College of Education, 18). Data were collected through a structured questionnaire comprising Section A

(biodata) and Section B (items structured on a 5-point Likert scale). Content validity was ensured through expert

review in Human Resource Management and prior studies, while reliability was confirmed using Cronbach’s

alpha, with all four constructs surpassing the 0.70 threshold. Descriptive statistics (percentages, means, and

standard deviations) were applied, while inferential analysis was conducted using one-way ANOVA at a 5%

level of significance. Where significant differences occurred, Tukey post-hoc tests were performed. Findings

revealed notable differences across institutions: the federal university reported stronger acquisition and retention

practices, the state college of education excelled in succession planning, while the polytechnic lagged across

most dimensions. Talent development showed no significant variation. The study concludes that institutional

type and ownership shape talent management practices, recommends tailored improvements across institutions,

under conditions of resource constraints, rising enrolments, and global competition. Talent management

practices, including acquisition, development, retention, and succession planning, are now seen as strategic HR

interventions that determine universities’, polytechnics’, and colleges’ ability to deliver effectively (Al-Ali et al.,

2019; Vrontis et al., 2022). Since higher educational institutions are knowledge-intensive, their most important

assets remain the skills and commitment of academic staff. Thus, exploring academics’ perceptions of talent

management practices offers insights into institutional performance and sustainability.

Nigeria’s higher education sector is diverse, consisting of federal, state, and private institutions that differ in

governance and funding. In Delta State, the federal university, state polytechnic, and state college of education

play crucial but distinct roles in knowledge generation, vocational training, and teacher preparation. However,

disparities in funding and structures shape academics’ experiences: federal universities generally attract more

et al., 2020; Khoreva & Vaiman, 2020). In Africa, however, succession planning and retention remain weak due

to unstable funding and governance (Akinwale et al., 2021). Nigeria faces difficulties in attracting and retaining

staff, limited development opportunities, and weak leadership pipelines (Oludayo et al., 2018). These realities

make comparative investigations across institution types both timely and necessary.

While prior Nigerian studies have focused mainly on federal universities, little research compares perceptions

across institution types. Yet, institutional diversity in Delta State suggests possible variations in academics’

perceptions of talent management. If such differences exist, they have implications for academic staffing and

HR policies. Moreover, while acquisition and development receive attention, retention and succession planning

remain neglected, resulting in turnover, brain drain, and leadership gaps. A comparative approach is therefore

essential to identify strengths and weaknesses and to guide tailored interventions.

These objectives align with calls for nuanced investigations into HR practices in diverse higher education

contexts (Thunnissen, 2017; Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2020).

The study’s significance is both theoretical and practical. It contributes to HRM literature in higher education by

showing how structural and policy environments shape talent management. Practically, it offers policymakers

and administrators evidence to improve strategies for attraction, development, retention, and succession, thereby

strengthening institutional performance and sustainability amid global competition and domestic challenges.

The study focuses on academics in a federal university, a state polytechnic, and a state college of education in

Delta State. It is limited to four talent management dimensions: acquisition, development, retention, and

succession planning. Data were collected from academic staff, who are central to the teaching, research, and

service roles of higher education.

therefore serve as mechanisms to align academic capacity with institutional missions. While private-sector talent

management emphasizes competitive advantage, in higher educational institutions the focus extends to

sustainability, knowledge transfer, and service delivery (Meyers et al., 2020).

Higher educational institutions face unique challenges in implementing talent management practices. First, their

missions combine teaching, research, and community service, requiring multifaceted academic competencies.

Second, they operate within regulated environments where government funding, policy, and governance

structures heavily influence HR practices. Studies in Africa highlight that many higher educational institutions

lack formalized talent management frameworks, leading to inconsistent recruitment, weak career development,

and ad hoc succession practices (Maroga et al., 2024; Amushila & Shikalepo, 2021). Nigerian Higher educational

(Hoque et al., 2022). In Nigeria, federal universities often outperform state institutions in attracting talent due to

relatively better remuneration, facilities, and prestige (Akinwale et al., 2021). Polytechnics and colleges of

education face recruitment challenges, partly because of their vocational and teacher-training focus, which is

less attractive to high-profile academics. Perceptions of weak acquisition practices can discourage applications

and reinforce disparities between federal and state institutions.

Talent development refers to enhancing staff capacity through training, mentoring, research support, and

continuous professional development (CPD). Globally, faculty development is linked to higher student

satisfaction, improved teaching, and increased research output (Fernandes, 2023; Vela, 2023). Effective TD

strategies include workshops, sabbaticals, mentoring, and technology-driven learning platforms. In African

Retention strategies aim to reduce turnover by ensuring academics remain motivated and committed. Key

practices include career advancement opportunities, fair promotion criteria, supportive leadership, and adequate

compensation. Globally, retention is a challenge in higher educational institutions because of competitive labour

markets and attractive opportunities abroad (Meyers et al., 2020). African higher educational institutions often

record high turnover intentions due to poor welfare systems, political instability, and inadequate research

support. Nigerian academics face similar challenges, including irregular salaries, poor infrastructure, and limited

promotion opportunities (Amushila & Shikalepo, 2021). Studies show that without effective retention strategies,

higher educational institutions risk losing mid-career and high-performing academics, undermining institutional

continuity (Ogun State Universities Study, 2024).

appointments or seniority rather than structured preparation (Oludayo et al., 2018). Consequently, academics

often perceive SP as absent or ineffective. Where SP exists, it is limited to informal mentoring or administrative

training in select universities. The lack of robust SP frameworks contributes to instability and leadership

vacuums in state-owned institutions (Namibian public enterprises evidence, 2023).

Comparative studies are limited but reveal structural differences. Federal universities often lead in acquisition

and development, benefiting from higher funding and prestige (Hoque et al., 2022). State polytechnics are

stronger in practical training but weaker in academic research and staff retention (Adamawa IHL evidence,

2020). Colleges of education show modest development and acquisition practices but often struggle with

longterm retention and career advancement. Globally, system-level differences similarly shape talent

acquisition and development systems, while community colleges focus on teaching with fewer resources

(Khoreva & Vaiman, 2020). Comparable patterns exist in African contexts, where national universities

outperform regional or technical colleges in talent management practices (Maroga et al., 2024).

was structured according to the study objectives:

Educationally, the majority held PhDs (65.2%), followed by master’s (28.3%) and bachelor’s degrees (6.5%).

The workforce was mainly middle-aged (31–50 years = 74%), and largely experienced, with 41.3% having 11–

15 years of service. Overall, respondents were predominantly mature, highly educated, and experienced

academics.

(45.2%). Most respondents are married (71.0%) and highly educated, with nearly half (48.4%) holding

postgraduate qualifications. The workforce is largely middle-aged, with the highest proportion (38.7%) between

51 and 60 years, and shows considerable stability, as the majority (74.2%) have between 6 and 20 years of

service. This reflects a mature, well-qualified, and experienced population, suitable for generating credible

insights in the study.

Sample size: N = 18.

The respondents were evenly split by gender, predominantly married, and highly educated, with most holding

master’s or doctoral degrees. The majority were middle-aged (41–50 years), while many had less than five years

in service, alongside a fair proportion of experienced staff. Overall, the sample reflects a balanced, qualified,

and mature academic workforce.

Across institutions, Talent Development consistently showed the highest mean perceptions, while Succession

Planning and Talent Retention tended to be lower. Federal University academics reported slightly higher overall

scores compared to their counterparts in State Polytechnic and State College of Education.

M = 3.62, SD = 0.87; State Polytechnic: M = 3.22, SD = 0.79. The ANOVA was significant, F(2, 92) = 10.56, p

= 0.000, η² = 0.187. This indicates statistically reliable differences in perceptions across institution types.

For Talent Development, group means were: Federal University: M = 3.84, SD = 0.87; State College of

Education: M = 3.97, SD = 0.72; State Polytechnic: M = 3.61, SD = 0.79. The ANOVA was not significant, F(2,

92) = 1.25, p = 0.292, η² = 0.026, indicating broadly similar perceptions across institutions.

For Talent Retention, group means were: Federal University: M = 3.65, SD = 0.81; State College of Education:

M = 3.35, SD = 0.79; State Polytechnic: M = 3.15, SD = 0.76. The ANOVA was significant, F(2, 92) = 3.72, p

= 0.028, η² = 0.075. This indicates statistically reliable differences in perceptions across institution types.

For Succession Planning, group means were: Federal University: M = 2.93, SD = 0.89; State College of

= 3.92, p = 0.023, η² = 0.079. This indicates statistically reliable differences in perceptions across institution

types.

TABLE 4: Post-Hoc Tukey Hsd