10 1108 - PR 05 2019 0230

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0048-3486.htm
PR
51,2 Homophily: functional bias to the
talent identification process?
Mariela Golik and Maria Rita Blanco
Universidad Nacional de San Martın, Buenos Aires, Argentina
620
Abstract
Received 7 May 2019
Revised 16 December 2019 Purpose – This empirical study aims to analyse the talent spotters’ perception of their tendency to be
18 January 2020 homophilic in the talent identification process and their stance on it. Besides, this article examines the type of
20 February 2020 homophily and the homophily attributes involved.
9 October 2020 Design/methodology/approach – Based on a qualitative design, 37 middle and senior line managers,
23 October 2020 working for two Argentine conglomerates in six Latin American countries, participated in the study. Data were
Accepted 28 December 2020
collected through semi-structured interviews.
Findings – Homophily was perceived by most of talent spotters, who judged it as natural, while it was not
perceived by a small group of the interviewees. In addition, among those who recognized its presence, another
group advocated the homophilic advantages, while a final one admitted the presence of homophily and its
negative implications. In addition, a variety of homophily attributes were identified; most of them within the
value category. We posit that if homophily attributes are, at the same time, components of high potential
models, homophily will constitute a functional bias to the talent identification process.
Originality/value – This is the first study that explores the talent spotters’ perception of their homophily bias
as well as the diversity of homophily attributes present in the talent identification process. This research
highlights the relevance of the homophily attributes’ analysis, taking into account its alignment to the potential
model in order to improve the talent identification process.
Keywords Line managers, Qualitative, Homophily, Talent identification
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The identification of talent is a crucial step for building and developing a large talent pool that
would enable organisations to effectively adapt and respond to challenges in the environment
(McDonnell and Collings, 2011). Among these challenges, globalization, technology and
broader socio-economic, geopolitical and demographic changes are acknowledged in the
talent literature as the key ones (Claus, 2019). Identification involves choosing the best
candidates to be included in the talent pool and/or in the succession plan and consequently be
considered for future strategic roles of the organisation (Evans et al., 2011). Notwithstanding
the recommendation that potential should be assessed through a multi-method approach,
many firms count upon supervisor nominations and performance appraisals as their main
identification sources (Pepermans et al., 2003; Rothwell, 2010; Golik et al., 2018).
Thus, line managers are key actors in the talent identification process since potential
exists not just because of what an individual does or does not do but often because of someone
else’s capacity to perceive their actions as indicative of potential and their power to help
nurture it into performance (Dominick and Gabriel, 2009). Potential can be understood as
“the probable upper bound trajectory of what an individual may achieve during his/her
career” (Finkelstein et al., 2018). Since the 1930s, “talent scout” (or spotter) is used to designate
a person searching for new talent (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013). Then, we will refer to those
line managers who identify and participate in the talent review process and nominate
talented candidates as talent spotters.
Personnel Review Identification can be understood as a social interactive activity, where power dynamics
Vol. 51 No. 2, 2022
pp. 620-643
and decision-makers’ and employees’ characteristics and values should be considered
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
(Lai and Ishizaka, 2020). Talent decisions can be influenced by a number of conditions, such
DOI 10.1108/PR-05-2019-0230 as organisational politics (Soni, 2014); homophily or similarity bias (M€akel€a et al., 2010);
unclear differentiation between performance and potential (Joos et al., 2019; Silzer and Homophily and
Church, 2009); bounded rationality as well as cultural and institutional distance (M€akel€a et al., talent
2010; Mellahi and Collings, 2010); line managers’ preference to rely on their own judgement
(Wiblen et al., 2012) and line managers’ overconfidence on their talent identification skills
identification
(Dries, 2013).
In this study, we will focus on homophily – birds of a feather flock together – which can be
defined as the tendency for people to prefer to associate with others who are similar in status
or beliefs, values and attitudes (Lazarsfeld and Merton, 1954; McPherson et al., 2001) since the 621
talent identification process, as part of the exclusive talent management approach, requires
transparency and consistency if psychological disruption is to be avoided (Lai and Ishizaka,
2020). This approach needs to ensure that nomination processes are reliable, accurate and
transparent (Dries, 2013).
Manager–employee homophily affect many of the assessments line managers make about
their workers at various stages of their careers, including hiring, performance, promotions,
assignments and termination, and those decisions can potentially affect workplace
disparities (Castilla, 2011). Regarding the talent identification process, due to its social
interactive nature, homophily plays a significant role in it, and, consequently, it is of
paramount importance to understand the type of homophily and the homophily attributes
involved. Previous research suggests that the benefits of homophily are principally located at
the actor level (among others, easier communication, increased behaviour predictability, to
mention some); however, they may be gained at the expense of the organisation’s
effectiveness (Sorenson and Stuart, 2008). Taking into account the organizational impact of
homophily, organisations should make sure that subordinates who are not similar to their
managers are valued (Guillen and Karelaia, 2012), and they get into the “talent radar” in order
to support a wider and more diverse talent pipeline.
Even though homophily is an extensively acknowledged bias in the organisational
literature (Ibarra, 1992; Marschan-Piekkari et al.,1999; Tsui et al., 2002; M€akel€a et al., 2007), to
our knowledge, regarding talent identification studies, it has only been examined by M€akel€a
et al. (2010). These authors posit that, in multinational firms, decision-makers tend to focus on
what is familiar to them and explore cultural and linguistic similarity. Nevertheless, their
contribution does not add to the understanding of the diversity of homophily attributes that
are involved in the talent identification process.
Hence, this article aims to fill this gap by analysing the talent spotters’ perception of their
tendency to be homophilic in the talent identification process. Through their narratives, this
study examines the type of homophily (status or value homophily) as well as the homophily
attributes involved in the talent identification process. The identification of the attributes
is relevant due to the fact that not all homophily attributes generate the same effects
(Alstott et al., 2014). Finally, the positive or negative consequences of the homophily bias in
the talent identification process will be discussed.
Furthermore, this research answers the call for more empirical studies on the process of
talent identification and the role of line managers in talent management (M€akel€a et al., 2010;
Gallardo-Gallardo and Thunnissen, 2016), as well as for studies that explore unconscious
reflection and promotion of traits held by leadership teams in talent management outcomes
(Sheehan and Anderson, 2015) and managerial influences as the root of any differential in
employee attainment (Castilla, 2011). Concerning practical implications, since homophily is a
relevant bias for organisations due to its influence upon talent identification decisions, talent
managers (TM) should examine the existing talent identification practices and its
consequences on the quality of the organisational leadership pipeline as well as on the
individual perception of transparency of the process (Dries, 2013).
The article is set out as follows. First, we outline the analytical framework underlying the
investigation. Second, after having analysed the qualitative data, we present the results and
PR the discussion of our findings in light of the existing literature. Finally, we offer a conclusion,
51,2 suggesting practical implications as well as avenues for future research.
Theoretical framework
Definition and classifications
Homophily was studied in diverse fields, ranging from political science (Mutz, 2002),
sociology (McPherson et al., 2001), economics (Benhabib et al., 2010), to organisational
622 research (Borgatti and Foster, 2003) and social psychology (Gruenfeld and Tiedens, 2010).
The homophily principle was originally developed under the sociological umbrella by
Lazarsfeld and Merton (1954) who posited that individuals with similar characteristics are
more likely to connect positively with one another rather than with dissimilar ones, thereby,
improving their communication and creating a more trusting environment and stronger
personal relationships. McPherson et al. (2001, p. 416) described homophily as “the principle
that a contact between similar people occurs at a higher rate than among dissimilar people”.
Homophily can be studied through the lens of the social identity theory and the similarity–
attraction framework. In turn, within the psychological framework, Byrne (1971) introduced
the similarity–attraction hypothesis, whereby individuals are attracted to those similar to their
own selves and often rate similar individuals higher (Lin et al., 1992). Individuals associate
most often and most intensely with others who are similar to themselves across a range of
relationship types (Marsden, 1988; Ruef et al., 2003).
Human relationships are likely based on expressed or implied commonalities. In an
organisational scenario, the social identity theory confirms the premise that people assume a
social identity – the acknowledgement of belonging to a social group or category – and then
interact with others who assume a similar identity (Griepentrog et al., 2012; Loi et al., 2014).
Individuals who hold a social identification see themselves as members of a social group or
category; through a social comparison process, people who perceive such a group identity
categorise other people who have a similar identity to their own as in-group and people who
have different identities as out-group (Stets and Burke, 2000).
At the heart of the idea of homophily lies the similarity–attraction hypothesis (Byrne et al.,
1986), which postulates that people who are similar to each other tend to like each other
(Wells and Aicher, 2011; Montoya and Horton, 2013). According to this perspective, similar
attitudes lead to attraction because “individuals have a fundamental need for a logical and
consistent view of the world” (Montoya et al., 2008, p. 891). People who agree with us validate
our ideas and attitudes and, in so doing, reinforce the logic and consistency of our world.
Similar people are reinforcing and, thus, are associated with positive feelings, which in turn
lead to attraction (Montoya and Horton, 2013). Similarity offers security since it is safer to
select a candidate who is more similar, and thus he/she is more likely to exhibit more familiar
behavioural patterns (Singh et al., 2008). The opposite applies to people who disagree with us.
According to the repulsion hypothesis, the greater the number of dissimilar attitudes, the
greater the repulsion (Rosenbaum, 1986).
Homophily can be viewed as a choice homophily (McPherson et al., 2001), an attraction to
similar people, or as structural homophily, the tendency for people to have denser network
ties with similar others independent of any attraction. While the first one focuses on an
individual’s preference to relate to others who are similar, based on theories of interpersonal
attraction (Marsden, 1988), the second one focuses on the availability of possible relationships
that, in turn, determine the individual’s preferences (Blau, 1977). Indeed, structural homophily
is not dependent on a psychological attraction to similar others and may even occur by
chance to some extent because people from majority social groups are more likely to have
relationships with other members of the majority (McPherson et al., 2001).
Homophily is a multi-dimensional concept. Lazarsfeld and Merton (1954) introduced two
types of homophily: status homophily and value homophily. The former, status homophily,
where similarity is based on informal, formal or ascribed status, includes the major socio- Homophily and
demographic dimensions that differentiate society: race, gender or age, and acquired talent
characteristics such as religion, education, occupation or behaviour patterns. In turn, the
latter, value homophily, includes internal states presumed to shape our orientation towards
identification
future behaviour, and it is based on values, attitudes, norms and beliefs.
Evidence supporting different homophily attributes has continued to accumulate since the
Lazarsfeld and Merton (1954) classification. For the purposes of this study, we follow the
initial classification, and we include other homophily attributes offered by the literature. 623
Within the status homophily, in addition to the classic criteria (gender, age), we include
intelligence which is understood as a trait, and it was one of the first phenomena studied in the
early network literature (Almack, 1922). Furthermore, within the acquired status homophily,
we also take into account status, cultural background, abilities or seniority in an organisation
(McPherson et al., 2001; Shah and Kleiner, 2005). In turn, within the value homophily, we also
include personality as a homophily attribute since it was identified as an important
characteristic in studying similarity effects (Bauer and Green, 1996).
Homophily is also divided into objective and subjective (Rogers and Bhowmik, 1971).
The former is the degree of observable similarity–dissimilarity between the source and the
receiver. For example, race would be classified as objective homophily. The latter is the
degree to which a source or receiver perceives the dyad as similar or dissimilar in attributes.
This would include beliefs and attitudes as well as education or upbringing.
Regarding talent identification studies, M€akel€a et al. (2010) showed that, in multinational
firms, decision-makers tend to focus on a common language and nationality, that may be
considered indicators of objective homophily. Consequently, decision-makers may be more
aware of the accomplishments and performance of more similar candidates than those who
are more dissimilar, both directly through personal interaction and indirectly through
third-party knowledge and referrals.
The Janus faced effects of homophily in organisations

The bright side of the homophily process has been highlighted by the literature. At the
organisational level, homophily reinforces the existing networks, giving managers access to
the vast opportunities offered by those networks. In fact, networks are informally developed,
and they count on unwritten rules of relating and communicating. They offer social glue, and
they connect people with similar backgrounds and interests (Zahra and Eltantawy, 2009).
This emotional glue facilitates the development of trust and comfort, and it bonds individuals
together in social groups (Erickson, 1996). In addition, some authors posit that homophilious
recruitment is positive and contributes to diversity if it is the minority group the one who
recruits homophilously (Somashekhar, 2014).
At the individual level, it fosters a sense of belonging and reinforces a leader’s overall
sense of well-being (Zahra and Eltantawy, 2009). Homophilous ties act as social support
mechanisms (James, 2000), improve communication and reciprocity in relationships (Mollica
et al., 2003). When individuals perceive homophily in a relationship, they are likely to develop
positive feelings owing to apparent confirmation of their interests, values or beliefs (Prisbell
and Andersen, 1980). Furthermore, a homophilic dyad diminishes the likelihood of conflict
and power struggles (Pfeffer, 1983). Homophily causes familiarity that fosters trust, thereby
facilitating decision-making processes (Zahra and Eltantawy, 2009). People may look for
similar others because they consider them easier to get along with, more trustworthy, more
pleasant (Tsui et al., 1992) and predictable due to their similarity (McCroskey et al, 1974;
Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999; Kossinets and Watts, 2009). Finally, hiring similar others
serves to enhance the perceived predictability of their behaviour and, thus, of the working
environment (Boone et al., 2004).
PR Conversely, as to the dark side of homophily, literature points out the serious implications
51,2 for leaders and organisations since it could jeopardize morale and stifle innovation and
strategic renewal (Zahra and Eltantawy, 2009). People with similar backgrounds and values
are likely to appreciate similar things, pay attention to similar causes and place similar
priorities on particular issues. Consequently, an environment is created in which a company’s
leaders think alike and see the world in similar ways. Leaders who relate to the same people
gain validation of their views and the loyalty of their followers. Individuals’ dependence upon
624 the same sources of information can lead to ignorance that generates groupthink and
polarization. Agreements are easy to reach, even without much informed discussion or
debate. These behaviours preserve the status quo and slow the company’s responsiveness to
changing markets, thus missing major opportunities to revitalise its operations. Indeed, one
of the most important features of successful senior leadership teams is their diversity in terms
of cognitive capabilities and styles (Zahra and Eltantawy, 2009). Ignorance resulting from
homophily deprives the organisation of the knowledge necessary to fuel innovation and
develop new options, and prevents individuals, who do not share similar characteristics, from
entering an already created homophilic group.
Another limitation of homophily is that it promotes systems and processes governed by
rules of patronage rather than by business goals. Given the connections that exist among
leaders with similar interests, values and aspirations, these systems often mutate and come to
inhibit organisational responsiveness (Zahra and Eltantawy, 2009). Lastly, homophily can
reproduce membership homogeneity through the perpetuation of majority–minority
relations. The successes of the social reproduction process empower the dominant group,
giving it further leeway in selecting more conforming colleagues (Kanter, 1993). Homophily
may promote a lack of diversity because members recruit people just like themselves
(Ibarra, 1992; Acker, 2006). In this same vein, Perrault (2015) argues that Directors’
homophilous networks compromise the legitimacy and trustworthiness of the Board,
generating an impact upon the market performance.
Methodology
As this article focuses on the talent identification process and talent spotters’ subjective
impressions of candidates, a qualitative approach was adopted since it was deemed
appropriate for studying poorly understood phenomena (Marshall and Rossman, 1995).
In fact, developing new insights into a topic when previous theory is underdeveloped is a key
rationale for using qualitative data (Graebner et al., 2012).
As qualitative research design focuses upon words rather than quantification analysis of
numbers (Bryman and Bell, 2007), we drew heavily from the interviews which are particularly
suited to the study of subjective interpretations and social processes (Yin, 2003). In fact, to
understand patterns of interpersonal attraction, it seems relevant to consider the subjective
belief that another is similar to the self in one or more dimensions (Tajfel and Turner, 1986),
and it is also valid for the talent identification process. Subjective impressions of similarity
are particularly consequential in one-on-one settings, where interactions are personalised,
enduring and based on more information than what is visible (Montoya et al., 2008). Indeed,
perceived similarity is thought to be more important than actual similarity in the decision to
hire (Graves and Powell, 1995), and likewise in the decision to include a candidate in the
talent pool.
Setting
The participant organisations are two Argentine conglomerates which are explicitly engaged
in talent management, and they share main characteristics: their national origin and they are
family firms. One of them operates in the media and entertainment industry Homophily and
(7,000 employees), while the other is a leading food manufacturer (20,000 employees). In talent
addition, in both business groups, a formal talent identification process takes place regularly.
In one of them, the potential model relies on four components: cognitive complexity (Jaques,
identification
1989), skills, knowledge and competencies, ambition and emotional balance, while in the
other, the potential model is built upon Jaques’ framework.
In both organisations, to start the talent identification process, the direct supervisor fills in
a talent identification form. After having mapped the performance/potential matrix per area, 625
line managers participate in the talent review process. The TM in each strategic business unit
invites senior managers to attend. The direct supervisor’s input is validated by his/her boss
and, thereafter, a first roundtable takes place. In these meetings, all managerial levels offer
their feedback about candidates. The complete process comes to an end at the corporate talent
review session.
Criterion for selecting line managers

A purposive, non-probability criterion sampling technique was deemed suitable because it
actively seeks information-rich participants who can be studied in-depth (Patton, 1990).
Emphasis was placed on explanatory capacity rather than representativeness (Bonache,
1999) since the aim of this study was not to make statistics-based generalisations but rather to
arrive at an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon.
In order to get nominations of the effective talent spotters, our first step was to interview
the corporate talent management directors of both companies. In the first company, we were
offered a list of 25 talent spotters, while in the second one, 40 talent spotters were suggested.
All designated line managers were invited to participate in an in-depth interview via
telephone and e-mail. The final sample was made up with 37 talent spotters on the basis of
two purposive sampling strategies: criterion sampling with participants selected because
they met certain criteria – line managers who have participated in more than three talent
review processes in the firm and maximum variation sampling with participants selected
because they covered a spectrum of positions – middle and senior line managers – and
perspectives – talent spotters who worked in different Latin American branches: Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay- (see Table 1)
Standard practices regarding the maintenance of the anonymity of the participants and
the confidentiality of the information were used (Merriam, 1998). Respondents were assigned
a code to protect both privacy and confidentiality.
Data collection
Data collection took place between May and December 2016. Each interview, based on a
specific protocol, lasted between 50 and 90 mins. Most of the interviews were carried out face
to face, and some of them were held by Skype. Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed.
Each transcript was initially analysed in their original languages: Spanish and Portuguese.
Then, another researcher was in charge of a back translation.
The interview framework was informed on an in-depth literature review on homophily
bias (Lazarsfeld and Merton, 1954; McPherson et al., 2001) and on talent identification
(Silzer and Church, 2010; Garcıa Carbonell et al., 2015). The schedule itself was based upon
questions designed to reveal experience, real examples, sense making and perceptions. The
interview guide was semi-structured, and several of the questions had potential follow-up
questions attached. The guide contained questions regarding the concrete actions that line
managers did carry out during the talent identification process as well as questions regarding
their own perceptions, opinions and experiences about the process. Our 15 open-ended
questions were intentionally broad in order to generate a rich description of the talent
PR Years of
51,2 Business Organizational experience Highest educational
Participant group level leading teams Gender Age degree earned
1 A middle manager 7 M 34 Undergraduate

studies
2 A middle manager 15 M 39 Graduate studies
626 3 A senior manager 14 M 40 Graduate studies
4 A senior manager 10 F 48 Graduate studies
studies
7 A senior manager 22 M 42 Graduate studies
studies
studies
13 A middle manager 6 F 37 Graduate studies
studies
21 B middle manager first time M 35 Undergraduate
studies
22 B middle manager 20 F 46 Undergraduate
studies
23 B senior manager 13 M 41 Graduate studies
24 B middle manager 3 M 36 Undergraduate
studies
studies
26 B senior manager 27 M 58 Undergraduate
studies
studies
studies
studies
studies
studies
studies
Table 1. 36 B senior manager 16 M 51 Graduate studies
Sample 37 B senior manager 17 M 45 Graduate studies
identification process, the individual and organisational conditions involved as well as the Homophily and
challenges encountered, such as: talent
(1) Describe two processes where you consider you did a good job as a talent spotter. identification
What did you do?
(2) What does an effective talent spotter do?
(3) How did you realise that the nominated person had potential? 627
(4) What aspects do you observe in a subordinate to detect potential? Can you describe
them?
(5) Considering the candidates who you identified as talented, do you consider they
shared common characteristics, traits, formation, etc. or they had any commonalities?
Did they share any of those characteristics with you?
(6) Did those candidates remind you when you were their age? On what grounds?
(7) If you had to train an inexperienced talent spotter to identify potential, what would
you teach him/her?
The interview process continued until researchers found that the information was saturated.
It was already mentioned that interviews were semi-structured, allowing respondents to
introduce their own themes while ensuring that the topics in the guide were covered. This
type of interview enables the respondent to answer freely and spontaneously (Bryman et al.,
2011), keeping the focus of the conversation on the predefined agenda. Furthermore, the
interview format was pilot tested with a colleague with research experience in the subject area
as well as with two talent management professionals (Kvale, 2007).
Data analysis
All interviews were recorded and transcribed, and a total of 184 pages of narratives were
obtained. Considering that a variety of homophily attributes needed to be examined, template
analysis was used (King, 2004) since it lies between content analysis and grounded theory.
Furthermore, template analysis is a style of thematic analysis that balances a relatively high
degree of structure in the process of analysing textual data with the flexibility to adapt it to
the needs of our study (King, 2012).
Before beginning preliminary coding, we read through the transcript and marked every
section that seemed to offer something of relevance in order to answer the research questions.
Coding is the critical link between data collection, analysis and interpretation – and it is not an
exact science rather it is “primarily an interpretive act” (Saldana, 2013, p. 4). We identified all
statements that expressed views concerning homophily and its attributes. To ensure
qualitative rigour, we analysed our data using the process recommended by Gioia et al. (2013).
This approach consists of three steps. First, both researchers interpreted and coded the
concepts independently, and after some discussion they arrived at consensual coding. In a
next step, these concepts were grouped into second-order themes, taking into account the
results of our literature search. The second-order analysis used researcher-centric themes,
which were then grouped into aggregated dimensions in the third step (see Figure 1 for an
overview of the data structure). Lastly, a final report was sent to the talent management
directors of both organisations.
The use of multiple independent coders has been recognised as reducing coder bias
(Miles and Huberman, 1994). Consequently, two researchers independently coded the
verbatim transcripts, compared the results and discussed the similarities and differences
in their application of the codes in order to maximise inter-coder reliability
PR First Order Concepts Second Order Themes Aggregate dimensions
51,2
Homophily not - Homophily perceived

perceived by as natural, neither Talent spotter’s
interviewees praised nor reproved homophily
628 - Homophily perceived recognition
Homophily
and praised
recognized by Talent spotter’s
- - Homophily perceived
interviewees - and limitations stance towards
homophily
- acknowledged
Leadership
similarity
Education
similarity
- Value homophily Homophily
Values similarity
- Status homophily Type and
Commitment Attributes
similarity
Ambition
similarity
Figure 1. Personality traits
Data structure similarity
(Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, 1996). Reliability was calculated by (total number of

agreements)/ (total number of observations) X 100. In our study, the outcome was 85%,
exceeding the minimum defined by Denzin and Lincoln (2000). Finally, a cross-case analysis
was conducted, and the empirically grounded findings were related to and integrated with
prior theory and the authors’ own pre-understandings (Layder, 1993).
Findings
We present the findings in the following categories: first the talent spotters’ perception of the
homophily process and second the homophily attributes mentioned by participants.
Additional extracts are shown in Table 2.
Talent spotters’ perception of their own homophily

From our data, we detected four groups of talent spotters who perceived homophily
distinctly. Most of the interviewees (22 out of 37) perceived the homophily phenomenon as
natural since they neither praised it nor reproved it openly. They identified
spontaneously, unhesitatingly, the attributes they shared with the talent candidates, as
shown by participant 10:
Total codes
Theme Sample quotes identified
Perception of homophily
Homophily perceived as natural Yes, I consider that’s why I identify with them. I find it logical to nominate people similar to me because not only it 45
does make the work climate easier, but it also allows us to reach consensus in a simpler manner and to achieve
results faster (Participant 12)
The person I appointed to be in charge of a team of 11 people reminds me a lot of myself (Participant 15)
In company xx there was a person who worked as my eyes there. . . and she looked a lot like me. I invited her to join
my team. Thinking about perfectionist people, I worked with psychologists and I consider I have that
perfectionism, I have very high performance standards towards myself. This affinity also expresses itself in the
way you manage people, there are people who will accept your leadership more easily than others (Participant 19)
Yes, I do share characteristics with both candidates. In the case of Mariano, commitment. He is as hardworking as I
am. In the case of David, passion. I am passionate as well. Let me give you an example, nothing in my previous
work motivated me since it was just routine, which led me to resign (Participant 23)
I had a good working relationship and personal chemistry with them. I see myself reflected in all the members of
my team (Participant 27)
Homophily perceived as offering some advantages Yes, there is no doubt about it. I like people with a systematic/ methodic work style, similar to my own. People who 17
seek agreement in the decision making process, ones who do not force change, they are not so disruptive. I think I
feel more comfortable working with this type of people (Participant 7)
Yes, absolutely. It is very important for me to identify myself with them. I do not put myself on a pedestal but I’m
happy with my own development. Antonio -one of the candidates- reminds me a lot of myself. We both started with
very little experience and were offered more important projects along the way (Participant 14)
No perception of homophily influence upon the Considering Carolina, if I compare her with myself, I identify with her more for the differences than for the 6
nomination process of talented candidates similarities. Perhaps, what makes me doubt, is that it is common to underestimate similarities... But no, it seems to
me that she did not share any similarity with me. I’m thinking a little more . . . Well, not really (Participant 5)
None of them are similar to me. Do they share any characteristics among themselves? No, none (Participant 22)
No, my candidates had nothing in common with me, at the age of my first candidate I had a stronger personality,
and had developed more political skills (Participant 29)
I always identify something different in every person . . . something that amazes me. Well, it is good to find
something interesting to consider in other people. . . bosses, peers, colleagues. . .things that I find very different
from myself and, then, I consider them as opportunities to learn (Participant 31)
Perception of homophilic bias and acceptance of its Usually, they are similar to me. I do not know why. It is another issue I wonder about, especially considering one 7
negative implications must not have people similar to oneself in the same team, but I think I do have them in mine (Participant 4)
I believe that, in the case of the first person, what we had in common was commitment and restlessness, I mean, her
intention to solve problems. I mean, she was not waiting for someone to being paying attention to her or giving her
instructions. She used to go for it and get results even when she was not asked to (Participant 10)
(continued )
identification
629
Homophily and
talent
Extracts from
Table 2.
interview data
PR
51,2
630
Total codes
Theme Sample quotes identified
I think that there may be a bias in identifying potential in people you empathize with. I believe you have to take
yourself out of the picture and try not to let personal empathy, feelings interfere with the process. I believe that
when you spot potential, there is always a subjective component, but you have to try to be objective, not to be
biased (Participant 16)
Homophily attributes
Value homophily Yes, we certainly do share similar traits. One of them is entrepreneurial drive, common in all my candidates, even 96
in the case of the person I told you about who had no professional training at all. It seems to me that we share this
initiative to try out new things, the willingness to solve problems (Participant 6)
The characteristics in which talented candidates coincide with me, or I would like to believe that they do, lie in the
fact that they are individuals with human values. That is to say they are respectful of others. They are people who
believe that potential can come from anywhere and they will offer challenges to anyone who shows interest and
passion. They do not ask themselves who they are, but who they could become (Participant 7)
I choose methodical people. It is also a characteristic of my personality, because in the Commercial Area, you have
to be methodical (Participant 9)
Yes, the candidates I nominated, who later became my direct reports, had the following characteristics in common
among themselves, and also with me: they were proactive, had finely honed problem solving skills, knew how to
work in teams, and showed strong commitment. And of course, they were technical experts (Participant 11)
What we have in common, especially with the first candidate, is the ambition to develop a formal career from a very
young age and the willingness to progress step by step (Participant 12)
First, you identify if they are talented candidates and, immediately after, you compare them with your values and
with yourself at their age. And if the matching is successful, I would say that you offer them all your knowledge
and attention. You act as a mentor. If I identify a young candidate who is willing to develop a career and who has
the company values and my values, you see yourself reflected in him/her (Participant 18)
They are similar to me in the sense that they are very committed people, and with internal motivation. They are
blokes that reconsider, create possibilities, new alternatives (Participant 25)
Regarding the second candidate, I think we are similar in the attention we pay to details (Participant 10)
Both candidates show technical skills and values, that I also possess. (Participant 28)
Status homophily (age, education, leadership) The person I told you about reminds me a lot of myself. Why? Well, in the way he works, I see that he always puts 65
the team first; I mean, he comes after the team. He also evaluates the impact of his decisions on the medium and
long term (Participant 15)
He reminded me of myself because he was an Engineer like myself. We share a similar education (Participant 23)
I can see myself reflected in all the candidates at some point in my career, regarding some characteristics. For
example, all of them had very good technical skills, they also had soft skills that you rely upon to keep on
developing leadership potential (Participant 27)
Both candidates show technical skills and values, that I also possess. They also have been recognized as leaders by
their team members as well as by the organization as a whole (Participant 28)
Regarding the first person, I think that what we have in common is the commitment and the drive to Homophily and
solve problems. She would not wait for someone to watch her doing the right things or to give her
instructions. Regarding the second person, we were similar in paying attention to the analytical side talent
of things and details. identification
Considering the remaining participants, three additional groups were identified. One group
supported the idea of homophily as it offered some advantages, a second group did not
perceive any homophily influence upon the nomination process of talented candidates and
the last one recognised their homophilic bias admitting, at the same time, its negative
631
implications.
Regarding the group that advocated the homophilic advantages (6 out of 37), some of the
interviewees expressed:
Yes, absolutely. There is no doubt that it is a factor that works to the person’s advantage, since you
know he/she will perform well; that many things that he/she does or has done, you also did. It is like
looking at yourself in a mirror (Interviewee 6)
I am responsible for 30 team members, and the ones that are similar to me know how my mind works,
so I try to take better care of them (Participant 4)
Another group did not identify any similarity in the talent candidates (5 out of 37). Participant
29 illustrates this:
None of them are similar to me. Do they share any characteristics among themselves? No, none.
Finally, the smallest group was composed of those who admitted both the presence of
homophily and its negative implications (4 out of 37):
Even though this person reminds me of myself when I was younger, I would not say we are so
similar. It is important to have diverse opinions in the team. . . Unanimity is not good. Our different
opinions enable us to form a heterogeneous holistic view (Participant 2)
I will always choose as a direct report someone I would feel at ease working with. At the same time, as
a leader and boss I have to manage to work with people different from me. You need to be careful,
I tend to favour people with whom I know I will get along well, but I cannot nominate for promotion
somebody who is not fit for the position just because we get along well (Participant 35)
Homophily attributes
When describing the similarities in the talent spotter–candidate dyad, participants
mentioned several homophily attributes for the same person. For example, interviewee 24
described the similarity attributes of talent candidates based, mainly, upon the status
umbrella (age, education, leadership) and also emphasised that they shared the same view of
the world (value homophily):
I look for people like me, with a similar leadership style and the same view of the world. In fact, we
went to the same school, we come from the same neighbourhood and are the same age.
Since homophily may be based upon status and value attributes, the attributes mentioned by
the interviewees, grouped accordingly, are shown below.
Status homophily attributes

After having analysed the candidate talent spotters’ dyads, we identified that gender
homophily was present in half of our sample. In turn, regarding education as another attribute,
technical skills were quoted by talent spotters as they shared them with the talented
candidates, as mentioned by participant 14:
PR I identify with the Marketing Manager in the way he delivers presentations. We invited him to join a
project in which he had to offer one, which allowed us to observe his presentation skills: he did it in
51,2 the same way I would have done it!
Value homophily attributes

Talent spotters described a variety of homophily attributes of which most could be included
632 within the value category. Interviewee 20 described similarities perceived in different
personal values in relation with work:
Yes, I think that is the reason why I identify more strongly with them. I feel that we aim to be
successful, but not so much in terms of money, but in terms of being good, balanced people, which
I like. That is to say: respect for work-family life balance, a similar way of seeing the world: family,
children. I look for folks like us, interested in their overall personal development. I do not have
“mercenaries” in my team.
Commitment and ambition were also value homophily attributes mentioned by participants.
These themes are present in the following narratives:
I strongly identify with this person in this respect, he always loved to come to work, he loved this type
of business. You can really see that he puts his work ahead of anything else. He gives his profession
and job the highest level of priority (Participant 15).
I look for people similar to me regarding their interest in advancing in their careers. Maybe they are
different in other aspects, but I try to search for that DNA (Participant 31)
Personality and social styles as value homophily attributes were also part of the narratives of
our participants, evidenced in the following extracts:
I can tell you, I look for people similar to me. I have just mentioned the attributes the identified
candidates and I have in common: we are nice, charming people, who have the analytical skills
required by the role (Participant 30).
Daniel does resemble me. One of my strengths is my organisation skills, I am systematic, I have a
schedule. For example, when you attend meetings, you always have to take a calculator with you.
He copies a good deal of my work style. I always take my Tablet with me to take notes and so does he.
Concerning personality, we have the same qualities of being organized, in order to control things and
make them happen (Participant 1)
Additional extracts from interview data are shown in Table 2
Discussion and implications

Regarding talent spotters’ perception of their own homophily, we detected from the findings
that there is no single perception of the homophily bias and that those who were aware of the
phenomenon judged its presence in a different way. Most of the interviewees (22 out of 37)
perceived the homophily phenomenon as natural since they neither praised it nor reproved it
openly. A second group supported the notion of homophily since it offered some advantages
(6 out of 37), a third group did not perceive any homophily influence upon the nomination
process of talented candidates (5 out of 37) and the final one recognised their homophilic bias
admitting, at the same time, its potential negative implications (4 out of 37).
The fact that most of the participants considered the homophily phenomenon as a natural
one can be explained by the social identity theory. Since most individuals regard themselves
positively (Schwartz, 1996), they may seek to construct or maintain homogeneous groups in
order to increase the salience of group membership, thus maintaining or enhancing their
self-esteem and identity (Westphal and Zajac, 1995).
In the group that advocated the homophilic advantages, interviewee 4 exemplifies that Homophily and
similar candidates understand better “how my mind works”. Similarity increases the talent
probability that the individual will receive consensual validation for ones own views and
opinions. This reinforcement, in turn, arouses favourable feelings towards the similar other
identification
(Sears et al., 2003). Furthermore, this interaction is considered as more enjoyable (Tsui et al.,
1992) since homophily produces credibility, reliability and trustworthiness (McCroskey
et al., 1974).
A third group did not identify any similarity in the talent candidates. We hypothesise that 633
these narratives may reflect the expected negative answer – social desirability bias
(Nederhof, 1985). Since it is generally assumed that homophily involves only the ascribed
status one, prior research focuses almost exclusively on analysing similarities in sex or race
(Elliot and Smith, 2004), and it implies negative connotations (discrimination as one of them),
participants may have denied their existence.
Finally, the fourth group was composed of those who admitted both the presence of
homophily and its negative implications. These participants, even unveiling similarities in
their candidates, expressed that homophily may have dangerously reinforced the logic and
consistency of their own view of the world. As people with similar backgrounds and values
tend to pay attention to similar topics, they may share the same mindset. In this line,
participant 2 pointed out that homophily may foster a lack of diversity since leaders recruit
people just like themselves. In turn, respondent 35 acknowledges that even though
homophily based on candidate similarity contributes to their getting along well – interaction
with a similar other is enjoyable and fun (Burleson et al., 1994) – that criterion is not enough to
consider a candidate for a promotion.
As to homophily attributes, our results are in line with the literature that states that
homophily can be built upon plural criteria (Verd et al., 2014) as talent spotters preferred
candidates displaying similarities in a multiplicity of homophily attributes. Education was
mentioned by participants as one of the status attributes. Since the ability to assess a person’s
knowledge depends critically on the observer’s own knowledge of that dimension (Bagues
and Perez Villadoniga, 2013), talent candidates who excel in the same dimensions as the talent
spotters tend to be assessed in a more positive light.
In addition, we considered gender in the dyads talent spotter–candidate as gender has
been the most studied dimension of homophilous interaction in the organisational theory
literature (Kleinbaum et al., 2013). In fact, numerous studies of homophily (McPherson and
Smith-Lovin 1987; Ibarra 1992; Ruef et al., 2003) have focused primarily or exclusively on
gender. We found that gender homophily (dyad talent spotter-talented candidate) was
present in half of our sample. This result could be understood, initially, as choice homophily.
Nevertheless, this finding can be considered as preliminary since additional information is
needed. It would also be interesting to know the representation of men and women in the total
sample of talent candidates, the percentage of men and women in each department (e.g. IT,
finance, sales) and in the industry media and food industries.
Most of the attributes described by talent spotters could be included within the value
category. Our participants mentioned work values, ambition, commitment, personality and
social values as homophily attributes. Looking for people with the same view of the world,
with the same values, satisfies the cognitive need for balance (Newcomb, 1961) since
interactions between people with similar values are considered more gratifying and
self-reinforcing (Lazarsfeld and Merton, 1954), and the relationship management is easier
(Coombs, 1966). Homophily generates trust and predictability; consequently, the leader does
not need to exert a tough control on the subordinate’s work.
Regarding ambition, when leaders rate themselves highly with regard to getting-ahead
behaviours, subordinates with a high desire to get ahead obtain better contextual
performance evaluations (Guillen and Karelaia, 2012). In line with the literature, talent
PR spotters in our sample looked for candidates with the same interest in investing continuously
51,2 in their career progress.
Even though individuals are better able to evaluate others when they are described in
terms of the attitudes they hold versus the personality traits they possess (Smith and Collins,
2009), personality is also identified as an important attribute in studying similarity effects
(Bauer and Green, 1996) since individuals with similar personalities (we are nice, charming
people) tend to perceive things in similar ways. Individuals sharing certain traits, even if they
634 are not conscious of them, are more inclined to interact more effectively (Schaubroeck and
Lam, 2002). When subordinates and supervisors have similar personalities, a greater number
of supervisor–subordinate dyadic interactions are expected. In line with the social exchange
theory, when employees perceive that their supervisors are supporting their sense of
self-worth, they are more eager to reciprocate by providing higher performance outcomes
(Yammarino and Dansereau, 2002). Once job expectations have been fully clarified and
enough feedback has been received, subordinates feel that their sense of self-worth is
supported by their supervisors. In addition, supervisor–subordinate personality similarity
also promotes confidence and trust (Turban and Jones, 1988). As stated by participant 1,
organisation skills were mentioned as a value homophily attribute, and, according to the
literature, conscientiousness homogeneity is a desired trait for working groups (Prewett et al.,
2009). In fact, the tendency to bond with others with similar conscientiousness levels may
reflect the challenge of group coordination: when to meet and how to fulfil certain collective
planning and action tasks (Dunbar and Shultz, 2017). Finally, social styles were also
mentioned by our interviewees (nice with analytical skills- participant 30, as an example). Social
styles that most closely resemble one’s own create the least discomfort as we feel positive
about individuals with that same behaviour. Contrarily, styles that differ most from one’s
own probably create tension, and the individual may allocate a negative label on that
behaviour (Merrill and Reid, 1999).
Functional or dysfunctional bias to the talent identification process?

After having reviewed the talent identification literature – specifically the high potential
models – and having contrasted them with the different homophily attributes offered by our
participants, we noticed that most of the mentioned attributes are components of the high
potential models (Corporate Leadership Council, 2005; Silzer and Church, 2009). Some of those
attributes are commitment, ambition, certain personality skills – conscientiousness – (attitudes
and personality homophily) as well as cognitive skills (status homophily). Indeed, intelligence
or education level as signals of cognitive complexity may be understood as functional
homophily attributes.
Since talent decision-making processes are boundedly rational, talent spotters/decision-
makers have a tendency to focus on candidates that are proximate and/or familiar with or fit
their existing worldviews (Rosenkopf and Nerkar, 2001). Humans are biased and, despite the
best of intentions, those biases influence decision-making outside of conscious control
(Banaji and Greenwald, 2013). For those we identify as similar to ourselves, we are more likely
to listen carefully to what they say, to see the positive in them and to empathize with their
situation (Knutson et al., 2007). Thus, talent spotters may recognize first or spend more
attention and time during the talent identification process with those who are similar to them.
From our analysis of the data, we argue that if homophily takes place under the value or
status homophily umbrella and the homophily attribute is aligned to the high potential
component model, homophily will be functional to the talent identification process. Besides, it
is worth pointing out that as individuals use their own attributes as an anchor by which to
assess the information they infer about another (Insko et al., 1973), the talent spotter needs to
be himself/herself a high potential as well for the process to be virtuous. This process
preserves the high potential pipeline effectively.
Personality traits like charm or family values were also mentioned; nevertheless, those Homophily and
homophily attributes are not included in any talent identification model, and they do not talent
contribute to explain employee performance or potential either. We posit that if the
homophily attributes involved are within the status criteria (like gender, religion and social
identification
class) or other attributes that are not aligned to the high potential model, the talent spotter
could end up nominating similar candidates who are not necessarily talented. If the decision-
maker nominates a similar candidate under non-high potential criteria, favouring, in this way,
the politics rules of the game over meritocratic principles, homophily contributes to 635
institutionalise managerial political power. Furthermore, homophily may perpetuate
majority–minority relations and promote a lack of diversity, which may not guarantee
that the selected candidates are the talented ones. In addition, placing too much value on
non-high potential criteria could make employees lose faith in the idea that their organisation
is a meritocracy, and it may deteriorate the perception of justice of the talent identification
process (Slan-Jerusalim and Hausdorf, 2007). Thus, these actions will reveal the unwritten
rules of the game and will impact negatively on the motivation and commitment of the
talented candidates. The aforementioned situations may generate negative consequences to
the talent identification process and, thus, homophily may be considered a dysfunctional bias.
Results provide evidence that talent identification is not a perfect science as most talent
spotters admitted having made “similar-to-me” assessments and also perceiving them as
natural. Even though prior literature focused upon ascribed status homophily and its negative
consequences (discrimination, lack of diversity, perpetuation and institutionalisation of
managerial power), this study shows the critical role of the analysis of the homophily attributes
involved in the talent identification process since attributes aligned to the potential model could
strengthen the talent identification process. Besides, findings reveal that a variety of homophily
attributes play a role when identifying similarities in the talent spotter–candidate dyad. Indeed,
value and status homophily are not mutually exclusive (Kashima et al., 2008). Results show that
most of the attributes mentioned by participants are included in the value homophily category
(personality, ambition, commitment).
In sum, due to the fact that homophily is a natural tendency (McPherson et al., 2001), we
consider that the identification of homophily in the process is not enough to determine its
impact upon the talent identification process. In fact, a deep analysis of all the homophily
attributes involved in the talent identification process is required to define its positive or
negative influence upon the process. Our study suggests that the homophily attributes which
are not elements of the talent identification models are dysfunctional to the talent
identification process.
In practical terms, we recommend that TM should identify those talent spotters who
employ dysfunctional homophily attributes in the talent identification process in order to
curb their influence. Biases are often implicit, unconscious and/or automatic. Since
individuals are often unaware of how the lens of their deep beliefs, expectations, fears and
memories colours their view on reality and bypasses sound reasoning, we consider that TM
should offer line managers workshops and coaching initiatives to increase their awareness of
when and how homophily attributes are affecting their talent decisions. In addition, as
organisational leaders are likely to represent the characteristics of dominant groups in their
societal environment, TM could also discuss the functional or dysfunctional potential
consequences of homophilous decisions with line managers. Effective managers must focus
on their own biases if they expect to have the legitimacy to guide others in acknowledging
and confronting their biases (Sip et al., 2017).
In spite of the aforementioned suggestions, in line with the neuroscience literature, it is not
enough to educate people about their biases in the hope that they can stop biases from
affecting their decisions (Lieberman et al., 2015). Therefore, TM should try to minimize the
dysfunctional biases of the talent identification decision-making process. This could be done
PR by changing the procedures by which line managers make talent decisions. We think that an
51,2 integrative identification process that considers both subjective and objective input is
required to minimise rater bias (Lai and Ishizaka, 2020). Additionally, the perception that the
talent identification procedure is fair enhances employees’ motivation for further learning
and development to achieve expected performance.
636 Limitations and future research

We note that our study has some limitations. First, our conclusions are not generalizable as
they are based on an interpretation of the views and perceptions of a very specific group of
employees but rather hypotheses that may be useful to guide future quantitative studies.
Second, the study was for the most part retrospective and relied on the memory recall of the
actors (Stoecker, 2011). Finally, the sample was composed mostly of male talent spotters.
Since organizational literature regarding the tendency of men and women to be homophilous
is not conclusive (Carlsson and Eriksson, 2019; Davison and Burke, 2000; Sacco et al., 2003),
it would be interesting to explore this topic in the talent identification process relying on a
more balanced sample of men and women as talent spotters.
Our research suggests a number of potentially stimulating avenues for future research in
order to further explore the influence of homophily in the talent identification process. First,
the fundamentally social component of homophilous behaviour means that assessing a
tendency requires defining the social context within which it occurs (Lawrence and Shah,
2020) and similarity is not equally attractive in all cultures. Indeed, Canadians (Heine et al.,
2009) and Americans (Schug et al., 2009) were found to show a more pronounced similarity
attraction effect than did Japanese. Moreover, having compared friendship homophily in
nationality and gender between Korean and American employees from within a
multi-national corporation, Korean employees showed stronger nationality homophily due
to their collectivistic values (Rheea et al., 2013). Consequently, future research could replicate
our study in a different cultural context to enrich the literature about the influence of national
culture upon homophily in talent management. Second, in the same vein, future research
could also look more deeply into the influence of the company culture (multinational versus
family firm) upon the homophily bias (M€akel€a et al., 2010). Third, the effectiveness of the
suggested TM interventions could be explored through a longitudinal research design that
assesses the level of awareness of homophily attributes in a specific sample before and after
TM interventions. Fourth, future studies could explore the homophily bias differences
between male and female talent spotters (Ibarra, 1992; Davison and Burke, 2000). Finally, it is
known that homophily is a multi-dimensional concept (Block and Grund, 2014; Hooijsma and
Huitsing, 2020) and our study has empirically supported that statement since talent spotters
have identified a number of attributes. Nevertheless, the salience of each attribute to the
individuals is a research opportunity to be considered in future studies due to the fact that the
more important an attribute is to individuals, the more likely that homophily on that attribute
influences their tendency to associate (Lawrence and Shah, 2020).
Since talent identification intrinsically implies a great variety of subjective and intangible
issues, the understanding of individual biases, such as homophily, constitutes a sine qua non
condition to enhance the identification process. If managers become aware of the homophily
influence and its potential consequences upon the talent identification process and talent
managers as well as line managers initiate actions accordingly, organisations will obtain
higher quality outcomes of the talent identification process as it will allow them to genuinely
identify the more talented candidates, and line managers will rely upon stronger talent
identification skills. Furthermore, the identification of the diverse types of homophily and the
differentiation of its functional or dysfunctional influences provide a good theoretical starting
point to continue analysing its influence on all talent management processes.
Conclusions Homophily and
This study makes a number of theoretical and practical contributions. Firstly, in theoretical talent
terms, it combines homophily, perception and talent management/talent identification
literatures, which allows to analyse the influence of homophily on talent spotters’ behaviours.
identification
Indeed, our research represents the first theoretical contribution that extends our knowledge
about the homophily influence on the talent identification process. Results provide evidence
that talent identification is not a perfect science as most talent spotters admitted having made
“similar-to-me” assessments and also perceiving them as natural. Even though prior 637
literature focussed upon ascribed status homophily and its negative consequences
(discrimination, lack of diversity, perpetuation and institutionalisation of managerial
power), this study shows the critical role of the analysis of the homophily attributes involved
in the talent identification process since attributes aligned to the potential model could
strengthen the talent identification process. Besides, findings reveal that a variety of
homophily attributes play a role when identifying similarities in the talent spotter–candidate
dyad. Indeed, value and status homophily are not mutually exclusive (Kashima et al., 2008).
Findings show that most of the attributes mentioned by participants are included in the value
homophily category (personality, ambition, commitment).
Secondly, in practical terms, this study stresses the need for TM to train line managers on
homophily biases and to downsize the negative consequences of the homophily influence on
the talent identification process. Some of these consequences involve the exclusion of
important and qualified social groups from the leadership of businesses (Keasey et al., 1997),
the lack of diversity of the talent pool since members recruit people just like themselves
(Ibarra, 1992), the suffocation of innovation and strategic renewal (Zahra and Eltantawy, 2009),
the perception of unfairness about the talent identification procedure may impact upon
the intention to stay (Slan-Jerusalim and Hausdorf, 2007) as well as upon their work
satisfaction and work effort (Gelens et al., 2014) of the talented ones who are “under the
radar”. Thus, considering the aforementioned consequences, we consider that this research
is relevant for TM in organisations as well as for talent spotters.
References
Acker, J. (2006), “Inequality regimes: gender, class, and race in organizations”, Gender and Society,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 441-464.
Almack, C. (1922), “The influence of intelligence on the selection of associates”, School and Society,
Vol. 16, pp. 529-530.
Alstott, J., Madnick, S. and Velu, C. (2014), “Homophily and the speed of social mobilization: the effect
of acquired and ascribed traits”, PloS One, Vol. 9 No. 4, p. e95140.
Bagues, M. and Perez-Villadoniga, M. (2013), “Why do I like people like me?”, Journal of Economic
Theory, Vol. 148 No. 3, pp. 1292-1299.
Banaji, M. and Greenwald, A. (2013), Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People, Delacorte Press,
New York.
Bauer, N. and Green, S. (1996), “Development of leader-member exchange: a longitudinal test”,
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 1538-1567.
Benhabib, J., Bisin, A. and Jackson, M. (2010), The Handbook of Social Economics, 1st ed., North
Holland, San Diego, Vol. 1A.
Blau, P. (1977), Inequality and Heterogeneity, Free Press, New York, NY.
Block, P. and Grund, T. (2014), “Multidimensional homophily in friendship networks”, Network
Science, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 189-212.
Bonache, J. (1999), “El estudio de casos como estrategia de construccion teorica: caracterısticas,
crıticas y defensa”, Cuadernos Economıa Direccion Empresa, Vol. 2, pp. 123-140.
PR Boone, C., Van Olffen, W., Van Witteloostuijn, A. and De Brabander, B. (2004), “The genesis of top
management team diversity: selective turnover among top management teams in Dutch
51,2 newspaper publishing, 1970–94”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 5,
pp. 633-656.
Borgatti, S. and Foster, P. (2003), “The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and
typology”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 991-1013.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007), Business Research Methods, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
638
Bryman, A., Bell, E., Mills, A. and Yue, A. (2011), Business Research Methods, Canadian ed., Oxford
University Press Canada, Wynford Drive, Don Mills, Ontario.
Burleson, B., Kunkel, A. and Birch, J. (1994), “Thoughts about talk in romantic relationships: similarity
makes for attraction (and happiness, too)”, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 259-273.
Byrne, D. (1971), The Attraction Paradigm, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Byrne, D., Clore, G. and Smeaton, G. (1986), “The attraction hypothesis: do similar attitudes affect
anything?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1167-1170.
Carlsson, M. and Eriksson, S. (2019), “In-group gender bias in hiring: real-world evidence”, Economics
Letters, Vol. 185, pp. 1-3.
Castilla, E. (2011), “Bringing managers back in: managerial influences on workforce inequality”,
American Sociological Review, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 667-694.
Claus, L. (2019), “HR disruption—time already to reinvent talent management”, Business Research
Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 207-215.
Coombs, R. (1966), “Karl mannheim, epistemology and the sociology of knowledge”, The Sociological
Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 229-234.
Corporate Leadership Council (2005), Realizing the Full Potential of Rising Talent (Volume I):
A Quantitative Analysis of the Identification and Development of High-Potential Employees,
Corporate Executive Board, Washington, DC.
Davison, H. and Burke, M. (2000), “Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: a meta-
analytic investigation”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 225-248.
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2000), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, California.
Dominick, P. and Gabriel, A. (2009), “Two sides to the story: an interactionist perspective on
identifying potential”, Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 430-433.
Dries, N. (2013), “The psychology of talent management: a review and research agenda”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 272-285.
Dunbar, R. and Shultz, S. (2017), “Why are there so many explanations for primate brain evolution?”,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 372, 20160244.
Elliott, J. and Smith, R. (2004), “Race, gender, and workplace power”, American Sociological Review,
Vol. 69, pp. 365-383.
Erickson, H. (1996), “Culture, class, and connections”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 102 No. 1,
pp. 217-251.
Evans, A., Smale, A., Bjorkman, I. and Pucik, V. (2011), “Leadership development in multinational
firms”, in Storey, J. (Ed.), Leadership in Organisations: Current Issues and Key Trends,
Routledge, London.
Finkelstein, L., Constanza, D. and Goodwin, G. (2018), “Do your high potentials have potential? The
impact of individual differences and designation on leader success”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 71, pp. 3-22.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D. (1996), Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 5th ed.,
Arnold, London.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E. and Thunnissen, M. (2016), “Standing on the shoulders of giants? A critical Homophily and
review of empirical talent management research”, Employee Relations, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 31-56.
talent
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N. and Gonzalez-Cruz, F.T. (2013), “What is the meaning of ‘talent’ in the
world of work?”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 290-300.
identification
Garcıa-Carbonell, N., Martın-Alcazar, F. and Sanchez-Gardey, G. (2015), “Determinants of top
management’s capability to identify core employees”, BRQ Business Research Quarterly, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 69-80.
639
Gelens, J., Hofmans, J., Dries, N. and Pepermans, R. (2014), “Talent management and organisational
justice: employee reactions to high potential identification”, Human Resource Management
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 159-175.
Gioia, D., Corley, K. and Hamilton, A. (2013), “Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on
the Gioia methodology”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-31.
Golik, M., Blanco, M.R. and Czikk, R. (2018), “On the trail of line managers as talent spotters”, Human
Resource Development International, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 232-253.
Graebner, M., Martin, J. and Roundy, P. (2012), “Qualitative data: cooking without a recipe”, Strategic
Organization, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 276-284.
Graves, L. and Powell, G. (1995), “The effect of sex similarity on recruiters’ evaluations of actual
applicants: a test of the similarity-attraction paradigm”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 1,
pp. 85-98.
Griepentrog, B., Harold, C., Holtz, B., Klimoski, R. and Marsh, S. (2012), “Integrating social identity and
the theory of planned behavior: predicting withdrawal from an organisational recruitment
process”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 723-753.
Gruenfeld, D. and Tiedens, L. (2010), “Organizational preferences and their consequences”, in Fiske,
S.T., Gilbert, D.T. and Lindzey, G. (Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, 5th ed., John Wiley and
Sons, Vol. 2, Chapter 33.
Guillen, L. and Karelaia, N. (2012), “When opposites hurt: similarity in getting ahead in leader-follower
dyads as a predictor of job performance evaluations”, ESMT Working Paper, No. 11-12 (R1),
European School of Management and Technology (ESMT), Berlin.
Heine, S., Foster, J. and Spina, R. (2009), “Do birds of a feather universally flock together? Cultural
variation in the similarity-attraction effect”, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 12,
pp. 247-258.
Hooijsma, M. and Huitsing, G. (2020), “Multidimensional similarity in multiplex networks: friendships
between same- and cross-gender bullies and same- and cross-gender victims”, Network Science,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 79-96.
Ibarra, H. (1992), “Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access
in an advertising firm”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 422-447.
Insko, A., Thompson, D., Stroebe, W., Shaud, F., Pinner, E. and Layton, D. (1973), “Implied evaluation
and the similarity-attraction effect”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 297-308.
James, E. (2000), “Race-related differences in promotions and support: underlying effects of human
and social capital”, Organization Science, Vol. 11, pp. 493-508.
Jaques, E. (1989), Requisite Organization, Cason Hall Publishers, Arlington, VA.
Joos, S., Mc Donnell, A. and Burbach, R. (2019), “Talent designation in practice: an equation of high
potential, performance and mobility”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2019.1686651.
Kanter, R. (1993), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Kashima, Y., Fiedler, K. and Freytag, P. (2008), Stereotype Dynamics: Language-Based Approaches to
the Formation, Maintenance and Transformation of Stereotypes, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
New York.
PR Keasey, K., Thompson, S. and Wright, M. (Eds) (1997), Corporate Governance: Economic, Management
and Financial Issues, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
51,2
King, N. (2004), “Using templates in the thematic analysis of text”, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (Eds),
Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research, Sage, London, pp. 257-270.
King, N. (2012), “Doing template analysis”, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (Eds), Qualitative
Organizational Research. Core Methods and Current Challenges, Sage, London.
640 Kleinbaum, A., Stuart, T. and Tushman, M. (2013), “Homophily and structure in a formal
organization”, Organization Science, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 1316-1336.
Knutson, K., Mah, L., Manly, C. and Grafman, J. (2007), “Neural correlates of automatic beliefs about
gender and race”, Human Brain Mapping, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 915-930.
Kossinets, G. and Watts, D. (2009), “Origins of homophily in an evolving social network”, American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 115, pp. 405-450.
Kvale, S. (2007), Doing Interviews, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Lai, Y. and Ishizaka, A. (2020), “The application of multi-criteria decision analysis methods into talent
identification process: a social psychological perspective”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 109, pp. 637-647.
Lawrence, B. and Shah, N. (2020), “Homophily: measures and meaning”, Academy of Management
Annals, Vol. 14 No. 2.
Layder, D. (1993), New Strategies in Social Research, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Lazarsfeld, F. and Merton, K. (1954), “Friendship as a social process: a substantive and methodological
analysis”, in Berger, M. (Ed.), Freedom and Control in Modern Society, Van Nostrand, New
York, NY, pp. 18-66.
Lieberman, M., Rock, D., Halvorson, H. and Cox, C. (2015), “Breaking bias updated: the SEEDS
Model®”, Neuro Leadership Journal, Vol. 6.
Lin, R., Dobbins, H. and Farth, L. (1992), “A field study of race and age similarity effects on interview
ratings in conventional and situational interviews”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77,
pp. 363-371.
Loi, R., Chan, K. and Lam, L. (2014), “Leader-member exchange, organisational identification, and job
satisfaction: a social identity perspective”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 42-61.
M€akel€a, K., Kalla, H. and Piekkari, R. (2007), “Interpersonal similarity as a driver of knowledge
sharing within multinational corporations”, International Business Review, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 1-22.
M€akel€a, C., Bjorkman, I. and Ehrnrooth, M. (2010), “How do MNCs establish their talent pools?
Influences on individuals’ likelihood of being labelled as talent”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 45, pp. 134-142.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D. and Welch, L. (1999), “Adopting a common corporate language:
IHRM implications”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 377-390.
Marsden, P. (1988), “Homogeneity in confiding relations”, Social Networks, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 57-76.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. (1995), Designing Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
McCroskey, C., Holdridge, W. and Toomb, J. (1974), “An instrument for measuring the source
credibility of basic speech communication instructors”, The Speech Teacher, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 26-33.
McDonnell, A. and Collings, D. (2011), “The identification and evaluation of talent in MNEs”, in
Scullion, H. and Collings, G. (Eds), Global Talent Management, Routledge, London.
McPherson, M. and Smith-Lovin, L. (1987), “Homophily in voluntary organizations: status distance Homophily and
and the composition of face-to-face groups”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 52 No. 3,
pp. 370-379. talent
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. and Cook, J. (2001), “Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks”,
identification
Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27, pp. 415-444.
Mellahi, K. and Collings, D. (2010), “The barriers to effective global talent management: the example of
corporate elites in MNEs”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 143-149.
641
Merriam, S. (1998), Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education, Jossey-Bass
Publishers, San Francisco.
Merrill, W. and Reid, H. (1999), Personal Styles and Effective Performance: Make Your Style Work for
You, CRC Press, New York, NY.
Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis an Expanded Sourcebook, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mollica, K., Gray, B. and Trevino, L. (2003), “Racial homophily and its persistence in newcomers’ social
networks”, Organization Science, Vol. 14, pp. 123-136.
Montoya, M. and Horton, R. (2013), “A meta-analytic investigation of the processes underlying the
similarity-attraction effect”, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 64-94.
Montoya, R., Horton, R. and Kirchner, J. (2008), “Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-
analysis of actual and perceived similarity”, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 25
No. 6, pp. 889-922.
Mutz, D. (2002), “Cross-cutting social networks: testing democratic theory in practice”, American
Political Science Review, Vol. 96, pp. 111-126.
Nederhof, A. (1985), “Methods of coping with social desirability bias: a review”, European Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 263-280.
Newcomb, M. (1961), The Acquaintance Process, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
Patton, M. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage, London.
Pepermans, R., Vloeberghs, D. and Perkisas, B. (2003), “High potential identification policies: an
empirical study among Belgian companies”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 No. 8,
pp. 660-678.
Perrault, E. (2015), “Why does board gender diversity matter and how do we get there? The role of
shareholder activism in deinstitutionalizing old boys’ networks”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 128, pp. 149-165.
Pfeffer, J. (1983), “Organizational demography”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in
Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, Vol. 5, pp. 299-357.
Prewett, M., Walvoord, A., Stilson, F., Rossi, M. and Brannick, M. (2009), “The team personality–team
performance relationship revisited: the impact of criterion choice, pattern of workflow, and
method of aggregation”, Human Performance, Vol. 22, pp. 273-296.
Prisbell, M. and Andersen, F. (1980), “The importance of perceived homophily, uncertainty reduction,
feeling good, safety, and self-disclosure in interpersonal relationships”, Communication
Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 22-33.
Rheea, M., Yanga, D. and Yoo, T. (2013), “National culture and friendship homophily in the
multinational workplace”, Asian Business and Management, Vol. 12, pp. 299-320.
Rogers, E. and Bhowmik, D. (1971), “Homophily-Heterophily: relational concepts for communication
research”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 34, pp. 523-538.
Rosenbaum, M. (1986), “The repulsion hypothesis: on the non-development of relationships”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1156-1166.
Rosenkopf, L. and Nerkar, A. (2001), “Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and
impact in the optical disk industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 287-306.
PR Rothwell, W. (2010), Effective Succession Planning, Ensuring Leadership Continuity and Building
Talent from within, 4th ed, American Management Association, New York, NY.
51,2
Ruef, M., Aldrich, E. and Carter, M. (2003), “The structure of founding teams: homophily, strong ties,
and isolation among US entrepreneurs”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 68 No. 2,
pp. 195-222.
Sacco, J., Scheu, C., Ryan, A. and Schmitt, N. (2003), “An investigation of race and sex similarity effects
in interviews: a multilevel approach to relational demography”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
642 Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 852-865.
Salda~
na, J. (2013), The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Schaubroeck, J. and Lam, S. (2002), “How similarity to peers and supervisor influences organizational
advancement in different cultures”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 6,
pp. 1120-1136.
Schug, J., Yuki, M., Horikawa, H. and Takemura, K. (2009), “Similarity attraction and actually selecting
similar others: how cross-societal differences in relational mobility affect interpersonal
similarity in Japan and the United States”, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 12,
pp. 95-103.
Schwartz, R. (1996), “The internal dialogue: on the asymmetry between positive and negative coping
thoughts”, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 10, pp. 591-605.
Sears, J., Rowe, M. and De Groot, M. (2003), “A personality-based similar-to-me effect in the
employment interview: conscientiousness, affect-versus competence-mediated interpretations,
and the role of job relevance”, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne des
Sciences du Comportement, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 13-24.
Shah, P. and Kleiner, B. (2005), “New developments concerning age discrimination in the workplace”,
Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 24 Nos 5/6, pp. 15-23.
Sheehan, M. and Anderson, V. (2015), “Talent management and organizational diversity: a call for
research”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 349-358.
Silzer, R. and Church, A. (2009), “The pearls and perils of identifying potential”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 377-412.
Silzer, R. and Church, A. (2010), “Identifying and assessing high potential talent: current
organizational practices”, in Silzer, R. and Dowell, B. (Eds), Strategy Driven Talent
Management: A Leadership Imperative, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Singh, R., Lin, S., Lin, P. and Tan, L. (2008), “Multiple mediators of the attitude similarity-attraction
relationship: dominance of inferred attraction and subtlety of affect”, Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 61-74.
Sip, K., Van Bavel, J., West, T., Davis, J., Rock, D. and Grant, H. (2017), “Select better: how managers
can reduce bias in hiring”, Neuroleadership Journal, Vol. 6.
Slan-Jerusalim, R. and Hausdorf, P. (2007), “Managers’ justice perceptions of high potential
identification practices”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 933-950.
Smith, E. and Collins, E. (2009), “Contextualizing person perception: distributed social cognition”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 116, pp. 343-364.
Somashekhar, M. (2014), “Diversity through homophily? the paradox of how increasing similarities
between recruiters and recruits can make an organization more diverse”, McGill Sociological
Review, Vol. 4, pp. 1-18.
Soni, H. (2014), “Ethical talent management: the hall mark of contemporary HRM”, International
Journal of Research in Management and Technology, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 122-130.
Sorenson, O. and Stuart, T.E. (2008), “Bringing the context back in: settings and the search for
syndicate partners in venture capital investment networks”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 53, pp. 266-294.
Stets, J. and Burke, P. (2000), “Identity theory and social identity theory”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Homophily and
Vol. 63, pp. 224-237.
talent
Stoecker, R. (2011), “Evaluating and rethinking the case study”, Sociological Review, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 88-112.
identification
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. (1986), “The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour”, Psychology of
Intergroup Relations, Vol. 5, pp. 7-24.
Tsui, S., Egan, D. and O’Reilly, A. III (1992), “Being different: relational demography and 643
organizational attachment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, pp. 549-579.
Tsui, A., Porter, L. and Egan, D. (2002), “When both similarities and dissimilarities matter: extending
the concept of relational demography”, Human Relations, Vol. 55 No. 8, pp. 899-929.
Turban, B. and Jones, P. (1988), “Supervisor-subordinate similarity: types, effects, and mechanisms”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 228-234.
Verd, J., Lozares, C., Cruz Gomez, I. and Barranco, O. (2014), “La homofilia/heterofilia en el marco de la
teorıa y analisis de redes sociales. Orientacion metodologica, medicion y aplicaciones”,
Metodologıa de Encuestas, Vol. 16, pp. 5-25.
Wells, J. and Aicher, T. (2011), “Follow the leader: a relational demography, similarity attraction, and
social identity theory of leadership approach of a team’s performance”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 407-422.
Westphal, D. and Zajac, J. (1995), “Who shall govern? CEO/board power, demographic similarity, and
new Director selection”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 60-83.
Wiblen, S., Dery, K. and Grant, D. (2012), “Do you see what I see? The role of technology in talent
identification”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 421-438.
Yammarino, F. and Dansereau, F. (2002), “Individualized leadership”, Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 90-99.
Yin, R. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks,
California.
Zahra, S. and Eltantawy, R. (2009), “Fatal attraction. The dangers of leaders flocking together”,
LIA Leadership in Action, March/April, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 8-12.
Corresponding author
Maria Rita Blanco can be contacted at: mblanco@unsam.edu.ar
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

10 1108 - PR 05 2019 0230

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1108 - PR 05 2019 0230

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

The Janus faced effects of homophily in organisations

Criterion for selecting line managers

1 A middle manager 7 M 34 Undergraduate

Homophily not - Homophily perceived

(Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, 1996). Reliability was calculated by (total number of

Talent spotters’ perception of their own homophily

Status homophily attributes

Value homophily attributes

Discussion and implications

Functional or dysfunctional bias to the talent identification process?

636 Limitations and future research

You might also like