The Pearls and Perils of Identifying Potential

Review status

This summary is based on the full article text.

The DOI and source URL have been verified through the official Wiley article page.

The article is a conceptual and practice-oriented review published in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. It integrates existing research, corporate surveys, consulting models, and organizational practice around high-potential identification. It does not report a new empirical field study, regression model, survey scale validation, interview study, or statistical hypothesis test.

Research question

What does it mean to identify high-potential talent, and how should organizations understand the construct of potential?

More specifically, the article asks:

• What is talent?
• What is potential?
• Potential for what?
• Which individual characteristics are commonly used to identify high-potential employees?
• How do organizations misuse potential identification?
• Can the many existing models of potential be organized into a clearer framework?

The article focuses on long-term potential rather than short-term selection for a specific next role. The authors are especially interested in how organizations identify employees who may be able to grow into broader, higher-level, or strategically important roles over several years.

Hypotheses

Not specified.

The article is not structured around formal hypotheses. Instead, it develops a conceptual synthesis and practice framework for understanding high-potential identification.

The central argument is that potential should not be treated as one vague, universal trait. Organizations need to clarify what future role, level, function, or strategic need they are identifying potential for.

Method

The article uses conceptual review and integration.

Silzer and Church draw on academic research, practitioner literature, corporate surveys, consulting firm models, internal organizational practices, and high-potential assessment frameworks.

The article first reviews the concepts of talent and potential. Talent can refer to an individual’s knowledge, skills, abilities, and characteristics; a specific person viewed as talented; or a talent group or pool within the organization. Potential refers to the possibility that an individual can become something more than they currently are, usually through further growth and development.

The authors then review how organizations define high potential. They discuss evidence from corporate surveys and practitioner research showing that organizations differ widely in their definitions. In a survey of 20 major corporations, high potential was defined by role in 35% of companies, by level in 25%, by breadth in 25%, and by performance record in 10%. The authors also note other definitions based on strategic position or strategic area.

The article also reviews growth in high-potential programmes. It reports that organizations with high-potential programmes increased across several surveys: 42% of 21 major corporations in a 1994 survey, 31% of 71 Canadian companies in a 2004 survey, 55% of 100 companies in a 2003 Hewitt survey, 100% of the top-quartile shareholder-return companies in the Hewitt survey, and 100% of 20 major corporations in a 2008 survey.

The article then examines uses and misuses of potential. It discusses how potential matters for individuals, managers, HR, and senior leaders. For individuals, potential affects development, career guidance, assignments, support, and promotion opportunities. For managers, it helps focus coaching, projects, and development resources. For HR, it supports succession planning, bench strength, assessment, and development systems. For senior leaders, it functions as an indicator of organizational health and future leadership capability.

The article then integrates existing models of potential. Table 1 compares nine external high-potential models and two corporate surveys. The models include MDA Leadership Consulting, Corporate Leadership Council, Development Dimensions International, Personnel Decisions, Hay Group, Hewitt Associates, YSC, Hogan Assessment Systems, McCall’s high-flyer model, a survey of 71 Canadian companies, and a survey of 20 companies.

The authors organize the reviewed predictors into seven broad categories:

• cognitive skills;
• personality variables;
• learning variables;
• leadership skills;
• motivation variables;
• performance record;
• other variables.

They then reorganize these categories into a new structure of potential with three dimension types:

1. foundational dimensions;
2. growth dimensions;
3. career dimensions.

Figure 1 visualizes how these dimension types vary across career stages. Foundational dimensions remain relatively stable across career stages. Career dimensions develop and require different assessment standards at early, middle, and later career stages. Growth dimensions sit between these because they influence learning and development, but may also depend on context and opportunity.

Results / key findings

The article’s first major finding is that high potential is often poorly defined.

Organizations often use the term “high potential” as if everyone understands what it means. Silzer and Church argue that this is dangerous. Potential is future-oriented, context-dependent, and tied to an end state. A person may have potential for one future role or career path but not another. Therefore, organizations should ask “potential for what?” before identifying people as high potential.

This is important because some organizations use potential as a generic label. Others define it by the ability to move two or more levels upward. Others focus on future senior management roles, broader leadership scope, strategic roles, or past performance. These different definitions lead to different talent decisions.

The second major finding is that potential should not be confused with current performance.

Current performance matters, but it is not the same as potential. The authors criticize organizations that rely almost entirely on past performance when identifying future potential. Past performance may not predict success in a more complex, broader, or very different future role.

The article cites Corporate Leadership Council research reporting that only 29% of current high performers across 59 organizations in 15 industries and 29 countries were also seen as high potentials. This is one of the article’s strongest practical warnings: high performance is a useful gatekeeper, but it is not enough.

The third major finding is that organizations often use multiple potential categories.

The article reports that 65% of companies in the Silzer and Church corporate survey had more than one potential category. Examples include global leader or senior executive potential, mid-management potential, technical or functional potential, high-value performers, top potential, turn potential, grow potential, and mastery potential.

This matters because potential is not only about reaching the top executive level. Some employees may have potential to become senior leaders, while others may have potential to become expert specialists, key contributors, technical masters, or broader contributors at the same level.

The fourth major finding is that potential is used by several organizational stakeholders.

For individuals, being identified as high potential can lead to coaching, mentoring, key development programmes, career visibility, senior leader exposure, special assignments, and faster promotion.

For managers, potential helps decide where to allocate developmental attention. The performance-potential matrix, often called the nine-box model, is a common tool for discussing employees’ current performance and future potential.

For HR, potential supports succession planning, talent pool management, development investment, and organizational bench-strength analysis.

For senior leadership, potential is linked to business strategy, CEO succession, Board-level talent reviews, and the long-term viability of the organization.

The fifth major finding is that potential identification has real risks.

One risk is inconsistent definitions. Managers may apply their own implicit definition of high potential, even when the organization has a formal definition. One manager may emphasize ambition, another may emphasize intelligence, another may emphasize mobility, and another may emphasize similarity to past leaders.

Another risk is the performance-potential paradox. If managers treat performance and potential as nearly the same thing, they may reward strong current performers with future roles for which they are not suited. The article argues that this can create problems when employees are promoted into broader roles where learning orientation, adaptability, emotional stability, or strategic thinking matter more.

Another risk is weak integration. Potential identification has limited value if it is not connected to business strategy, succession planning, internal staffing, development assignments, and leader accountability.

A further risk is employee division. High-potential labels can create a divide between the selected and the non-selected. The article notes that companies often target only 5% to 20% of employees as high potential, with 10% being a common guide. This means most employees are outside the high-potential group. The authors warn that this can disengage the majority if handled poorly.

The sixth major finding is that high-potential models contain recurring predictor categories.

Across the reviewed models, the authors identify common themes.

Cognitive variables include strategic thinking, conceptual thinking, breadth of thinking, cognitive ability, and ability to handle complexity and ambiguity.

Personality and interpersonal variables include sociability, interpersonal skill, dominance, maturity, stability, and resilience.

Learning variables include adaptability, flexibility, learning orientation, interest in learning, and openness to feedback.

Leadership variables include leadership capability, ability to manage and empower people, developing others, influencing, inspiring, challenging the status quo, and change management.

Motivation variables include drive, energy, engagement, tenacity, ambition, career drive, organizational commitment, results orientation, and risk taking.

Performance variables include performance track record and leadership experiences.

Other variables include technical or functional skills, business knowledge, mobility, diversity, cultural fit, and career-stage considerations.

The seventh major finding is that the article reorganizes these predictors into three dimensions of potential.

Foundational dimensions are relatively stable and hard to change. They include cognitive ability, conceptual or strategic thinking, ability to deal with complexity, interpersonal skills, sociability, dominance, emotional stability, and resilience. These dimensions can often be assessed at different career stages with similar metrics because they are expected to remain relatively stable.

Growth dimensions facilitate or hinder development. They include adaptability, learning orientation, openness to feedback, drive, energy, achievement orientation, career ambition, risk taking, and results orientation. These dimensions matter because high potential assumes future growth. A person with strong foundational qualities but weak growth dimensions may not learn enough to develop into future roles.

Career dimensions are early indicators of later career-specific skills. They include leadership capabilities, managing people, developing others, influencing, challenging the status quo, change management, career-relevant performance record, career experiences, technical or functional knowledge, and career-relevant cultural fit. These dimensions are more context-specific and should be assessed differently at different career stages.

The eighth major finding is that the growth dimensions are especially important and difficult.

Growth dimensions are gatekeepers for future learning. They influence whether a person can develop the career-specific capabilities required for future roles. However, they may also be latent. A person may not show ambition, learning orientation, or adaptability in a poor-fit role, under an unsupportive boss, or in a work environment that discourages experimentation.

This means that managers should be careful before concluding that someone lacks potential. Sometimes a different assignment, manager, role, or challenge may reveal growth dimensions that were previously hidden.

The ninth major finding is that potential identification should vary by career stage.

Figure 1 summarizes the article’s developmental logic. Foundational dimensions are stable and can be assessed similarly across early, mid, and later career stages. Career dimensions evolve over time, so the assessment standard should change. For example, early-career leadership potential might be shown through teamwork and collaboration, mid-career leadership potential through supervision and influence, and later-career leadership potential through leading large cross-functional teams.

Growth dimensions require special attention because some are stable while others may depend on context. For example, adaptability and energy may be visible across situations, while career ambition and learning orientation may emerge only when the employee is placed in a sufficiently motivating role.

The tenth major finding is that potential includes both general and career-specific components.

Foundational and growth dimensions may apply across many talent pools and career paths. Career dimensions depend more on the specific answer to “potential for what?” Leadership potential, research potential, technical expert potential, general manager potential, and functional executive potential may require different career indicators.

This is why the article rejects overly generic high-potential labels. A person should not simply be described as “high potential” without specifying the future domain or role family for which that potential is being assessed.

The eleventh major finding is that organizations should assess potential through a staged process.

The authors suggest a three-step identification approach:

1. identify foundational dimensions;
2. identify stable growth dimensions and check whether the context allows other growth dimensions to emerge;
3. identify stage-appropriate career dimensions.

This approach prevents organizations from relying too heavily on current performance, generic leadership competencies, or manager intuition alone.

Overall, the article argues that high-potential identification is valuable but risky. It can help organizations allocate development resources and build future capability, but only if potential is defined clearly, assessed carefully, connected to strategy, and not reduced to current performance or vague manager judgment.

Practical implications

For managers, the article’s main message is blunt: stop calling people high potential unless the organization can explain potential for what.

A vague high-potential label can create confusion, entitlement, resentment, and poor development decisions. Managers should specify whether they mean potential for senior leadership, general management, a critical technical path, a strategic function, a specialist role, or broader responsibility at the same level.

The article also warns managers not to confuse high performance with high potential. Strong current performance is valuable, but future roles may require different capabilities. A top performer in a current role may lack adaptability, learning orientation, emotional stability, mobility, or strategic thinking for a future role.

Organizations should therefore use performance as one input, not as the whole definition of potential.

For HR, the article provides a practical structure for high-potential assessment. A good system should assess foundational dimensions, growth dimensions, and career dimensions. It should not rely only on a nine-box conversation or subjective manager nominations.

Foundational dimensions may be assessed through cognitive, personality, and interpersonal measures. Growth dimensions may require observation, feedback, stretch assignments, and evidence of learning. Career dimensions should be assessed relative to the specific future path and career stage.

The article also suggests that organizations should create multiple talent pools. Not every valuable employee is a future executive. Some employees may be high-value specialists, technical experts, key contributors, or mastery talents. Treating all potential as upward leadership potential can waste important forms of organizational capability.

The article is especially useful for succession planning. Boards, CEOs, and senior leadership teams need strong internal pipelines, but they also need realistic evidence. A successor should not be chosen only because they are mobile, ambitious, popular, or successful in a current role.

Managers should also be cautious with transparency. Telling employees they are high potential can motivate and engage some people, but it can also create entitlement or pressure. Not telling employees can create secrecy and rumors. The article does not give a simple answer, but it makes clear that status decisions have consequences for both selected and non-selected employees.

For practitioners, useful diagnostic questions include:

• Potential for what role, level, function, or strategic need?
• Is the organization using one high-potential label for very different future paths?
• Are managers confusing current performance with future potential?
• Are high-potential definitions consistent across business units and leaders?
• Are foundational dimensions, growth dimensions, and career dimensions all assessed?
• Does the organization assess learning orientation, adaptability, and openness to feedback?
• Are growth dimensions hidden by poor role fit or weak managerial support?
• Are talent pools connected to business strategy and succession planning?
• Are non-selected employees still valued and developed?
• Is mobility being used carefully, or is it screening out people unnecessarily?
• Are high-potential decisions based on evidence or on manager intuition?
• Does the organization know what happens when someone loses high-potential status?

Theoretical implications

The article contributes to talent management theory by clarifying the construct of potential.

Talent management research often discusses high potentials, talent pools, succession planning, and leadership pipelines without clearly defining what potential means. Silzer and Church argue that potential is not a simple trait. It is future-oriented, developmental, and linked to a specific end state.

The article also contributes by distinguishing talent from potential. Talent can mean skills, knowledge, ability, a person, or a group. Potential refers to the possibility of becoming more effective in broader, different, or higher-level roles in the future.

The article’s most important theoretical contribution is the three-part model of potential: foundational dimensions, growth dimensions, and career dimensions.

Foundational dimensions connect potential to relatively stable individual differences such as cognitive ability and personality. Growth dimensions connect potential to learning and development. Career dimensions connect potential to the specific future path or role domain.

This framework helps explain why different high-potential models emphasize different variables. Some models focus heavily on personality. Others focus on learning agility. Others focus on leadership competencies, career drive, mobility, or performance record. The three-dimension structure organizes these differences into a clearer model.

The article also contributes to the debate over general versus specific potential. Some components of potential may be general across many career paths, especially foundational and growth dimensions. Other components are career-specific, especially leadership, technical, functional, or business-domain indicators.

The article also contributes to talent management practice theory by highlighting misuses of potential. The performance-potential paradox, inconsistent definitions, weak integration with strategy, and unintended employee reactions all show that potential identification is not only a technical assessment issue. It is also an organizational system issue.

Finally, the article creates a research agenda around high-potential identification. It calls for stronger evidence on which dimensions matter, how early potential can be identified, whether potential can be developed, how context affects potential, and what happens when high-potential status is shared or withdrawn.

Limitations

The article is conceptual and integrative rather than a new empirical study.

The article draws on many models, surveys, and examples, but it does not run a new statistical analysis or independently validate the proposed three-dimension model.

Some of the evidence comes from consulting firm models, practitioner surveys, corporate practice, and unpublished or proprietary organizational research. These sources are useful for practice relevance, but they vary in methodological transparency.

The article reviews many predictors of potential, but it does not provide a single validated measurement instrument.

The article focuses heavily on organizational and leadership potential. Technical, creative, frontline, craft, and non-managerial forms of potential receive less attention.

The article recognizes the risk of disengaging non-high-potential employees, but it does not empirically test employee reactions.

The article was published in 2009. Later research on employee reactions to talent status, inclusive talent management, responsible talent management, algorithmic assessment, diversity and inclusion, and people analytics is not covered.

The article discusses diversity, mobility, age, and cultural fit, but does not deeply analyze how high-potential systems may reproduce bias across gender, ethnicity, class, disability, nationality, or caregiving status.

The article does not give detailed implementation guidance on how organizations should weigh foundational, growth, and career dimensions when making actual talent decisions.

Future research

Future research could empirically validate the three-dimension model of potential.

Researchers could test whether foundational dimensions, growth dimensions, and career dimensions predict future promotion, role performance, leadership effectiveness, retention, and derailment over time.

Longitudinal studies are especially important because potential is a future-oriented construct. Researchers should track employees from early career stages through later roles to see which indicators actually predict long-term success.

Future studies could examine whether the optimal mix of foundational, growth, and career dimensions differs by function, industry, gender, ethnicity, country, or career path.

Researchers could also test whether potential is more general or career-specific. For example, does the same potential profile predict success in general management, technical leadership, R&D, sales, finance, and operations?

Future research could examine how early potential can be reliably identified. Organizations often want to identify future leaders early, but early prediction may be unstable when future roles are unclear.

Another important direction is the role of context. Researchers could test whether supportive managers, stretch assignments, cultural fit, autonomy, feedback, or psychological safety help latent growth dimensions become visible.

Studies could also examine whether potential can be developed. If some dimensions are stable and others developable, talent management systems need to know where development investment is most effective.

Future research should examine the impact of high-potential labels on employees. Being told one is high potential may increase motivation, identity, and commitment, but may also increase pressure, entitlement, or fear of failure.

Researchers should also study employees who lose high-potential status. Important outcomes include disengagement, turnover, effort, motivation, psychological contract breach, and identity threat.

Future work could examine the effect of high-potential systems on non-selected employees. If only 5% to 20% of employees are labelled high potential, the majority may experience exclusion, reduced opportunity, or lower perceived fairness.

Researchers could also study how AI and people analytics change high-potential identification. Algorithmic tools may make potential appear more objective, but they still depend on assumptions about what potential is and which past patterns predict future success.

Finally, future research could examine how organizations can design high-potential systems that are strategically useful, evidence-based, fair, inclusive, and transparent enough to maintain trust.