (1990) explains that such leadership motivates in followers; it moves people beyond self-interests and allows them to focus on the good of the group or society (Stewart, 2006). Transformational leaders are able to articulate an appealing vision of the future by communicating ideologies and leading through example. This leadership tends to improve the team’s morale and motivates the team members (Stewart).

In summation, a transformational leader is able to motivate his followers, to strive for excellence without the use of power or authority, by inspiring them through his passion and deep thinking.

Transactional Leadership

In contrast with a transformational leader, a transactional leader accomplishes goals by rewarding employees who meet expectations (Bass, 1990). These rewards come in the form of recognition, pay increases, and advancement. Employees who fail to perform per expectations, however, are penalized. Such transactions or exchanges – the promise of reward for good performance, and discipline for poor performance – characterizes effective transactional leadership (Bass, Avolio, Jung and Berson, 2003). Hence, transactional leadership becomes less appealing and appears mediocre when the leader relies heavily on passive management by exception. Management by exception is, “when leaders transact with followers by focusing on mistakes, delaying decisions, or avoiding intervening until something has gone wrong, or rewards focused on recognizing the work accomplished” (Howell & Avolio, p. 892). This implies that the leader only interacts with his followers when expectations are not met and standards and procedures not followed (Bass, 1990)

Since transactional leadership is based on a system of rewards and penalties, it does not offer much in terms of inspiration, to motivate people to go beyond the basics. Given this fact, the followers of transactional leaders might get complacent and develop a tendency to achieve minimal expectations only that would help them avoid penalties (Bass, 1990). Thus, the leader and the follower are in an agreement on what the follower would receive upon achieving the negotiated level of performance (Bass, 1990). The success of such leadership depends on the level of satisfaction the leader and followers have in following this system of performance based appraisals (Bass, 1990).

A study conducted by Howell and Avolio (1993) confirms that contingent reward leadership has a negative impact on the followers’ performance. Contingent reward is viewed as “an active and positive exchange between leaders and followers whereby followers are awarded for accomplishing agreed upon objective” (p. 892). If managers do not effectively follow-up on the contingent reward promises, thereby displaying behavioural inconsistency, they are viewed as ineffective leaders. Furthermore, research (Howell and Avolio, 1993). suggests that the level of contingent reward leadership is dependent on organizational context and settings. For example, an organization undergoing change might suffer from a transactional leadership style (Howell and Avolio, 1993). The penalties, awarded in such a system of managing by exception, have a negative impact on performance and satisfaction (Bass, no date). This stems from the fact the leader passively awaits problems before taking any action. By following this strategy, the leader ensures that corrective action is taken when required and in doing so he reinforces the roles and expectations for the followers. Hence, this behaviour represents an important aspect of transactional leadership (Bass, 1990)

As can be seen, a transactional leader relies heavily on power and authority to lead his members. Power play and the use of a “reward and penalty” system thus play an integral role in such a leadership style. As discussed through various researches, transactional leadership measures are not so effective and in most cases can de-motivate employees.

Exertion of Power – Differences by Leadership Style

Transactional leaders make use of reward and coercive power, whereas transformational leaders use referent power as well as reward power. Reward power is described as, “target’s perception of the agent’s ability to control valued organizational rewards and resources” (Jayasingam, Ansari, & Jantan, 2009, p. 137). As Locke (1986) contends, if a manager rewards employees by making effective use of power by rewarding employees who are taking on more responsibility in an empowered fashion, this should be viewed positively because people are rewarded for taking action and being empowered to make decisions (p. 98). Therefore, when employees take initiative in the organization, they are rewarded. In contrast, under a transactional leadership style, being awarded for performing as per expectations leaves no motivation to go beyond the call of duty.

Coercive power is based on “the target’s perception that the agent has the ability to inflict various organizational punishments” (Jayasingam, et al, 2009, p. 137). From my experience, transactional leaders are more likely to adopt coercive power. Jayasingam et al. (2009), mention that coercive power has been linked with ineffective leadership. Working in fear of losing one’s job, or fear or demotion, only makes an employee ineffective and unproductive because the employee spends most of his/her time worrying about the consequences if the expectations of the leaders are not met.

Referent power is described as, “a leader with referent power is someone the subordinates aspire to be like and therefore emulate” (Jayasingam, el al., p. 138). Leaders with referent power are also linked with effective leadership. Working with a leader who had acquired referent power, employees enjoy a great deal of autonomy.

The Effectiveness of Transformational Leadership

Research (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Stewart, 2006) has shown that the transformational style of leadership has a positive correlation with team performance. Performance of underperforming units can, therefore, be improved by providing the right form of leadership training to the supervisors of these units. The extent of transformational leadership qualities displayed by a leader has direct impact on organizational functioning (Barling, Weber & Kelloway, 1996). One of the aspects in which a transformational leader impacts an organization’s philosophies, includes satisfaction of subordinates with their supervisors. The study conducted by Barling et al. (1996) extended previous results and strengthened the hypothesis that transformational leadership can not only result in changing the perception of managers, in the eyes of their subordinates, but it can also help improve the subordinates’ own commitment to the organization while improving performance.

A study conducted by Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996) acknowledges the positive impact that transformational leadership can have on work unit effectiveness. These authors noted that transformational leadership has an equal impact on employees at all levels within the organization. Accordingly, it is imperative that frontline leaders, such as shift supervisors, understand the impact that they can have on their unit’s effectiveness. These leaders need to provide their subordinates with individual consideration, as well as intellectual stimulus that would enhance the collective morale (Lowe, et. al). Hence, by relying on their intimate knowledge of the process, and by engaging individuals of their units, these frontline leaders can improve work effectiveness and productivity of their respective units (Lowe et. al, 1996).

In stark contrast, Bass, et al. (2003) mention that transactional leaders are counterproductive in an evolving work environment. Likewise, Howell and Avolio’s (1993) study suggests that transactional leadership style is negatively related to unit performance. Since transactional leaders spend most of their time on meeting goals and achieving the desired results, followers may feel that their freedom is being limited and their motivation may decline.

Expanding on earlier research conducted by Howell and Avolio (1993), Barling et al. (1996) were able to relate transformational leadership to an organization’s financial performance (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). The study conducted by Howell and Avolio (1993) concluded that the degree of transformational leadership (charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration) in a branch manager had a direct impact on the business unit’s performance (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, Howell and Avolio (1993)).

Lowe, (1996) suggests that transformational leadership training should likely utilize situational and interactive exercises when developing frontline leaders (such as unit supervisors). The reason for this was that at the lower level, a good transformational leader needs to be able to interact individually and intellectually stimulate his/her subordinates. This is different than training provided to upper level transformational leaders, where training is focused on the leader’s ability to stimulate subordinates through written and oral communication as opposed to individual consideration (Lowe et. al, 1996).

As mentioned by Griffith (2004), leadership and turnover are directly related such that employee satisfaction stems from the work environment, including satisfaction with the leader (Wells & Peachey, 2010). If an employee has a close working relationship and is satisfied with his or her leader, leaving the company would be less likely as there would be a psychological loss involved (Mossholder et al., 2005). As discussed earlier, transformational leaders are able to engage their followers into a more meaningful and satisfying relationship, hence lowering the follower’s intent to leave (Wells & Peachey, 2010).


In my review of the literature, I have attempted to demonstrate that transformation al style of leadership is far more effective than transactional leadership. By using a transformational leadership style, a leader can effectively motivate his/her followers, improve their productivity, and bring about positive change. Furthermore, the employees feel empowered and a sense of accomplishment while working for a transformational leader.


Barling, Julian, Tom Weber, and E.Kevin Kelloway. “Effects of Transformational Leadership Training on Attitudinal Financial Outcomes: A Field Experiment.” Journal of Applied Psychology 81, no. 6 (1996):872-832.

Bass, Bernard, Dong Jung, Bruce J. Avolio, and Yair Berson. “Predicting Unit Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88, no. 2 (2003): 207-218.

Bass, Bernard. From Transactional to Transformational Leadership Learning to Share the Vision. Organizational Dynamics, (Winter – 1990): 19-31.

Burke, C. Shawn, Stagl Klein, Cameron Klein, Gerald F. Goodwin, Eduardo Salas and Stanley Halpin. “What Types of Leadership Behaviours are Functional in Teams? A Meta-Analysis.” The Leadership Quarterly 17, (2006): 288-307.

Dixon, D. “The Balanced CEO: A Transformational Leader and a Capable Manager.” Healthcare Forum Journal 41, no. 2 (1998):26-29.

Howell, Jane M., and Bruce J. Avolio. “Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Locus of Control and Support for Innovation: Key Predictors of Consolidated-Business-Unit Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 78, no. 6(1993): 891-902.

Jayasingam, Sharmila, Mahfooz Ansari, and Muhamad Jantan, M. “Influencing Knowledge Workers: The Power of Top Management.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 110, no.1 (2009) 134-151. doi: 10.1108/02635571011008443

Judge, Timothy A., and Ronald F. Piccolo. “Transformational and Transactional Teadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of their Relative Validity.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89, no. 5 (2004): 755-768. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755.

Locke, Edwin A. “Toward a Theory of Task Performance and Incentive.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 3, no. 2(1986): 157-189. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(68)90004-4.

Lowe, B.K., Kroeck, G.K., & Sivasubramanium, N. “Effectiveness Correlates of Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Review of the MLQ Literature.” Leadership Quarterly 7, no. 3 (1996).

Schuster, John P. “Transforming Your Leadership Style.” Association Management 46, no.1 (1994).

Stewart, Greg L. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Relationships Between Team Design Features and Team Performance.” Journal of Management. 32, no. 1 (2006) 29-54. doi: 10.1177/0149206305277792

Tucker, Bruce A., Aceworth Georgia, Robert F. Russell, Emory College, and Henry College. “The Influence of the Transformational Leader.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 10, no 4 (2004): 103-111. Doi: doi: 10.1177/107179190401000408

Wells, Janelle E., and Welty Peachey. (2010). Turnover Intentions: Do Leadership Behaviours and Satisfaction with Leader Matters? Team Performance Management, 17, no. 1/2 (2010): 23-40.


About the Author

Tahreem Raza, Queen's IRC Research Assistant

Tahreem Raza is Research Assistant with Queen’s IRC.


This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Learn more about the collection, use and disclosure of personal information at Queen’s University.