The aim of this paper is twofold, i.e. first to explore the ethical ambiguity arising out of exclusive approach to talent management practices and second to take into consideration the employees’ reaction of such practices. Workforce discrimination or segmentation may be feasible from the point of view of cost-benefit, but it imposes serious implications on the fairness perceived by employees. The paper involves extensive use of existing literature which comprises of journals, books, published reports, articles, etc. from various sources that (...) are critical to the subject of study. The literature is selected based on the availability, language, accessibility and relevancy to the topic. The extensive review of literature postulates the violation of the stakeholder theory, equity theory and organisational justice theory in practising exclusive approach of talent management. Ethics and fairness play a major role in influencing the affective, behavioural and cognitive responses of an individual. As a result, talented employees may feel overburdened by the responsibility given to them, and non-talented employees may disassociate themselves from the additional work. Therefore, overall consequence may result to net negative reactions of exclusive talent management practice. Moreover, the role of perceived organisational justice and support cannot be undermined in studying the relationship between exclusive talent management and attitude of employees. This paper is based on certain literature from a limited database. Exhaustive literature review would lead to more concrete perspectives about ethical consideration and subsequently employees’ reaction. Analysing the consequences of employee’s reaction arising from the exclusive talent management practices will highlight the need for change in the direction towards inclusive approach and implement better practices for the good of all employees. This indeed will outline the efficient mechanism to manage talent. (shrink)

Employing moral values as justifications in judicial decisions has been controversial. At present, there is increasing controversy over the application of human dignity. Contemporary debates on the role of dignity in law and adjudication are heavily influenced by Christopher McCrudden’s account of dignity as a placeholder, and much thinking on the contested nature of values is influenced by WB Gallie’s idea of Essentially Contested Concepts. In this paper I argue that both these accounts have limited explanatory and normative potential. McCrudden’s (...) account is illuminating in terms of the role of dignity in the UDHR, but weak in terms of explaining why employing dignity in adjudication yields diverging conclusions, and why dignity should be understood to be a placeholder. His reliance on Gallie’s idea of Essentially Contested Concepts is also misplaced. Gallie’s views often serve as a philosophical basis for understanding the contested nature of values generally. I argue that his account is an external-descriptive one, which cannot explain why persistent disagreement ensues because of the peculiar nature of some concepts. Neither does it point out any property of essential contestability that is unique to some concepts. Thinking on how values such as dignity can figure as justifications for decisions, therefore, must explore other alternatives. (shrink)