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

2. 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 | pag. 2

3. 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 | pag. 3

4. 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 | pag. 4

5. 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 | pag. 5

6. « 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 | pag. 6

7. 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 | pag. 7

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

9. 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 | pag. 9

10. downloads available at
Any questions?
downloads available at
MCSM
July 19th | pag. 10