High-potential careers: Whose track is it anyway High-potential careers: Whose track is it anyway? Nicky Dries & Roland Pepermans EAWOP ’07 May 11th

Literature on high potentials... Delicate nature of the topic – resistance to research Normative publications Confusion with high flyers, management trainees, MBA students... Remarkably few «real» empirical studies Need and opportunity to scrutinize “real” high potentials and their careers! current study perspectives of organizations & high potentials interpretive & descriptive empirical data MCSM July 19th 2006 | pag. 2

Framework: the 21st century World of Work Post-modern career theory Framework: the 21st century World of Work objective → subjective World of Work organizational-traditional career types → boundaryless career types “old deal” → “new deal” psychological contract career opportunities as reward→ skill development as motivation employment → employability OCM → protean career orientations (CSM) » Are HP programmes, in effect, “fast becoming at best an anachronism, and at worst a false promise used to keep valuable employees in organizations”? (Baruch and Peiperl, 1997, p. 356) MCSM July 19th 2006 | pag. 3

Methodology 34 in-depth interviews 20 “organizational representatives” 14 high potentials In-depth career stories (subjective) 20 “organizational representatives” → 8 allowed for interviewing of HP → 12 allowed only for interviewing of OR Systems and procedures (objective & subjective) Transcription and multi-rater template analysis MCSM July 19th 2006 | pag. 4

Career types of « real » high potentials “[High potentials] shouldn’t focus too much on vertical growth … you have to make sure you’re not dissatisfied or frustrated all the time because things aren’t moving fast enough. An “if it’s not the way I want it, I’m gone” mindset is dangerous … you might end up disillusioned. Maybe other companies cannot offer you the kind of salary that you are used to, especially when you’re very high-level … Plus, different organisations might have different standards for excellence.” II. Are career opportunities (e.g. promotions) used as rewards? I. Does the career take place in one single organizational setting? “One of the goals of our high-potential policy is to be able to grow talent in-house. We do also hire high profiles externally, but they usually show adaptation problems. Internal successors fit in with management much quicker and master their new jobs much more easily.” “They didn’t want me to quit so I got to participate in a development centre … I got a pay rise and they made some promises about future career moves … and that’s why you don’t quit, that’s what keeps you going.” 10 out of 14 HP had only worked for 1 organization HP indicated having no intention to leave only 4 out of 14 HP had a “contingency plan” “In this kind of organization, when you’re not promoted or you don’t get a pay rise, they probably think you’re not that good at what you do.” “You don’t really feel successful unless you get a real promotion or a rise... so it doesn’t really mean anything unless it’s an upward move.” III. Is the career characterized by (rapid) upward progression? IV. Does the empasis lie on long-term employment on employability? MCSM July 19th 2006 | pag. 5

« Real » high-potential career management OCM Performance appraisals Talent review meetings Assessment centres Development centres Management skills training Early leadership experience Job rotation One-to-one coaching Job interviews CV database Nomination by board members Workforce segmentation Reward policies Opportunities for growth Expectations management CSM Performance Visibility Innovation Drive/initiative MBA projects/ task forces International assignments Informational networking Internal applications Personal development plans Political networking Critical contributions Perseverance Open communication Identification Training & Development Succession Planning Retention Management MCSM July 19th 2006 | pag. 6

Pitfalls of « real » high-potential programmes Burning out high potentials/ not allowing for adequate induction periods Failing to manage expectations Having a “development plateau” in the organization Setting inadequate criteria for HP identification/ cloning management Not paying enough attention to non-managerial talent (experts) MCSM July 19th 2006 | pag. 7

Discussion: « streaming » of the workforce Boundaryless career High-potential career Expert career MCSM July 19th 2006 | pag. 8

Conclusions Workforce streaming: not all employees are wanting/getting boundaryless careers; 2. CSM → obtaining the HP label; OCM → climb the ladder even further; 3. Manage expectations (both HP and OR)! Generalizability of findings? Common method variance (social desirability/selective recall)? Need and opportunity for further research on “real” high-potential careers Organizations must open up to similar research initiatives! MCSM July 19th 2006 | pag. 9

downloads available at Any questions? nicky.dries@vub.ac.be downloads available at http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~ndries/ MCSM July 19th 2006 | pag. 10