Human Resource Aspirations and Talent Development towards Research Excellence: An Institutional Study of the Faculty of Accountancy of a Malaysian Public University

This study investigates the Faculty of Accountancy’s human resource (HR) aspirations and integrated talent development initiatives in cultivating a culture of academic excellence, research productivity, and innovation. Guided by a conceptual framework that integrates the Ability–Motivation–Opportunity (AMO) model, Communities of Practice (CoP), Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) cycle, and Self-Determination Theory (SDT), the research explores how HR strategies, diversity, and recognition systems shape institutional outcomes. Five objectives drive the inquiry: to examine the FPN’s HR aspirations; evaluate initiatives such as Talent Clusters, Research Track, and Research Champion; assess recruitment, diversity, and qualifications; analyse monitoring and risk management systems; and explore the motivational role of recognition and innovation support. Adopting a qualitative case study design, data collected through semi-structured interviews with top management and senior academics, focus group discussions with junior academics, and content analysis of key performance indicators (KPIs) and progress records (2020–2023). Thematic analysis, complemented by document-based content analysis and triangulation to ensure credibility and trustworthiness. This research contributes to the literature by providing an empirically understanding of how integrated HR strategies and talent initiatives influence research, publication, and innovation outcomes within higher education institutions. Findings are expected to offer practical insights for policymakers and academic leaders in aligning recruitment, talent development, and recognition systems with institutional performance goals, while also strengthening a research driven organisational culture.

human resource development, talent management

1. Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing Advantage (AMO theory). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Becker, G. S. (1964). Human Capital. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bland, C. J., & Ruffin, M. T. (1992). Characteristics of a productive research environment. Academic Medicine, 67(6), 385–397. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. (2011). On network theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1168–1181. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis (PDCA). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The triple helix. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication, performance, and reward. Research in Higher Education, 18(1), 3–25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gallus, J., & Frey, B. S. (2016). Awards as incentives. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(3), 281–286. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). Balanced scorecard. HBR. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). P–O and P–J fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Page, S. E. (2007). The Difference (diversity and complex problem solving). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ragins, B. R., & Kram, K. E. (Eds.). (2007). The Handbook of Mentoring at Work. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Tech transfer offices and commercialization. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (2011). Exploring SHRM theory. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 89–96. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Is Strike Relevant in the Modern Era? Evidence from Indian Manufacturing, IT/Ites, FMCG, Electronics and Emerging Sectors
• A Qualitative Exploration of Work-Life Balance Among Private Universities Lecturers in Klang Valley
• Leadership Styles and Employee Motivation: Examining the Impact on Job Satisfaction and Turnover
• Human Resource Management, Organizational Culture, and Good Governance Practices: A Structural Equation Model on Service Orientation among Government-Owned and Controlled Corporation in Davao Region
• Cost of Silence: Exploring the Impact of Organisational Silence on Employee Engagement