Few topics have captivated talent management discussions more intensely than potential. The obsession with predicting who may be a future star or the next top leader has influenced academic research and human resources practices alike. But how good are we at evaluating human potential? The answer is, it’s mixed. On the one hand, science has given us robust tools and powerful theories to quantify the key indicators of future career success, job performance, and leadership effectiveness. On the other hand, in the real world of work, organizational practices lag behind, with 40% of designated “HiPos” — high-potential employees — not doing well in the future and at least one in two leaders disappointing, derailing, or failing to drive high levels of engagement and team performance.
How Office Politics Corrupt the Search for High-Potential Employees
Few topics have captivated talent management discussions more intensely than potential. But how good are we at evaluating high-potential employees (HiPos)? The answer is, it’s mixed. The main reason is that HiPo nominations are often contaminated by organizational politics. These dynamics prevent organizations from identifying, promoting, and developing the right people for leadership roles. Most organizations rely on a leader’s subjective opinion to identify the relative potential of candidates, but leaders aren’t usually able to measure performance objectively. Sometimes they’re more concerned with their own career paths, and may therefore be reluctant to promote a star performer for fear of being eclipsed. Leaders often play favorites, or discriminate against people based on age or gender, whether it’s a conscious or subconscious bias. In short, the politics of potential prevent organizations from upgrading their leadership talent, which puts the entire organization at a disadvantage.
HBR Learning