How to Identify High-Potential Employees
Identifying high potential employees is one of the most consequential yet least rigorous processes in talent management. Most organizations rely on manager nomination, visibility, and current performance as proxies for future potential, despite substantial evidence that these proxies are unreliable. Silzer and Church (2009), in an influential review of potential identification practices, found that organizations frequently conflate current performance with future potential, even though the two are only modestly correlated. Identifying potential accurately requires a more structured, evidence-based approach.
Why Traditional Methods Fail
Performance and potential are different constructs, and most organizations measure only one. Performance reflects how well someone executes their current role. Potential reflects whether someone has the capability to succeed at a higher level of complexity or scope than they currently operate in.
McCall (1998), in his research on high-flyer development, demonstrated that strong current performance does not reliably predict success at the next level. His research on leadership derailment found that high performers who were promoted into senior roles often struggled because the capabilities that made them excellent at their current level differed from those required at the next one.
Visibility and manager nomination introduce additional distortion. Employees who work closely with senior leaders, who are confident self-promoters, or who happen to be assigned to high-visibility projects are more likely to be nominated as high potential, independent of whether they actually have the underlying capability. Silzer and Church (2009) identified this conflation of visibility with potential as one of the most common and consequential errors in succession planning.
What the Research Says Potential Actually Looks Like
Bray (1988), in a landmark longitudinal study tracking managers across their careers, found that potential manifests through a specific and identifiable set of characteristics rather than through generic impressions of talent. These included the capacity to learn from experience, comfort with ambiguity, and the ability to adapt behavior based on feedback.
Silzer and Church (2009) synthesized subsequent research into three core dimensions that most rigorous potential models now include. Foundational dimensions cover relatively stable characteristics such as cognitive ability and personality traits associated with learning agility. Growth dimensions cover the capacity to learn, develop, and adapt over time. Career dimensions cover the specific motivations, aspirations, and engagement that determine whether someone wants to take on greater scope and responsibility.
The critical insight from this research is that potential is not a single trait someone either has or lacks. It is a profile across multiple dimensions, and a complete identification process should assess all three rather than relying on a single proxy such as current performance or visibility.
How to Identify High Potential Responsibly
Separate the performance conversation from the potential conversation. Use distinct processes, criteria, and data sources for evaluating current performance and future potential. Conflating the two in a single rating system reproduces the bias Silzer and Church (2009) identified as the most common error in potential identification.
Assess learning agility directly. Learning agility, the capacity to learn from experience and apply that learning to new and unfamiliar situations, is one of the strongest predictors of long-term potential. Structured assessment of how candidates have approached novel challenges in the past provides more reliable evidence than general impressions of intelligence or drive.
Use validated assessment alongside manager input. Manager nomination alone reproduces the visibility and self-promotion bias that distorts informal potential identification. Combining structured personality and cognitive ability assessment with manager and peer input produces a more complete and less biased picture.
Evaluate career dimension fit, not just capability. Identifying someone with the cognitive and behavioral capability for a senior role is necessary but not sufficient. Assess whether the individual is genuinely motivated to take on the scope, visibility, and demands of that role before investing development resources.
Validate the model against actual outcomes. Track whether the employees identified as high potential through your process actually succeed when given expanded scope or promoted. If the correlation is weak, the identification criteria need revision.
Common Mistakes
Equating current performance with future potential. McCall (1998) showed these are distinct constructs. A high performer in their current role may lack the learning agility or motivation required for success at a higher level.
Relying solely on manager nomination. Manager assessments are valuable input but are subject to visibility bias, recency bias, and the manager's own limited frame of reference. They should inform, not replace, a structured assessment process.
Treating high potential as a permanent label. Designating someone as high potential once and never revisiting that designation ignores that potential profiles, motivation, and career aspirations change over time. Periodic reassessment should be built into any potential identification process.
How Deeper Signals Approaches Potential Identification
At Deeper Signals, identifying potential is treated as a multidimensional assessment problem rather than a single rating exercise. The Core Drivers Diagnostic measures the personality dimensions, including openness to experience and emotional stability under pressure. The Core Values Diagnostic measures the motivational dimension Silzer and Church (2009) identified as essential, surfacing whether an individual's career aspirations align with the scope and demands of more senior roles. The Core Reasoning assessment adds the cognitive ability dimension that predicts how quickly an individual will learn and adapt to increased complexity. Together, these three instruments cover the foundational, growth, and career dimensions that the research identifies as the complete picture of potential, rather than relying on any single proxy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is high potential the same as high performance?
No. Performance measures execution in a current role. Potential measures the capability to succeed at a higher level of complexity or scope. The two are correlated but distinct, and Silzer and Church (2009) identify their conflation as a primary source of error in succession planning.
What is learning agility and why does it matter for potential?
Learning agility is the capacity to learn from experience and apply that learning effectively to new, unfamiliar situations. It is one of the strongest predictors of long-term potential because roles at higher levels of responsibility consistently present novel challenges that prior experience alone cannot prepare someone for.
How often should high potential designations be reviewed?
Most organizations review potential designations annually, alongside performance reviews but through a distinct process. Career aspirations, motivation, and circumstances change, and a designation made several years ago may no longer reflect an individual's current potential profile.
Can personality assessment alone identify high potential?
No. Personality assessment captures the foundational dimension of potential, but a complete assessment also requires evaluating learning agility, cognitive ability, and career motivation. Silzer and Church (2009) emphasize that potential is multidimensional, not reducible to any single measure.
Does identifying someone as high potential guarantee they will succeed in a senior role?
No. Potential identification improves the odds of successful promotion and development investment, but it does not guarantee outcomes. McCall (1998) found that even individuals with strong potential indicators can struggle without adequate development support and stretch experiences along the way.
Last reviewed by Dr. Reece Akhtar — June 2026
References
McCall, M. (1998). High Flyers: Developing the Next Generation of Leaders. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bray, D. (1988). Managerial Lives in Transition: Advancing Age and Changing Times. New York: Guilford Press.
Silzer, R., & Church, A. H. (2009). The pearls and perils of identifying potential. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(4), 377–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01163.x
