Artificial Intelligence-Driven Talent Analytics and Employee Performance in Emerging Economies: A Conceptual and Opinion-Based Framework

1Introduction

The global economy is witnessing an unprecedented convergence of digital transformation and human capital management. Artificial intelligence, once confined to the realm of technology laboratories, has now permeated organisational human resource systems, giving rise to what scholars and practitioners increasingly call 'AI-driven talent analytics' (Marler & Boudreau, 2017; Tursunbayeva et al., 2018; Cheng & Hackett, 2019; Rasmussen & Ulrich, 2015). This phenomenon refers to the deployment of machine learning algorithms, natural language processing, and big data infrastructure to collect, process, and interpret workforce-related data for strategic and operational HR decision-making.

Emerging economies – a category encompassing nations in sub-Saharan Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Latin America, and parts of Eastern Europe – present a particularly compelling and underexplored context for studying this phenomenon. These economies are characterised by rapid industrialisation, youthful workforces, expanding digital infrastructure, and growing privatesector dynamism (Khanna & Palepu, 2020; Bruton et al., 2022; Acemoglu & Robinson, 2019; Ayyagari et al., 2015). Yet they also grapple with unique challenges: skills mismatches, high informality in labour markets, institutional fragility, and uneven technological adoption. Against this backdrop, the question of whether and how AI-driven talent analytics can meaningfully improve employee performance becomes both theoretically rich and practically urgent.

This paper proceeds from the position that the relationship between AI-driven talent analytics and employee performance is neither automatic nor universally uniform. Rather, it is mediated by contextual variables specific to emerging economies and moderated by organisational capability and readiness (Paauwe et al., 2019; Zoogah et al., 2015; Becker & Huselid, 2015; Collings et al., 2019). The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the relevant literature; Section 3 presents the theoretical framework; Section 4 develops the conceptual model and hypotheses; Section 5 articulates the authors' position and arguments; Section 6 discusses implications; and Section 7 concludes.

2Literature review

2.1AI-driven talent analytics: Conceptual foundations

Talent analytics, also referred to as HR analytics or workforce analytics, involves the systematic application of analytical methods to human capital data to improve talent-related decision-making (Marler & Boudreau, 2017; Tursunbayeva et al., 2018; Angrave et al., 2016; van den Heuvel & Bondarouk, 2017). The integration of artificial intelligence into this domain has dramatically expanded its scope and precision. Whereas traditional HR analytics relied on descriptive and diagnostic statistics, AI-driven talent analytics leverages predictive and prescriptive capabilities enabled by machine learning models trained on large and diverse datasets (Tambe et al., 2019; Cheng & Hackett, 2019).

The literature identifies three dominant dimensions of AI-driven talent analytics. First, predictive workforce planning involves the use of AI models to forecast talent supply and demand, identify capability gaps, and model organisational scenarios to inform strategic workforce decisions (Boudreau & Cascio, 2017; Cappelli & Keller, 2017; Minbaeva, 2018). Second, AI-based recruitment analytics employs natural language processing and machine learning to screen resumes, assess candidate fit, reduce hiring bias, and predict post-hire performance (Campion et al., 2023; Tambe et al., 2019; Liem et al., 2018; Upadhyay & Khandelwal, 2018). Third, performance forecasting systems use continuous data streams – including productivity metrics, engagement indicators, and behavioural signals – to predict future employee performance trajectories and inform real-time interventions (Angrave et al., 2016; Rasmussen & Ulrich, 2015; Cheng & Hackett, 2019).

2.2Employee performance: A multidimensional construct

Employee performance is broadly defined as the degree to which an employee fulfils the role requirements and contributes to organisational goals (Campbell, 1990; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2017; Koopmans et al., 2016). Contemporary scholarship recognises it as a multidimensional construct, encompassing task performance, contextual performance, and adaptive performance (Koopmans et al., 2016; Griffin et al., 2017; Baard et al., 2015). For the purposes of this paper, three operational measures are foregrounded: task efficiency – the ratio of output to input in the execution of defined job tasks; goal achievement rate – the extent to which employees meet pre-established individual or team objectives; and productivity output – the overall quantum of work produced per unit of time or resource input.

These dimensions are particularly relevant in emerging economy contexts where performance management systems are often less formalised and where organisations frequently struggle to translate strategic objectives into measurable individual performance metrics (Zoogah et al., 2015; Paauwe et al., 2019; Festing & Schafer, 2016; Kamoche et al., 2015). The scarcity of rigorous performance measurement frameworks in many developing markets amplifies the potential value of AI-driven systems that can provide consistent, data-grounded assessments of individual and team productivity trajectories.

2.3The emerging economy context

Emerging economies are typically characterised by above-average economic growth, developing institutional frameworks, and structural transformation in labour markets (Bruton et al., 2022; Khanna & Palepu, 2020; Hoskisson et al., 2015; Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2016). Scholars have noted that the institutional voids prevalent in these settings – including underdeveloped capital markets, weak regulatory environments, and limited information infrastructure – create both challenges and opportunities for technology adoption in HR. These voids simultaneously increase the potential value of AI-mediated information and reduce the organisational capacity to implement and govern such systems responsibly.

The adoption of digital HR technologies in emerging economies has been accelerating, driven partly by mobile penetration, cloud computing, and the entry of multinational corporations that bring global HR practices (Ayyagari et al., 2015; Acemoglu & Robinson, 2019; Betchoo, 2016; Lemieux et al., 2018). However, a significant implementation gap persists. Organisations frequently acquire HR technology platforms but lack the internal analytical capabilities, change management sophistication, and data governance frameworks needed to realise their potential (Paauwe et al., 2019; Angrave et al., 2016; van den Heuvel & Bondarouk, 2017; Minbaeva, 2018).

3Theoretical framework

This paper draws upon three complementary theoretical lenses to anchor the proposed relationship between AI-driven talent analytics and employee performance in emerging economies (Barney, 1991; Teece et al., 2017; Davis, 1989). Each framework contributes a distinct explanatory layer: the RBV explains competitive positioning, Dynamic Capabilities Theory explains adaptive transformation, and TAM explains the behavioural adoption dynamics that determine whether analytical tools produce tangible performance outcomes.

3.1Resource-based view (RBV)

The Resource-Based View (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2020; Peteraf & Barney, 2016) posits that firms achieve competitive advantage through the possession of resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (VRIN). Applied to AI-driven talent analytics, the RBV suggests that organisations that develop proprietary analytical capabilities – trained on unique internal workforce data – create a distinctive form of human capital intelligence that competitors cannot easily replicate. In emerging economies, where talent markets are often thinner and less transparent, this informational advantage is especially potent (Hoskisson et al., 2015; Khanna & Palepu, 2020).

3.2Dynamic capabilities theory

Teece et al. (2017) and subsequent scholars (Helfat & Peteraf, 2015; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2020; Wilden et al., 2016) introduced and refined the concept of dynamic capabilities to describe an organisation's ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments. AI-driven talent analytics serves as a dynamic capability by enabling organisations to sense changes in workforce composition and performance trends, seize opportunities through targeted talent interventions, and transform HR processes in response to shifting strategic priorities. In the volatile labour markets characteristic of emerging economies, this sensing-seizing-transforming cycle has material implications for workforce productivity (Bruton et al., 2022; Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2016).

3.3Technology acceptance model (TAM)

Davis's (1989) Technology Acceptance Model, subsequently extended by Venkatesh et al. (2016), Legris et al. (2017), and Marangunić and Granić (2015), provides the behavioural dimension of this framework. TAM proposes that technology adoption is driven by two primary perceptions: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. For AI-driven talent analytics to translate into improved employee performance, employees and managers in emerging economy organisations must perceive these tools as both functionally useful and operationally accessible. Factors such as digital literacy, language localisation, and interface design are therefore critical mediators in the technology-performance relationship in these contexts.

4Conceptual model and hypotheses

The conceptual model proposed in this paper posits that AI-driven talent analytics – operationalised through its three dimensions of predictive workforce planning, AI-based recruitment analytics, and performance forecasting systems – exerts a positive and significant influence on the three dimensions of employee performance: task efficiency, goal achievement rate, and productivity output (Marler & Boudreau, 2017; Tambe et al., 2019; Cheng & Hackett, 2019). This relationship is conceptualised as being moderated by organisational AI readiness and mediated by managerial decision quality in the emerging economy context.

4.1Proposed hypotheses

H1: Predictive workforce planning is positively associated with task efficiency in organisations operating in emerging economies.

H2: AI-based recruitment analytics is positively associated with goal achievement rate among employees in emerging economies.

H3: Performance forecasting systems are positively associated with productivity output among employees in emerging economies.

H4: The positive relationship between AI-driven talent analytics and employee performance is stronger in organisations with higher AI readiness.

H5: Managerial decision quality mediates the relationship between performance forecasting systems and employee productivity output in emerging economies.

4.2Conceptual framework narrative

The conceptual model can be visualised as a pathway diagram in which the three dimensions of AI-driven talent analytics (IV) feed into their corresponding performance outcomes (DV), with organisational AI readiness serving as a boundary condition (Boudreau & Cascio, 2017; Cappelli & Keller, 2017; Minbaeva, 2018; Angrave et al., 2016). Predictive workforce planning reduces skill misalignment and ensures that role-person fit is optimised, thereby enhancing task efficiency. AI-based recruitment analytics improves the quality of hires, increasing the probability that recruited employees will achieve their performance goals. Performance forecasting systems create a feedback loop that enables early identification of performance deviations, allowing timely managerial interventions that sustain or restore productivity output.

5Author position and arguments

5.1The transformative case for AI-driven talent analytics

This paper takes the position that AI-driven talent analytics represents one of the most consequential developments in organisational management in the current era, particularly for emerging economies (Marler & Boudreau, 2017; Tambe et al., 2019; Rasmussen & Ulrich, 2015; Cheng & Hackett, 2019). The traditional HR paradigm – characterised by intuition-based recruitment, retrospective performance reviews, and reactive workforce planning – is structurally inadequate for the demands of dynamic, knowledge-intensive economies. AI-driven talent analytics offers a fundamentally different paradigm: one grounded in prospection rather than retrospection, evidence rather than intuition, and precision rather than approximation.

For emerging economy organisations, the stakes are uniquely high. In contexts where labour markets are characterised by informational asymmetries, where formal credentialling systems are often unreliable predictors of competence, and where performance management cultures are nascent, AI-driven recruitment analytics can serve as a powerful equaliser (Khanna & Palepu, 2020; Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2016; Zoogah et al., 2015; Kamoche et al., 2015). By assessing competency signals beyond traditional CVs – such as cognitive assessment data, structured interview transcripts, and work sample performance – AI systems can surface talent that traditional recruitment methods systematically overlook.

5.2Predictive workforce planning: From reactive to anticipatory

One of the most compelling arguments for AI-driven talent analytics in emerging economies lies in its capacity to transform workforce planning from a reactive, calendar-driven activity into an anticipatory, data-informed strategic function (Boudreau & Cascio, 2017; Cappelli & Keller, 2017; Minbaeva, 2018; Tursunbayeva et al., 2018). In many emerging economy organisations, workforce planning is treated as a budgetary exercise rather than a strategic capability. Headcount decisions are made on the basis of prior-year staffing levels, anecdotal assessments of turnover, and crude revenue projections.

Predictive workforce planning algorithms, trained on organisational data combined with macroeconomic indicators, industry trends, and demographic patterns, can substantially enhance the accuracy of talent supply-demand forecasting (Cappelli & Keller, 2017; Angrave et al., 2016; van den Heuvel & Bondarouk, 2017; Collings et al., 2019). This has direct implications for task efficiency: when the right people are in the right roles at the right time, the friction costs associated with understaffing, overstaffing, and role misalignment are significantly reduced. In labour markets characterised by volatile economic conditions – as is common in many emerging economies – this anticipatory capability is not merely beneficial but essential.

5.3AI-based recruitment analytics: Quality of hire and goal achievement

The causal pathway from AI-based recruitment analytics to goal achievement rate rests on a straightforward logic: the quality of a hire is the single most durable predictor of that hire's performance outcomes (Campion et al., 2023; Tambe et al., 2019; Liem et al., 2018; Upadhyay & Khandelwal, 2018). If AI analytics can systematically improve the quality of selection decisions - reducing type I errors (false positives who underperform) and type II errors (false negatives who are wrongly rejected) – then the aggregate impact on organisational performance over time is substantial. The implications extend well beyond recruitment efficiency to encompass the entire employee performance lifecycle.

In emerging economies specifically, AI-based recruitment analytics addresses a critical structural challenge: the opacity of talent signals (Khanna & Palepu, 2020; Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2016; Festing & Schafer, 2016; Betchoo, 2016). In labour markets where educational credentialling is highly variable in quality, where professional networks are narrow and geographically concentrated, and where unconscious bias in hiring decisions is pervasive, machine learning models trained on job-relevant competency data provide a more reliable basis for selection. The paper argues that these models must be developed and validated on locally representative data to avoid importing Western-centric performance norms that do not translate across cultural contexts.

5.4Performance forecasting systems: Closing the feedback loop

Performance forecasting systems represent, in this paper's assessment, the most operationally proximate dimension of AI-driven talent analytics relative to employee productivity output (Angrave et al., 2016; Cheng & Hackett, 2019; Rasmussen & Ulrich, 2015; van den Heuvel & Bondarouk, 2017). By providing managers with real-time or near-real-time predictive signals about employee performance trajectories, these systems compress the feedback loop between performance observation and managerial intervention. The ability to act on emerging performance data before trajectories solidify into entrenched patterns of underperformance represents a qualitative advance over periodic review-based systems.

In emerging economy organisations, where formal performance management systems are often episodic (annual reviews), poorly calibrated, or used primarily for administrative rather than developmental purposes, AI-enabled continuous performance intelligence represents a significant advancement (Paauwe et al., 2019; Kamoche et al., 2015; Zoogah et al., 2015; Collings et al., 2019). Managers equipped with predictive performance data are better positioned to provide timely coaching, reassign tasks to optimise individual strengths, and identify early warning signals of disengagement or skill decay.

5.5The emerging economy paradox: Opportunity and constraint

The paper does not advance a naively optimistic position. It acknowledges what may be termed the 'emerging economy AI paradox' – the simultaneous existence of high potential and high constraint in the adoption of AI-driven talent analytics (Khanna & Palepu, 2020; Bruton et al., 2022; Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2016; Ayyagari et al., 2015). On the opportunity side, emerging economies possess large, young, and digitally engaged workforces whose data footprints are expanding rapidly. They also have a 'leapfrogging' advantage: unburdened by legacy HR systems, they can adopt cloud-native AI platforms at a fraction of the implementation cost faced by established economies.

On the constraint side, the challenges are real and must not be trivialised. Data quality and governance frameworks are frequently inadequate; the scarcity of AI-literate HR professionals limits the ability of organisations to interpret and act on analytical outputs; power distance and hierarchical cultural norms may undermine the egalitarian assumptions embedded in some AI hiring and performance tools; and regulatory frameworks governing AI in employment are largely absent in many emerging markets, creating both legal uncertainty and ethical risk (Angrave et al., 2016; van den Heuvel & Bondarouk, 2017; Minbaeva, 2018; Paauwe et al., 2019). The paper therefore argues that the positive relationship between AI-driven talent analytics and employee performance in emerging economies is real but contingent – contingent on investment in data infrastructure, on the development of locally calibrated AI models, on managerial capability building, and on the cultivation of organisational cultures that treat analytical insights as inputs to human judgment rather than substitutes for it.

6Implications

6.1Theoretical implications

This paper makes several theoretical contributions. First, it extends the application of RBV and Dynamic Capabilities Theory to the AI-HR interface in emerging economy contexts, a domain that has received relatively limited scholarly attention (Hoskisson et al., 2015; Peteraf & Barney, 2016; Wilden et al., 2016; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2020). Second, it advances a contextually grounded conceptual model that disaggregates both the IV and DV into operationally distinct dimensions, thereby providing a more granular basis for empirical testing than aggregate constructs allow (Marler & Boudreau, 2017; Tursunbayeva et al., 2018). Third, it introduces the concept of 'AI readiness' as a boundary condition moderating the analytics-performance relationship – a theoretically generative construct that warrants independent conceptual development.

6.2Practical implications

For HR practitioners and organisational leaders in emerging economies, the paper offers several actionable insights. Organisations should prioritise data infrastructure investment before AIanalytics tool procurement (Angrave et al., 2016; van den Heuvel & Bondarouk, 2017; Cheng & Hackett, 2019; Rasmussen & Ulrich, 2015). The temptation to adopt sophisticated AI platforms without the underlying data quality and governance architecture to support them risks creating 'analytics theatre' – the appearance of data-driven decision-making without its substance. HR professionals must invest in developing their own analytical literacy, as AI-driven talent analytics demands a higher quality of human judgment rather than replacing it.

6.3Policy implications

Policymakers in emerging economies should consider developing enabling regulatory frameworks that govern the use of AI in employment – covering data privacy, algorithmic transparency, and anti-discrimination protections – while avoiding overregulation that stifles innovation (Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2016; Khanna & Palepu, 2020; Bruton et al., 2022; Ayyagari et al., 2015). Regional development banks and government agencies should incentivise the development of locally calibrated AI talent tools that reflect the cultural, linguistic, and institutional specificities of their labour markets, rather than defaulting to imported tools developed for very different contexts.

7Conclusion

This paper has advanced the conceptual argument that AI-driven talent analytics – encompassing predictive workforce planning, AI-based recruitment analytics, and performance forecasting systems – holds significant potential to enhance employee performance in emerging economies, as measured through task efficiency, goal achievement rate, and productivity output (Marler & Boudreau, 2017; Tambe et al., 2019; Angrave et al., 2016; Cheng & Hackett, 2019). Grounded in RBV, Dynamic Capabilities Theory, and TAM, and informed by the specific institutional and structural characteristics of emerging market contexts, the paper has developed a conceptual model and a set of empirically testable hypotheses.

The paper has argued, with conviction but without naivety, that realising this potential requires more than technology adoption. It requires a simultaneous investment in data governance, human capital development, culturally sensitive tool design, and enabling policy environments (Paauwe et al., 2019; Zoogah et al., 2015; Khanna & Palepu, 2020; Collings et al., 2019). The emerging economy organisation that gets this combination right will not merely improve the efficiency of its HR function – it will transform talent management into a genuine source of sustainable competitive advantage. Future research should move beyond conceptual framing to empirically test the proposed hypotheses across diverse emerging economy contexts, using rigorous mixedmethods designs that capture both the statistical relationships and the lived organisational experiences that quantitative models alone cannot fully illuminate. The field is nascent, the stakes are high, and the intellectual territory is rich. This paper is an invitation to engage it with the seriousness it deserves.

References

1. [1]Acemoglu D, Robinson JA (2019). The narrow corridor: States, societies, and the fate of liberty. Penguin Press.
2. [2]Angrave D, Charlwood A, Kirkpatrick I, Lawrence M, Stuart M (2016). HR and analytics: Why HR is set to fail the big data challenge. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(1), 1–11.
3. [3]Asongu SA, Nwachukwu JC (2016). The mobile phone in the diffusion of knowledge for institutional quality in sub-Saharan Africa. World Development, 86, 133–147.
4. [4]Ayyagari M, Beck T, Demirguc-Kunt A (2015). Small and medium enterprises across the globe. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 415–434.
5. [5]Baard SK, Rench TA, Kozlowski SWJ (2015). Performance adaptation: A theoretical integration and review. Journal of Management, 40(1), 48–99.
6. [6]Barney J (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
7. [7]Becker BE, Huselid MA (2015). High performance work systems and firm performance: A synthesis of research and managerial implications. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 16, 53–101.
8. [8]Betchoo NK (2016). Digital transformation and its impact on human resource management: A case analysis of two unrelated businesses. IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Innovative Business Practices, 267–270.
9. [9]Boudreau JW, Cascio WF (2017). Human capital analytics: Why are we not there? Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4(2), 119–126.
10. [10]Bruton GD, Ahlstrom D, Obloj K (2022). Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Where are we today and where should the research go in the future? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 1–14.
11. [11]Campbell JP (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organisational psychology. In MD Dunnette, LM Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organisational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 687–732). Consulting Psychologists Press.
12. [12]Campion MC, Campion ED, Campion MA (2023). Improvements in performance forecasting through machine learning approaches. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(5), 605–623.
13. [13]Cappelli P, Keller JR (2017). Classifying work in the new economy. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), 575–596.
14. [14]Cheng MM, Hackett RD (2019). A critical review of algorithms in HRM: Definition, theory, and practice. Human Resource Management Review, 31(1), 100698.
15. [15]Collings DG, Mellahi K, Cascio WF (2019). Global talent management and performance in multinational enterprises: A multilevel perspective. Journal of Management, 45(2), 540–566.
16. [16]Davis FD (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
17. [17]Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2020). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.
18. [18]Festing M, Schafer L (2016). Generational challenges to talent management: A framework for talent retention based on the psychological-contract perspective. Journal of World Business, 49(2), 262–271.
19. [19]Griffin MA, Neal A, Parker SK (2017). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347.
20. [20]Helfat CE, Peteraf MA (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 831–850.
21. [21]Hoskisson RE, Wright M, Filatotchev I, Peng MW (2015). Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50(7), 1295–1321.
22. [22]Kamoche K, Siebers LQ, Mamman A, Newenham-Kahindi A (2015). The dynamics of managing people in the diverse cultural and institutional context of Africa. Personnel Review, 44(3), 330–345.
23. [23]Khanna T, Palepu KG (2020). Winning in emerging markets: A road map for strategy and execution. Harvard Business Press.
24. [24]Koopmans L, Bernaards CM, Hildebrandt VH, Lerner D, de Vet HCW, van der Beek AJ (2016). Development of an individual work performance questionnaire. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(1), 6–28.
25. [25]Legris P, Ingham J, Collerette P (2017). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191–204.
26. [26]Lemieux T, MacLeod WB, Parent D (2018). Performance pay and wage inequality. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(1), 1–49.
27. [27]Liem CCS, Liem J, Mollahosseini A, Kaltwang S, Wu C, Hanjalic A, Gunes H, Mahoor MH (2018). Psychological, behavioural, and social responses to interviews. British Journal of Psychology, 109(3), 438–472.
28. [28]Marangunić N, Granić A (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95.
29. [29]Marler JH, Boudreau JW (2017). An evidence-based review of HR analytics. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(1), 3–26.
30. [30]Minbaeva DB (2018). Building credible human capital analytics for organizational competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 57(3), 701–713.
31. [31]Paauwe J, Guest DE, Wright P (Eds.) (2019). HRM and performance: Achievements and challenges. Wiley-Blackwell.
32. [32]Peteraf M, Barney J (2016). Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(4), 309–323.
33. [33]Rasmussen T, Ulrich D (2015). Learning from practice: How HR analytics avoids being a management fad. Organizational Dynamics, 44(3), 236–242.
34. [34]Tambe P, Cappelli P, Yakubovich V (2019). Artificial intelligence in human resources management: Challenges and a path forward. California Management Review, 61(4), 15–42.
35. [35]Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (2017). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
36. [36]Tursunbayeva A, Di Lauro S, Pagliari C (2018). People analytics: A scoping review of conceptual boundaries and value propositions. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 224–247.
37. [37]Upadhyay AK, Khandelwal K (2018). Applying artificial intelligence: Implications for recruitment. Strategic HR Review, 17(5), 255–258.
38. [38]van den Heuvel S, Bondarouk T (2017). The rise (and fall?) of HR analytics: A study into the future application, value, structure, and system support. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4(2), 157–178.
39. [39]Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Xu X (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(5), 328–376.
40. [40]Viswesvaran C, Ones DS (2017). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(4), 216–226.
41. [41]Wernerfelt B (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
42. [42]Wilden R, Gudergan SP, Nielsen BB, Lings I (2016). Dynamic capabilities and performance: Strategy, structure and environment. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 72–96.
43. [43]Zoogah DB, Peng MW, Woldu H (2015). Institutions, resources, and organisational effectiveness in Africa. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1), 7–31.