The Risks of “Potential”
Review of relevant research/articles
The use of the word potential introduces bias because it is subjective and highly influenced by the assessor’s experience and perspective. Current leadership development approaches (i.e. 9-box) are not moving the needle for organizations and are undermining well-intentioned diversity efforts.
Here are some relevant articles and research that support the need for a new approach.
Egon Zehnder
Two articles based on Egon Zehnder’s research highlight the need to define potential more clearly to minimize bias.
“To get diversity right, get potential right”
This article provides the most clear and actionable view on this topic. It identifies three forms of identifying potential “takes,” all of which undermine diversity efforts: 1) use of intuition, 2) over-reliance on experience, and 3) equating potential with current performance. Egon Zehnder suggests assessing four traits to understand potential - curiosity, insight, engagements (i.e. relationships), and determination. These are defined in more detail in the article. These traits have proven to be stable and established early in life - therefore can be used to assess individuals for potential at any point in their career.
Turning Potential into Success (HBR)
This article outlines the above traits of potential but goes into additional (fairly complex) detail on how to assess these traits in conjunction with competencies specific for a role. It suggests identifying key competencies for leadership roles (the article provides a recommended list) and mapping these to the potential traits as a predictor of how far an individual can/will progress in these skills. For example, insight is a strong predictor of the ability to develop strategic orientation and market understanding and curiosity is a strong predictor to develop almost any competency. By assessing both competencies and predictors of competencies, we have the ability to more carefully and broadly assess and develop individuals for leadership roles.
Other Articles related to Potential
Behind the scenes: How a 9-box talent review model may hurt you professionally.
This article doesn’t offer many actionable solutions but provides a list of arguments against a 9-box process which we agree with. First, in these discussions, impressions often override facts and figures. Additionally, it introduces biases such as the “halo/horn effect” based on the box you are placed in and does not account for the fact that people change over time. Finally, it discusses the need for transparency (most processes are not transparent). Overall, the author contends that not only do 9-box processes fail to develop leadership, but they also alienate employees who feel they should be considered.
How office politics corrupt the search for high-potential employees (HBR)
This article lists several types of politics (which could also be framed as biases) that undermine the quality of assessing potential. They include the politics of intuition, self-interest, avoidance, favoritism, ageism, and gender. While this article does not provide any suggestions for improvement, the framing of these “politics” dynamics is simply to understand and provide specific examples.
The revolutionary guide to rethinking leadership potential
This lengthy e-book is focused on expanding and enhancing the approach to leadership potential. While it does not specifically suggest removing potential or 9-boxes from the process, it suggests surfacing rather than identifying potential and offers some practical suggestions, including equipping managers to scout for potential more effectively. It also differentiates between just identifying potential vs. activating and accelerating it with assessments, learning, and coaching.
Articles related to Leadership Traits
The eight habits of remarkably coachable leaders
This article advocates for learning agility as the best predictor of leadership success, also referring to it as coachability. The qualities the author sees in coachable leaders include creating a vision for themselves, being curious, action-oriented, accountable, experimental, reflective, vulnerable, and courageous.