Personnel Review: Article Information

Personnel Review
“Real” high-potential careers: An empirical study into the perspectives of organisations

and high potentials
Nicky Dries Roland Pepermans
Article information:
To cite this document:
Nicky Dries Roland Pepermans, (2007),"“Real” high-potential careers", Personnel Review, Vol. 37 Iss 1 pp.
85 - 108
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480810839987
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 06:30 11 February 2015 (PT)
Downloaded on: 11 February 2015, At: 06:30 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 51 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2670 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Nicky Dries, Tim Vantilborgh, Roland Pepermans, (2012),"The role of learning agility and career variety
in the identification and development of high potential employees", Personnel Review, Vol. 41 Iss 3 pp.
340-358 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483481211212977
Nicky Dries, Roland Pepermans, (2007),"Using emotional intelligence to identify high potential: a
metacompetency perspective", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28 Iss 8 pp.
749-770 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730710835470
Chris Ashton, Lynne Morton, (2005),"Managing talent for competitive advantage: Taking a
systemic approach to talent management", Strategic HR Review, Vol. 4 Iss 5 pp. 28-31 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14754390580000819
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 540409 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
“Real” high-
“Real” high-potential careers potential careers
An empirical study into the perspectives of
organisations and high potentials
Nicky Dries and Roland Pepermans 85
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
Received 29 June 2006
Revised 2 April 2007
Accepted 16 April 2007
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this empirical study is to make a contribution to career theory in general,
and to the literature on high-potential careers in particular, by examining the careers of real high
potentials, taking place in the twenty-first century world of work, from the perspectives of the high
potentials themselves as well as those of their organizations.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 34 interviews were conducted within three study
samples: high potentials (n ¼ 14), organisational representatives employed by the same organisations
that provided the high-potential participants (n ¼ 8), and organisational representatives employed by
organisations that did not allow for interviewing of their high potentials (n ¼ 12).
Findings – The current study suggests that high potentials still have organisational-traditional
careers. High upward mobility, low inter-organisational mobility and career self-management emerged
as key features of real high-potential careers.
Practical implications – Implications are spelled out with respect to the “streaming” of different
types of employees in the workforce and the importance of expectations management.
Originality/value – Not only are the viewpoints of individuals largely absent in the literature on
high-potential careers, the majority of publications on the subject-matter are also non-empirical and
take a rather normative stance. The interview study presented in this paper looks into the assumptions
of real high-potential careers from the perspectives of the high potentials themselves as well as those of
their organizations, providing empirical data that are interpretive and descriptive rather than
normative.
Keywords Careers, Career management, High flyers
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Some 20 years ago, Fred Luthans accused management literature of being largely
“based on a priori assumptions about what managers actually do and what they
should do to be successful” (Luthans et al., 1985, p. 255). Today, the same seems to be
true of the literature on high potentials, i.e. those individuals within the organisation
who are “recognised, at that point in time, as the organisation’s likely future leaders”
(Cope, 1998, p. 15). Although effectively managing high potentials and their careers is,
almost unanimously, considered as one of the major challenges facing the twenty-first
century human resources function (Buckingham and Vosburgh, 2001; Tulgan, 2001),
empirical publications on the topic are exceptionally rare. While the subject matter has
been tackled by several authors in recent years (e.g. Baruch and Peiperl, 1997; Spreitzer
et al., 1997; McCall, 1998; Segalla et al., 2001; Fields, 2002), remarkably few studies have Personnel Review
Vol. 37 No. 1, 2008
built on data coming from the actual high-potential population itself. pp. 85-108
In the majority of previous studies, high potentials’ direct supervisors were targeted q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
as respondents or a normative stance was taken. Normative publications – i.e. DOI 10.1108/00483480810839987
PR publications that are prescribing and appraising, rather than describing and
37,1 interpretive – typically present “best practices” based on anecdotal findings (e.g. Ford,
2005; Miller, 2006). As a result, discourse on the subject of high potentials and their
careers tend to be conjectural rather than based on real empirical evidence (Pepermans
et al., 2003).
In other studies it is not always clear whether the research sample was made up of
86 high potentials or of other (related) types of employees. Cox and Cooper (1988) for
instance, interviewed managing directors whom they labelled as “high flyers”. This
term, however, is generally used to designate successful managers – i.e. those that
have already “arrived”. Conversely, the term “high potential” denotes possibilities,
promise and latent action (Altman, 1997). It may be considered highly inexpedient to
regard high flyers and high potentials as interchangeable research populations; such
practices contribute to the belief that anyone who is to be labelled as a high potential
must be able to display executive-level skills, knowledge and competencies at the time
of identification, thus completely ignoring the importance of learning from experience
(Briscoe and Hall, 1999; Spreitzer et al., 1997). Another population that is often confused
with the population of “real” high potentials is that of employees on the “fast track”
(e.g. Kovach, 1986; Feild and Harris, 1991). Fast-track development programmes serve
to accelerate the development of potential managers by using frequent job rotations
and other special opportunities not commonly available to other employees, all within a
condensed timeframe (Larsen, 1997). However, many organisations implement such
development programmes as initial selection filters, and decide only later on which of
the fast-track programme participants qualify to receive the high-potential label
(Fields, 2002). Finally, some researchers use samples made up of MBA students to
make inferences about high potentials (e.g. Sabbe and Timmerman, 2007), grounded in
the assertion that employees whose management education is sponsored by their
organisation are probably high potentials – an argumentation of questionable validity.
It seems, then, that there is a significant need and opportunity for researchers to
scrutinize real high potentials and their careers – the term “real” carrying the same
meaning as in Luthans et al. (1985) i.e. representative of the members of the true
population under study. But why have such studies been exceptionally rare? A possible
explanation lies in the delicate nature of the topic of high potentials and their careers,
which causes severe barriers for researchers. Many organisations are unwilling to
expose their high potentials to researchers – even though the majority amongst them are
very much interested in research on the matter (and often, are prepared to pay
consultancy firms large sums of money to dissect their high-potential policies). There are
still many organisations that deem it undesirable to be fully transparent about their
high-potential policies. A typical belief is that high potentials would become arrogant
and complacent if they were to be informed of their status within the organisation, which
is often referred to as “the crown prince syndrome” (Göbel-Kobialka, 1998). Moreover,
organisations fear that employees who are not labelled as high potentials will become
unmotivated or leave the organisation when information about the organisation’s
high-potential policies is made available to them (Snipes, 2005).
The twenty-first century world of work

Before going into further detail on the focus and approach of our study, we wish to
briefly outline the twenty-first century context affecting real high potentials and their
careers. Changes, such as business re-engineering processes, restructuring, flattening, “Real” high-
and downsizing may have caused innovation and progress, but have also brought potential careers
about disarray in the management of people in the workplace (Baruch, 1999). Employee
numbers and career opportunities are reducing fast, leading to the emergence of new
types of psychological contracts and the decline of the traditional “reward” of upward
mobility (Rousseau, 1995; Iles, 1997). Several authors (e.g. Baruch and Peiperl, 1997;
Baruch, 1999; Doyle, 2000; Tulgan, 2001; Kuznia, 2004) claim that organisations can no 87
longer promise long-term employment to employees, let alone a rapid progression
along the organisational ladder, and that they should, consequently, refocus their
efforts on motivating employees through offering them greater skill improvement
(Arthur and Rousseau, 1996). As such, the premise underlying high-potential
programmes – that hard work and the display of exceptional talent are rewarded by a
steady progression in the organisational hierarchy – is undermined (Baruch and
Peiperl, 1997; Kuznia, 2004). Baruch and Peiperl (1997) even state that:
[. . .] there is no future for Hipos [high potentials], at least not as we have known the
phenomenon . . . . There are quite a few Hipos, and very few places at the top (Baruch and
Peiperl, 1997, p. 354).
Although the abovementioned publications undeniably raise a number of interesting
and important issues, they all share the same weakness: they are not based on
empirical research, and as such, rather speculative. Hence, we may ask ourselves: is it
accurate that “Hipo programmes are 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)? Are the new career patterns and types that are – according to the
aforecited authors – emerging rapidly in the twenty-first century world of work in fact
irreconcilable with the premise behind high-potential careers?
Below, we offer a brief review of the literature on post-modern career theory and
career management, which will be used as a supportive theoretical framework for the
interpretation of our study’s findings.
Postmodern career theory

As a result of the post-modern turn in the social sciences during the late 1980s
(Savickas, 1995), attention increasingly shifted from the objective to the subjective
world of work. Several authors posit that the traditional (“organisational”) career,
determined by relatively stable organisational and occupational structures, is
gradually being replaced by more “boundaryless” career types, where uncertainty and
flexibility are the order of the day (e.g. Arthur and Rousseau, 1996; Collin, 1998). The
concept of the boundaryless career includes “a range of possible forms that defy
traditional employment assumptions” (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996, p. 6), and thus,
offers no characterisation of any single career type. Rather, boundaryless career theory
seeks to reflect the emergent pace of economic change in post-modern society, in which
the emphasis lies on continuously changing career paths and possibilities (Littleton
et al., 2000).
Postmodern career theory considers career to be a social construction rather than a
universal concept – thus defying traditional societal norms of objectively observable
career progress or success (Collin, 1998). As mentioned earlier, post-modern career
theory does not only carry implications for the definition of careers and career success,
PR but also for the psychological contracts that exist between employees and
37,1 organisations – i.e. “the perceptions of parties to the employment relationship of
their mutual obligations” (Iles, 1997, p. 349). While traditional career models prescribe
that people offer loyalty in return for deferred rewards (e.g. pension rights, vacation
time, promotion opportunities, social acceptance), employment relationships within
boundaryless careers are assumed too fluid to adopt such reward systems (Littleton
88 et al., 2000). As a result, even stable or fast growing organisations would be
increasingly unable (or unwilling) to promise as well as formally manage career
opportunities (Iles, 1997).
Career management literature

Indeed, contemporary literature on career management places accountability primarily
with the individual. Career management includes all interventions to shape careers in
organisations, not only by the individuals concerned, but also formally and informally
by their managers (Mayo, 1991; Arnold, 1997; Doyle, 2000). Traditionally, in
high-potential mobility programmes, individuals are selected as early in their careers
as possible and given specialized career development opportunities, allowing them to
assume leadership positions as early as possible (Kuznia, 2004). However, the
post-modern perspective on careers highlights more “protean” career types (Hall, 1976,
2002; Briscoe and Hall, 2006). While boundaryless careers are characterized by
different levels of physical and psychological movement (beyond organisational
boundaries), protean careers emphasize a self-directed approach to the career, in which
individuals are guided by their own personal values (Briscoe and Hall, 2006). Again,
literature on the topic takes a post-modern stance; personal choice, self-fulfilment and
psychological (intrinsic) success are prioritized over organisational career management
and extrinsic norms of what career success entails (Hall, 1976).
Recent literature has attempted to steer clear of “or-or” discourse by demonstrating
that organisational career management (OCM) and career self-management (CSM) are
to be considered as complementary rather than supplementary. CSM can never fully
substitute OCM; rather, both types of career management reinforce one another. Those
with greater CSM skills appear to give themselves a head start in gaining access to
organizational sources of career support (Sturges et al., 2002; De Vos and Buyens, 2005;
Forrier et al., 2005).
The current study aims to explore the careers of “real” high potentials. Two
observations guided our research: first, the viewpoints of individuals are largely absent
in the literature on high-potential careers; second, the majority of publications on the
subject matter are non-empirical and take a rather “normative” stance. The interview
study that will be presented in this paper has two corresponding objectives:
(1) looking into the assumptions of real high-potential careers from the
perspectives of the high potentials themselves as well as those of their
organizations; and
(2) providing empirical data which is interpretive and descriptive rather than
normative.
Methodology
The empirical data presented in this paper is based on in-depth interviews conducted
with 14 high potentials and 20 “organisational representatives”, i.e. HR managers or
consultants actively involved in the field of high-potential management. Over 30 “Real” high-
organisations, known to engage in high-potential identification and development, were potential careers
addressed. Thirteen of them agreed to one or multiple interviews, although only six of
them allowed for high-potential employees to be interviewed. Furthermore, two out of
these six organisations explicitly requested not to refer directly to the term “high
potential” during the interviews with their high-potential employees – which
illustrates the ongoing sensitivity about the topic in organisational settings 89
(Göbel-Kobialka, 1998). The study participants were all employed in Belgium and
typically worked for large, multinational organisations (employing between 750 and
120,000 people worldwide), situated in a variety of sectoral contexts.
The interview sample was split up into three groups: high potentials (HP);
organisational representatives (OR) employed by the same organisations that provided
the HP participants (a); and organisational representatives employed by organisations
that did not allow for interviewing of their high potentials (b).
High potentials (HP)

A total of 14 employees, identified and labelled as high potentials within their
organisations, were interviewed individually and made up the “high-potential (HP)
sample” of this study. The criterion for participants’ inclusion in this group was that
their organisation’s definition of high-potential employees is in line with the aforecited
definition of Cope (1998). Sample demographics for the HP sample are shown in Table I.
Remarkably, only one participant in the HP sample was a woman. A discussion of
“glass ceiling” issues would take us too far here, although it could offer possible
explanations for female underrepresentation in high-potential programmes (White
et al., 1992). On the other hand, our high-potential participants typically worked in
male-dominated sectors, an unintended aspect of our data collection that should not be
neglected. However, the mere existence of “male-dominated sectors” is another
manifestation of mobility barriers for women (e.g. Barker and Monks, 1998).
Organisational representatives (OR)

In addition to the interviews conducted with the HP sample, 16 HR managers and four
HR consultants were interviewed (in 11 cases individually, in four cases by panel
interview), making up a group of 20 organisational representatives. The participants in
the OR sample were selected purposively to include a range of individuals who may be
considered as experts in the talent management domain; all of them had relevant
experience in the field, or were (at that time) in a position that allowed them to have an
overview of their organisation’s high-potential policies.
In order to be able to set side by side the views expressed by high potentials and
organisations in a valid manner, we divided the OR sample into two subsamples: the
ORa sample, which contained the organisational representatives employed by the
same organisations that provided the HP participants, and the ORb sample, which was
composed of organisational representatives employed by organisations that did not
allow for high potentials to be interviewed. The conclusions drawn further on in this
paper are never based on interview data coming from the ORb sample alone. Rather,
the comparison between the HP data and ORa data guided our analyses and
interpretations; data from the ORb participants on these topics were then added when
available. Furthermore, we thought it would be interesting to examine whether or not
PR
90
37,1
(n ¼ 14)
Table I.
HP interview sample
Participant code Organisation Position Field of work Tenure Age Gender
HP1.0 1 HR consulting Junior consultant Executive search 2.5 yrs 25 Female

HP2.1 2 Finance Senior manager Business consulting 8 yrs 32 Male
HP2.2 2 Finance Senior manager Business consulting 9 yrs 33 Male
HP2.3 2 Finance Senior manager Financial audit 10 yrs 36 Male
HP2.4 2 Finance Senior manager Organizational development 10 yrs 36 Male
HP2.5 2 Finance Manager Management development 7 yrs 31 Male
HP3.1 3 Electronics Manager Business administration 7.5 yrs 29 Male
HP3.2 3 Electronics Manager Business group export 10 yrs 33 Male
HP4.1 4 Telecom Manager Field services 5.5 yrs 27 Male
HP4.2 4 Telecom Manager Supply chain management 7 yrs 31 Male
HP5.1 5 Distribution Manager Department management 2 yrs 25 Male
HP5.2 5 Distribution Junior officer Corporate HR 3 yrs 27 Male
HP5.3 5 Distribution Manager Marketing 2.5 yrs 25 Male
HP6.0 6 Security Manager Security projects 5 yrs 36 Male
both OR samples generated similar views, given that they differ in terms of openness “Real” high-
regarding their high-potential policies. Demographics for the ORa and ORb interview potential careers
samples are shown in Table II and Table III respectively.
As can be seen in Table I, II and III, each interviewee (HP/OR) was assigned a
participant code so that response patterns and original quotes can be traced back to the
participant in question without compromising his or her anonymity. The first digit
links the interviewee to his or her employing organisation (numbered 1 through 6 for 91
organisations in which both HP and OR were interviewed, and 7 through 13 for
organisations that only allowed for interviewing of OR); the second digit refers to the
interviewee him or herself (should there have been more than one interviewee,
belonging to the same interview sample, within the organisation in question).
Interview procedure
Slightly different approaches were taken to interview each of the samples. The
interviews with the HP sample were in-depth and open-ended; this encouraged
interviewees to speak in their own voices, and consider at length those topics that they
themselves perceived as relevant (Duberley et al., 2006). The high-potential
participants were invited to tell us the stories of their careers, highlighting the
critical moments, events and choices that had shaped them. They were instructed to
focus specifically on the events leading up to their identification as high potentials and
the way their careers had evolved since that time. In those interviews where the use of
the term “high potential” was not allowed, it was replaced by “being perceived by the
organisation as being more successful or talented than peers” (essentially designating
the same thing – it appeared to be the use of the term “high potential” per se that
seemed to bother certain organisations). When no information was spontaneously
provided on the interviewee’s current career type or on the career management
practices affecting his or her career, probes were introduced at points where they fit
into the course of the interview as naturally as possible (King, 2004). Since we were
specifically keen to find out if and how high potentials’ views on their careers differ
from those of organisations, the element of subjectivity was essential to the analysis of
the HP interviews (Cohen and Mallon, 2001).
In order to investigate the viewpoints of organisations, a different approach was
taken. A more structured topic guide was used when interviewing the organisational
representatives group (King, 2004). As opposed to individuals telling us the story of
their careers, this part of the study aimed to obtain information about the way
organisations manage high-potential careers – which is mostly through systems and
procedures. HR managers and consultants serve as organisational representatives in
this study as they are often explicitly involved in the implementation and follow-up of
such systems and procedures (although the extent to which they are considered
strategic business partners within organisations does differ). Interviews with the OR
sample started by asking participants what their organisation’s criteria were for
awarding the high-potential label and what competencies employees in this group
ought to possess, moving on to the policies available for managing the careers of this
specific group of employees. These policies were divided into four broad domains:
identification, training and development, succession planning and retention
management. The data generated by this – much more structured – type of
interviewing was more objective, i.e. reflected to a lesser extent the personal opinions of
PR
92
37,1
(n ¼ 8)
Table II.
ORa interview sample
OR1.0 1 Human resource consulting Senior consultant Executive search 11 yrs 34 Male
OR2.0 2 Finance Director Corporate HR 15 yrs 39 Female
OR3.1 3 Electronics Director Competence management 16 yrs 36 Female
OR3.2 3 Electronics Director Corporate HR 15 yrs 38 Female
OR4.1 4 Telecom Director Management development 16 yrs 40 Male
OR4.2 4 Telecom Director Management development 18 yrs 46 Male
OR5.0 5 Distribution Manager Training and development 8 yrs 35 Male
OR6.0 6 Security Director Corporate HR 13 yrs 41 Male
OR7.1 7 Materials technology Manager Management development 20 yrs 49 Male

OR7.2 7 Materials technology Manager Training and development 15 yrs 38 Male
OR8.1 8 Human resource consulting Partner Executive search 18 yrs 47 Male
OR8.2 8 Human resource consulting Senior consultant Executive search 8 yrs 33 Female
OR8.3 8 Human resource consulting Junior consultant Executive search 1.5 yrs 25 Female
OR9.0 9 Finance Junior officer Training and development 2.5 yrs 26 Male
OR10.0 10 Finance Manager Corporate HR 10 yrs 36 Female
OR11.1 11 Materials technology Manager Corporate HR 22 yrs 52 Male
OR11.2 11 Materials technology Manager Organizational development 36 yrs 60 Male
OR12.1 12 Energy Manager Competence management 18 yrs 49 Female
OR12.2 12 Energy Manager Management development 19 yrs 51 Male
OR13.0 13 Finance Manager Corporate HR 9 yrs 34 Female
ORb interview sample

“Real” high-
potential careers
(n ¼ 12)
Table III.
93
PR the interviewees than was the case in the HP sample. For instance, many of the OR
37,1 participants used their organisations’ high-potential policy documents as input for
their answers. It is clear that the OR participants did bring their own opinions into the
interviews; we believe, however, that the views they put forward during the interviews
were, on the whole, representative of the views of their organisations as economic
entities, seeing as the OR sample acted as policy contributors and spokespersons for
94 their organisations – while the HP sample acted merely as representative of
themselves as individuals.
All interviews were taped and transcribed to address issues of credibility and
confirmability (Duberley et al., 2006). Coding of the interviews was carried out
manually with coloured markers; code tags were marked clearly in margins. We prefer
this method to software-aided coding (e.g. NUD.IST) for reasons of ease and overview;
furthermore, it is nowhere stated that manual coding would lead to a lesser quality of
analysis (King, 2004). In using template analysis, researchers are advised to use some
form of “independent scrutiny” of their analysis at some stage in the data analysis as a
way of checking its quality. We applied this principle at the stage of developing the
initial template. We (the two authors) both independently carried out preliminary
coding on a sample of six transcripts (three HP interviews and three OR interviews),
then exchanged our independent coding and set aside two or three hours to compare
and discuss these, with the aim of agreeing on an initial template (Duberley et al., 2006).
After the first author completed the coding process departing from the initial template
(which, of course, was to some extent altered during the iterative process of coding and
recoding), we both looked for patterns in the distribution of the codes – with some
indication of frequency to help us direct our attention to aspects of the data which
warranted further examination – thus, generating a framework within which
interpretation of the data could take place (King, 2004).
Findings
The findings obtained from this interview study offer valuable insights into the
assumptions of “real” high-potential careers taking place in the twenty-first century
world of work. The data, acquired from 32 interviews with high potentials and
organisational representatives, have been distilled into three main themes: first, the
interpretations high potentials and organisational representatives give to the concept
“high potential”; second, the high-potential career types that are portrayed in the
interviews; and third, the high-potential career management practices described by the
different interview samples. Below, each of these themes is discussed in detail.
Interpretations of the concept “high potential”

Looking at the interpretations of the concept “high potential” given by the HP sample
and the OR sample, we see that rather traditional viewpoints are dominant. The sample
of organisational representatives employed by the same organisations that provided
the HP participants (ORa) and the sample of organisational representatives employed
by organisations that did not allow for interviewing of their high potentials (ORb) both
described high potentials as being part of an elite workforce segment (five ORa and
five ORb) expected to advance upwardly within the organisation (six ORa and six
ORb). Similarly, seven out of the 14 high potentials interviewed explicitly stated that
upward mobility is a priority in their careers, and six of them remarked that they
aspire to be the organisation’s CEO one day, if possible (“But doesn’t everybody?”, they “Real” high-
commented). There were some differences in perception between the ORa and the ORb potential careers
sample. For instance, seven participants from the ORb sample (compared to only two
from the ORa sample) named leadership and strategic contributions on the part of the
high potential as crucial, while six ORa participants (compared to zero ORb
participants) were more inclined to link high-potential status to age-related deadlines
(e.g. “Employees over 35 are too old to be identified as high potentials”). 95
Remarkably, 15 out of the 20 OR participants (five ORa and ten ORb) indicated that
the number one criterion serving as input for the identification of high potential is
current performance. In addition, 11 out of 14 high potentials felt that working hard
and being an excellent performer are the primary prerequisites for obtaining the
high-potential label. One could wonder, then, what separates “high performers” from
“high potentials” in the views of our study participants. In this regard, 13 out of 14 of
our HP interviewees expressed the belief that high potentials are innately (or as a result
of early life experiences) more talented than others, mostly in terms of leadership and
interpersonal skills. Organisational representatives on the other hand, named
proactiveness and career initiative-taking (seven ORa and eight ORb) as distinctive HP
qualities. Possibly a first conflict of interest was detected here, as it seems that high
potentials highlight individual traits when differentiating between high potentials and
high performers, while organisations lay emphasis on self-directed behaviour. These
differing opinions might cause problems if they lead both parties to hold the other
accountable for the high-potential career. We will look deeper into the issue of
accountability in the section on high-potential career management.
In comparing the interview data from the two samples composed of organisational
representatives, it appears that the ORa sample emphasised interpersonal
relationships (e.g. networking, coaching, customer focus. . .) when talking about
high-potential careers, while the ORb sample highlighted strategy and innovation (e.g.
long-term orientation, learning agility. . .). Furthermore, while high-potential
identification was mostly left to direct supervisors, career coaches and team
members in the view of the ORa sample, the ORb sample reported that their
organisations use committees (including Board and management members) to identify
high potential. All in all, it seems that the high-potential policies reported by the ORb
sample were more formal and less transparent than those reported by the ORa sample
– offering a possible explanation for the difference in “openness” between the two
groups of organisation. However, apart from the above findings, the ORa and the ORb
sample did not generate widely divergent views on high-potential careers.
High-potential career types

As mentioned before, traditional-organisational and boundaryless careers do not
represent single career types; rather, careers can be plotted on a continuum ranging
from “more traditional” to “more boundaryless” (Forrier et al., 2005). Several aspects of
careers were taken into account during the interview data analysis in order to be able
to make judgements about the high potentials’ career types (Rousseau, 1995; Arthur
and Rousseau, 1996; Iles, 1997):
(1) Does the career take place in one single organisational setting?
(2) Are career opportunities (e.g. promotions) used as rewards?
PR (3) Is the career characterised by (rapid) upward progression?
37,1 (4) Does the emphasis lie on long-term employment or on employability (i.e. skill
improvement aimed at enhancing employee attractiveness to the wider labour
market)?
The low inter-organisational mobility of our 14 HP interviewees was demonstrated by

96 the fact that ten of them had only worked for one organisation during their entire
career. The others, who had worked for two or more organisations, had all switched
organisations in the first few years of their careers, and stabilised afterwards. None of
the high potentials interviewed indicated to have any intention of leaving their current
organisation in the future – although social desirability bias may have played a role in
this finding (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Furthermore, when asked about their future career
goals, only four of them claimed to have a “contingency plan”, in case their
(organisation-specific) career goals would prove unattainable.
Prominent in the interview data were notions of psychological reward. The majority
of the high potentials interviewed indicated to desire and expect regular upward career
moves; but such aspirations did not appear to originate from a long-term career
perspective, nor from well-established career plans. Rather, upward career moves were
considered as a type of (short-term) reward. One of the interviewed high potentials
remarked:
Young people today are increasingly focused on themselves, on their work-life balance. They
are less prepared to make sacrifices . . . . even so, people are still very sensitive about being
promoted or not . . . . In this kind of organisation, when you’re not promoted or you don’t get a
pay rise, [it means] they probably think you’re not that good at what you do (HP2.1).
Remarkably, the HP sample linked career success primarily to extrinsic reward, rather
than to notions of challenge or learning, as would be expected from post-modern career
theory (Collin, 1998). An interviewee commented:
[ . . . .] lateral moves can definitely be challenging. It takes up a lot of time and effort to take on
this whole new role in the organisation and I’m sure it’s gratifying when you succeed in a
transition like that . . . . But you don’t really feel successful unless you get a real promotion or
a rise . . . and then there’s the fact that a lot of people are involved in project work all the time,
so every time you get started on a new project, that’s already a lateral move . . . . So it doesn’t
really mean anything unless it’s an upward move (HP4.1).
This was not only the view of the HP interview sample; the OR sample expressed a
similar view. Overall, six out of the 20 organisational representatives (one ORa and five
ORb) stated that one of the major goals of their organisation’s high-potential policies
was to attract, motivate and retain talent, “by showing them that there are plenty of
career opportunities for those who demonstrate excellence”. Furthermore, workforce
segmentation (i.e. rewarding excellence through the assignment of “special” labels to
some but not others, accompanied by the necessary bonuses and promotions) was seen
as the number one means for retaining high potentials. Nonetheless, two organisational
representatives (both ORa) asserted that high-potential policy makers should be very
careful not to overdo the special treatment:
It’s dangerous when the system is all about status. Then people start to think that you have to
be on the list to be somebody . . . . The problem with that kind of mindset is that high
potentials usually make up only a really small portion of an organisation’s population, so that “Real” high-
would imply that everyone else is frustrated (OR4.1).
potential careers
It is not unlikely that most employees would like to see their efforts rewarded through
promotions and pay rises. But as opportunities for upward progression become
increasingly scarce (Guest and Mackenzie Davey, 1996), organisations attempt to
segment their workforce, ensuring that the career opportunities at hand are offered to
the employees whom they most wish to retain. Besides being necessary, workforce 97
segmentation is also a very delicate matter:
All employees want to see extra effort translated into extra rewards and recognition . . . but
when communication [about workforce segmentation] is too explicit, resentment between
colleagues will probably arise. This applies especially to the Belgian culture. I get the
impression that in America for instance, people tend to look up to high-potential co-workers
. . . see them as role models rather than be jealous of them (HP2.1).

As mentioned earlier, 6 out of the 13 organisations that participated in our research had
more or less open high-potential policies; one must not forget, however, that this often
means that although high potentials may be informed about the system, not all
employees are. The difficulties in maintaining such “half-open” communication
policies become evident when we see that 10 of the organisational representatives in
our sample (4 ORa and 6 ORb) report using “cyclical” high-potential identification
systems – meaning that a person can be a high potential one year, but not the next. It
seems that communicating openly to all employees about the organisation’s workforce
segmentation strategies might turn out to be the simpler solution in the long run. One
HR director remarked:
It is standard procedure to start discriminating between employees some years after entry,
and everyone is aware of this . . . There’s really no use being secretive about who’s on the list
and who isn’t. People will talk to each other anyway . . . they’ll figure it out themselves (OR2.0).
It seems that organisations are increasingly subdividing their high-potential pools as
well. All of the organisational representatives in our sample differentiated between
different types of high potentials. A total of 15 of them (seven ORa and eight ORb)
distinguished all-round managerial talent from experts and project workers; eleven
(five ORa and six ORb) made a distinction between high potentials based on their
functional levels; and six of them (one ORa and five ORb) had totally different policies
for graduate (fast-track) talent than for managerial talent. This indicates that
high-potential populations are segmented “vertically” as well as “horizontally”.
Boudreau and Ramstad (2005) have, among others, described how pivotal talent (the
groups and individuals that drive the competitive advantage of organisations) can
refer to lower- as well as higher-level employees and to experts as well as general
managers. In this respect, seven organisational representatives (three ORa and four
ORb) asserted that not paying enough attention to the identification and development
of key experts is a common pitfall in organisations’ high-potential policies, which focus
mostly on those with managerial talent. Another important finding is that almost all
organisational representatives mentioned that their criteria for high-potential
identification are stricter now than they were in the past. “Elitism” was mentioned
by 10 organisational representatives (5 ORa and 5 ORb) and ten high potentials as a
key feature of contemporary high-potential policies:
PR A decade ago, about 10 to 15 percent of our employees were considered high potentials. There
were more opportunities to climb the ladder back then . . . and we figured, if some of them
37,1 didn’t meet expectations we could always take them off the list. But today we’re much stricter
about who gets on the list in the first place . . . it’s about 2 percent worldwide. For instance,
we’ll probably only pay for an expensive training programme when a high potential is asking
(OR3.2).
98 The main reason for the fact that high potentials are offered more career opportunities
than employees from other workforce segments is the belief that internal successors
usually perform better than external hires. For example:
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 (OR7.1).
Establishing an internal pool of successors (a “leadership pipeline”) was the number

one goal of the high-potential policies of the organisations in our sample. Previous
research (e.g. Groysberg et al., 2004) has, indeed, demonstrated that it is very well
possible that a high potential’s performance “plunges” when he or she is recruited into
a new organisation. Furthermore, Boudreau and Ramstad (2005) argue that
high-potential status is an organisation-specific concept as the type of human
capital organisations need to support their strategies varies. High potentials, too, seem
to be aware of the fact that their status may well prove to be organisation-specific. One
of our high-potential interviewees commented:
[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 (HP3.2).
High-potential career management

Overall, 11 out of the 14 high potentials in our sample admitted to continuously
passing on information concerning personal career goals and aspirations to
management and HR. The majority amongst them believed that they owed their
successful careers mainly to their own assertiveness:
My major strength is that I am very aware of my position compared to those of my
co-workers. . . . I used to go up to my career coach with entire reports on what I had done and
what everyone else had achieved that term, I literally handed him the facts and figures . . . . I
just don’t want to depend on other peoples’ goodwill or on the improvising skills of my coach
in peer review meetings (HP2.5).
Aspects of self-directedness emerged spontaneously during the interviews, as in this
interview with an HR director (OR4.1): “[High potentials] push against the boundaries of
their jobs . . . . Typically, they act on their own initiative”. Most high potentials reported
to have gone beyond the boundaries of their job content at one point in their career, in
doing so often initiating some form of change within their organisations. Some of them
had gotten involved in the start-up of new departments or product lines, others had
improved existing procedures through extensive personal research and
cross-departmental teamwork and yet others had started training and/or mentoring “Real” high-
younger employees on their own initiative. Several high-potential participants talked potential careers
about how their views on career management had evolved during their careers:
At first I thought [the organisation] would have fixed career tracks set up . . . and all I’d have
to do is jump in . . . . [after some time] I started to realise that if I really wanted to achieve
something, I’d have to take charge of my own career . . . . [now, after being identified as a high
potential] I feel that the organisation guides my career, but I’m the one who has to live up to 99
it . . . . I would feel much less satisfied about what I’ve achieved in my career had my
organisation pulled all the strings (HP3.2).
Although there was a general consensus amongst the research participants in our
sample (HP and OR) that high-potential careers rely primarily on individual initiative,
the role organisations play may not be neglected. As one HR manager (OR5.0) put it: “It
is the duty of the organisation to create a frame for growth, while it is the duty of the
individual to present himself as a worthy candidate for succession”.
An overview of the most prominent high-potential career management (CM)
practices mentioned in the interviews is given in Table IV. We have included all
practices that, by our own inference, emerged from the interviews data as being
widespread. We decided not to include those CM practices that we felt could be
classified under the (broadly defined) practices listed in Table IV, nor practices that
were mentioned exclusively by the ORb sample. The practices are displayed according
to CM domain (identification, training and development, succession planning and
retention management); furthermore, in order to demonstrate the complementary
nature of CSM and OCM, we attempted to set “matching” practices side by side.
CM practices
CM domains CSM OCM
Identification Performance Performance appraisals

Initiative Bottom-up nomination
Visibility Talent review meetings
Drive and ambition Development centres
Training and development MBA Management skills training

Projects and task forces Challenging assignments
Early leadership experiences
International assignments Job rotation
Information networking One-to-one coaching
Succession planning Internal job applications Job interviews

Assessment centres
Personal development plans CV database of all employees
Political networking Nomination by Board members
Retention management Critical contributions Workforce segmentation

Reward policies
Perseverance Career opportunities Table IV.
Realistic goal setting Expectations management High-potential career
Open communication management practices
PR Interestingly, five high potentials adopted game-like metaphors when describing CSM
37,1 practices; they used expressions such as “playing along”, “withstanding the tests”,
“collecting votes”, “playing your cards right”, “hooking on to the right wagon” and
“winning the race”. An interesting paradox emerged from our data: it seems that the
HP participants were, on the one hand, sacrificing a lot for their careers (primarily,
their private lives) and doing all they could to fall into grace with the organisation’s
100 makers (or at least get their efforts noticed) – they wanted to be part of the “in-group”;
on the other hand they seemed to resent their organisations at times. The high
potentials in our sample seemed to be quite convinced that their organisations were not
likely to do them any favours. Some of them even felt that they were being “monitored”
for failure and that some challenging assignments granted to them by their
organisations were really tests in disguise.
Evidently, high-potential policies involve delicate matters, and keeping all those
involved satisfied is not an easy task. Therefore, it came as no surprise that many OR
interviewees were rather critical of their organisation’s high-potential career
management practices. As the number one pitfall of high-potential policies,
interviewees mentioned “burning out” high potentials, i.e. pushing them to take up
functions or responsibilities without allowing for an adequate preparation period (five
ORa and nine ORb). One high potential (HP2.3) told us he experienced his organisation’s
perception of his being able to take on any challenge at any time as rather stressful: “. . .
does that mean that if you can’t do something, you’re a false positive ID or the like?”.
Failing to manage expectations was the second most frequently mentioned pitfall in
high-potential career management (5 ORa and 7 ORb). When organisations do not offer
clear perspectives to high potentials, the latter might get demotivated and leave:
After five years, I’d had enough. I went up to my boss and told him I wanted pay for
performance. 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 . . . I like to compare it
to a carrot that is dangled in front of you. The more you climb the ladder the more explicit
their promises get . . . and that’s why you don’t quit, that’s what keeps you going (HP2.3).
A third important pitfall for organisations is the incidence of development plateaus
(four ORa and nine ORb):
Talented individuals can get stuck in the leadership pipeline when organisations do not
succeed in developing them properly. [Organisations] usually have a two to three-year vision,
but then their development activities reach a plateau . . . with a lack of high-level talent as a
result . . . and despite all of their investments they will still have to rely on external hires for
top-level succession (OR8.1).
Finally, questions were raised about the criteria commonly used in high-potential
identification procedures. Several OR interviewees asserted that it is very difficult to
predict what kind of human capital (or competencies) organisations will need in the
future, and that consequently, organisations should definitely try avoiding “cloning”
their current management population (4 ORa and 4 ORb). The risk of bias creeping into
the identification process was also mentioned (4 ORa and 3 ORb):
High potentials are either directly nominated by members of the Board, or have to go through
some sort of assessment process. The predictive validity of these methods is however
questionable . . . . First of all, [those that are involved in high-potential identification procedures]
are not likely to admit they were wrong. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense that high
potentials indeed turn out to be more successful than others . . . probably because of the “Real” high-
nomination itself and the extra facilities the organisation grants them as a consequence (OR8.2).
potential careers
Discussion
Over the last decade or so, several authors have raised interesting questions about the
sustainability of the concept of the “high-potential career” (e.g. Baruch and Peiperl, 101
1997; Baruch, 1999; Doyle, 2000; Tulgan, 2001; Kuznia, 2004). It appears that
organisations, facing the economic pressures of the twenty-first century world of work,
can no longer promise long-term employment to their employees, let alone a rapid
progression along the organisational ladder (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996), leading some
authors to conclude that “there is no future for Hipos, at least not as we have known the
phenomenon” (Baruch and Peiperl, 1997, p. 354). However, the majority of publications
on the topic of high-potential careers are non-empirical and take a rather “normative”
stance (i.e. prescribing and appraising, rather than describing and interpretive).
Moreover, the viewpoints of individuals have been grossly neglected in the literature.
The empirical study presented in this paper attempts to make a contribution to
career theory in general, and to the literature on high-potential careers in particular, by
exploring the careers of “real” high potentials from the perspectives of the high
potentials themselves as well as those of their organizations. In this section we will
discuss the key findings that have emerged from this study, followed by some –
tentative – implications these findings might carry for theory and practice.
It is our belief that some of the positions taken in post-modern career theory are far
ahead of the realities of high-potential careers. Several recent studies have concluded
that claims about the speed and inevitability of the shift from
organisational-traditional to more boundaryless career types have to be put into
perspective (Forrier et al., 2005) and that the traditional career is alive and well. As
Guest and Mackenzie Davey (1996, p. 22) remarked:
It is never quite clear whether those writing about the “new organisation” are describing
current developments, identifying outliers as illustrations of inevitable trends or prescribing
the shape of things to come which any organisation that wishes to survive should heed.
Forrier et al. (2005) found that only 6 percent of the 957 respondents in their study were
in a boundaryless career (in which employees change employers and long for change
and flexibility) whereas 60 percent experienced bounded careers (in which employees
stay with their employer and aspire stability). The authors questioned the portability
of the boundaryless career concept to other than US settings, the value people place on
job security and the unionisation of organisations (two cultural and institutional
elements that tend to reinforce the “old” psychological contract) being at the heart of
the discussion.
Furthermore, many authors departing from the perspective of post-modern career
theory seem to assume that “more and more of the best people are thinking like free
agents” (Tulgan, 2001, p. 37), and that, consequently, organisational-traditional career
types are no longer wanted by employees. However, recent empirical work has come to
the conclusion that the majority of employees continue to desire more traditional career
types. For instance, Walton and Mallon (2004) concluded that: “although the boundaries
of career have shifted, they have not melted into thin air” (Walton and Mallon, 2004,
p. 77). Although their study participants favoured career self-management, continuous
PR learning and autonomy, they still regarded these aspects of careers mostly as a means to
achieving objective career outcomes such as promotions.
37,1 The findings in our study clearly demonstrate that high upward mobility and low
inter-organisational mobility are still key features in both high potentials’ and
organisations’ views on high-potential careers. High potentials have more traditional
careers, simply because organisations prefer to engage internal successors for top
102 management positions, and are willing to invest heavily in those that demonstrate the
talent and the drive to progress within the organisation. The need for a stable core of
talented employees who genuinely know the organisation and its background is
probably far from evanescent (Guest and Mackenzie Davey, 1996; Pepermans et al.,
2003). Although many organisations are, in effect, facing scarcities in promotional
opportunities, these are countered by stricter high-potential identification criteria and
further segmentation within the high-potential population. Central to this paper’s
argumentation is the notion of “workforce segmentation”. In that view, high potentials

are those employees who are indispensable to organisations (Boudreau and Ramstad,
2005). Organisations wish to know who these people are and consider them separately
from others (identification), develop them strategically (development) and prepare
them for upward job moves (succession planning). As investments are higher for this
group of employees, more efforts are made to prevent them from making
inter-organisational moves (retention management).
It is not our intention to trivialise the merits of post-modern career theory; rather, we
believe that although boundaryless and protean career types apply to a certain segment
of the workforce, they do not pertain to it as a whole. Some authors (Rousseau, 1995;
Larsen, 1997; Kuznia, 2004) suggest that high-potential programmes should, in the
current world of work, place more emphasis on the “employability” aspect of
development as opposed to organization specific skills; our research data, however, raises
some interesting questions about the contemporary psychological contract that is built on
the premise of employability (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996). It seems high potentials are
still getting “the old deal” as they are promised long-term career perspectives and upward
advancement. But what about all other employees, who are less likely to receive
promotions and be targeted for retention, but apparently also less likely to get proper
training (in the words of interviewee OR3.2: “. . .we’ll probably only pay for an expensive
training programme when a high potential is asking”); are they getting neither the old
deal, nor the new? We hypothesise that non-core workers probably learn more through
lateral moves than high potentials do – leaving aside fast-track rotation programmes for
high-potential graduates (Field and Harris, 1991). Through job rotation non-core
personnel can acquire the employability needed to be attractive to other organisations (if
necessary or desirable) while allowing high-potential co-workers to move up. Workforce
segmentation thus offers clear benefits to organisations. However, getting this notion
across to employees is a delicate matter, especially in environments where high-potential
labels are strongly associated with status and reward.
Several other studies have suggested a “streaming” of different types of employees in
the twenty-first century world of work (e.g. Tulgan, 2001). For instance, Sullivan et al.
(1998) posited that traditional organisational training and development are still useful for
employees belonging to the professional core of their firms, bearing in mind that this
group is shrinking due to organisational downsizing. Furthermore, Gratton et al. (2004)
came to the conclusion that only traditionally non-privileged employees had become
more boundaryless with greater skills development and inter-organisational mobility, “Real” high-
while Viney et al. (1997) uncovered an apparent paradox between the evolving overall potential careers
career philosophy of short term and “no promises” versus a continuing longer-term
association with high potentials in organisations.
Figure 1 illustrates – in a speculative way – how workforce segmentation might
affect organisational career structures. The dotted line marks the boundaries of the
organisational-traditional career, where employees come into the organisation at entry 103
level, work their way up until they reach their maximum potential, and leave the
organisation at retirement. The career structure is shaped like a pyramid as each
consectutive functional level is more difficult to reach, and contains fewer members. In
the twenty-first century world of work, such career structures are no longer workable;
rather, the working population is segmented so that the increasingly scarce amount of
organisational (non-boundaryless) career opportunities (and of developmental
resources, as well) are reserved for two types of core contributors: leaders –
emanating from the organisation’s high-potential pool – and experts. While leaders
focus their talent on maintaining the organization’s culture, keeping the overall mission
clear for everybody, assigning work, setting goals, and holding people accountable for
results (Tulgan, 2001), key experts possess organisation-specific knowledge and skills
that are very difficult to replace. Establishing stimulating career tracks for key experts
– and a better succession planning ensuring timely transfer of expertise – emerged
from our interview data as one of the crucial challenges facing organisations today
(which is illustrated by the expert career “development plateau” depicted in Figure 1).
With regard to high-potential career management, there was general consensus
between our study participants that self-direction and initiative taking are key
characteristics of real high-potential careers. Obviously, organisations would support
this stand; having assertive employees that work hard at demonstrating their potential
and creating visibility within the organisation would considerably facilitate the
difficult task of segmenting the workforce (making it more predictable and
transparent). High potentials, from their side, like taking their careers into their own
hands; they usually have an aversion towards strictly delineated career tracks, as these
might slow them down. Furthermore, it appears that they perceive achieving career
progression through personal initiative as more gratifying (De Vos and Buyens, 2005).
Nonetheless, they do expect to receive career guidance from their organisations. It
seems that CSM is of central importance prior to obtaining the high-potential label (in
establishing some professional credibility and visibility within the organisation) but
that, once acknowledged by the “in-group”, OCM practices are needed to help high
potentials climb the ladder even further. This makes obvious sense as high potentials
are well able to achieve performance goals and attend networking events, but cannot
participate in the organisation’s succession planning themselves.
As for practical implications, “managing expectations” emerged as the most
important recommendation made by both the high potentials and the organisational
representatives in our study. Although high-potential policies are, by definition, based
on the premise of high commitment from both parties (McCall, 1998), we see that, in
practice, organisations are sometimes struggling to keep their end of the deal. When
succession planning fails or unexpected change occurs in the organisation’s
(economical, political . . .) context, high potentials without a contingency plan may
well end up disillusioned. In order to avoid such unpleasant surprises for high potentials
PR
37,1
104
Figure 1.
Career types in the
twenty-first century world
of work
and to ensure that no damage is done to the organisation – and its image as an employer “Real” high-
– a well-organised succession planning and a transparent communication strategy about potential careers
the career opportunities present in the organisation are indispensable. Furthermore, high
potentials themselves need to manage their own expectations as well. One may observe
that the high-potential career track in Figure 1 contains a “bottleneck”, illustrating the
fact that high potentials need to be realistic and practice some patience during their
careers, as upward moves may not always come as quickly as desired. 105
Despite the contributions of the current study to career theory and the literature on
high-potential careers, it is not without limitations. First, it is not fully clear to what
extent the findings reported in this paper possess external validity (i.e. to what extent
the findings would hold across different settings, procedures and participants). One
could argue that the idea of high potential careers being focused on upward mobility
and staying with one employer is inherently present in Cope’s (1998) definition of a
high potential. Consequently, selecting participants based on that definition (as we did
in this study) would, then, typically bring about traditional views on high-potential
careers. However, none of the 30 organisations addressed to participate in the study
indicated that the term high potential is used to designate anything other than a
potential candidate for internal succession. Furthermore, as no “non-high potentials”
were interviewed, inferences made about differences between high potentials and other
types of employees are exclusively based on interview data collected from high
potentials and organisational representatives, and thus, partly speculative. Finally, all
participants were employed in Belgium and typically worked for large (in most cases
multinational) companies. Out of the 14 HP participants, 13 were men. Issues related to
gender and the participants’ national as well as organisational culture might play a role
in de study’s external validity.
Second, interviews contain the danger of common method variance to a larger
extent than questionnaire designs, in that they are particularly prone to induce socially
desirable responses. For instance, it is plausible that the organisational representatives
were inclined to make their high-potential policies out to be better than they really are.
Furthermore, characteristics and expectations of the interviewer might have influenced
the reponse patterns of the interviewees (Podsakoff et al., 2003). As the high potentials
in our sample were asked to reconstruct the story of their careers in hindsight
(knowing that they are considered as high potentials today), selective recollection
issues may have caused bias in the interview data as well.
As was mentioned before, the literature on high potentials is characterised by a lack
of empirical scrutiny and a neglect of the viewpoints of high-potential individuals. This
study has attempted to contribute to the literature by offering empirical data collected
from real high potentials and their organisations. However, more research on the topic
is required in order to validate our findings. More specifically, it would be interesting to
do so in a large-scale quantitative study, comparing career data of high-potential
samples to matching samples of non-high potentials. Additionally, a longitudinal
study following a group of high potentials throughout their careers would greatly
contribute to our insight in real high-potential career tracks. As such, our inferences
about the “streaming” of different types of employees could be tested. Furthermore,
some other questions arise. How should organisations segment their workforce? Which
criteria can be used for separating one group of employees from another, and do they
carry predictive validity? Do these criteria refer to more or less “innate” talents or to
PR competencies that can be developed? How can these criteria be translated across
37,1 cultures? Some studies have addressed questions similar to the above. However, all of
them have departed from the viewpoints of organisations. It appears there is a great
need and opportunity for researchers to study “real” high potential careers by
examining large samples of high potentials employed by different organisations at
different functional levels – but this would certainly require a greater openness of
106 organisations towards research initiatives such as ours.
References
Altman, Y. (1997), “The high-potential fast-flying achiever: themes from the English language
literature 1976-1995”, Career Development International, Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 324-30.
Arnold, J. (1997), Managing Careers into the 21st Century, Chapman & Hall, London.
Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds) (1996), The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment
Principle for a New Organisational Era, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Barker, P. and Monks, K. (1998), “Irish women accountants and career progression: a research
note”, Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 813-23.
Baruch, Y. (1999), “Integrated career systems for the 2000s”, International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 432-57.
Baruch, Y. and Peiperl, M. (1997), “High-flyers: glorious past, gloomy present, any future?”,
Career Development International, Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 354-8.
Boudreau, J.W. and Ramstad, P.M. (2005), “Where’s your pivotal talent?”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 23-4.
Briscoe, J.P. and Hall, D.T. (1999), “Grooming and picking leaders using competency frameworks:
do they work? An alternative approach and new guidelines for practice”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 37-52.
Briscoe, J.P. and Hall, D.T. (2006), “The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers:
combinations and implications”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 4-18.
Buckingham, M. and Vosburgh, R.M. (2001), “The 21st century human resources function: it’s the
talent, stupid!”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 17-23.
Cohen, L. and Mallon, M. (2001), “My brilliant career? Using stories as a methodological tool in
careers research”, International Studies of Management and Organisation, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 48-68.
Collin, A. (1998), “New challenges in the study of career”, Personnel Review, Vol. 27 No. 5,
pp. 412-25.
Cope, F. (1998), “Current issues in selecting high potentials”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 15-17.
Cox, C.J. and Cooper, C.L. (1988), High Flyers: An Anatomy of Managerial Success, Basil
Blackwell, Oxford.
De Vos, A. and Buyens, D. (2005), “Organisational versus individual responsibility for career
management: complements or substitutes?”, p. 27, available at: www.vlerick.be/research
Doyle, M. (2000), “Management development in an era of radical change: evolving a relational
perspective”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 579-601.
Duberley, J., Mallon, M. and Cohen, L. (2006), “Exploring career transitions: accounting for
structure and agency”, Personnel Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 281-96.
Feild, H.S. and Harris, S.G. (1991), “Participants’ frustrations in fast-track development
programmes”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 3-8.
Fields, G.S. (2002), Predicting Potential for Promotion: How the Data in Human Resource “Real” high-
Information Systems Can Be Used to Help Organisations Gain Competitive Advantage,
available at: www.ilr.cornell.edu/depts/cahrs/downloads/pdfs/workingpapers/WP02-14. potential careers
pdf (accessed March 27, 2007).
Ford, M. (2005), “Let talent bloom: cultivate innovation by moving high-potential employlees
around, up, and even out of your IT organization”, CIO Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 19, pp. 26-9.
Forrier, A., Sels, L. and Verbruggen, M. (2005), Career Counseling in the New Career Era: A Study 107
about the Influence of Career Types, Career Satisfaction and Career Management on the
Need for Career Counseling, available at: www.econ.kuleuven.be/fetew/pdf_publicaties/
0580.pdf (accessed March 27, 2007).
Göbel-Kobialka, S. (1998), “Reaching business excellence through sound people management”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 549-56.
Gratton, L. (2004), The Democratic Enterprise: Liberating Your Business with Freedom, Flexibility
and Commitment, Prentice-Hall, London.

Groysberg, B., Ashish, N. and Nitin, N. (2004), “The risky business of hiring stars”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 1-10.
Guest, D. and Mackenzie Davey, K. (1996), “Don’t write off the traditional career”, People
Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 22-5.
Hall, D.T. (1976), Careers in Organisations, Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL.
Hall, D.T. (2002), Careers in and out of Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Iles, P. (1997), “Sustainable high-potential career development: a resource-based view”, Career
Development International, Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 347-53.
King, N. (2004), “Using templates in the thematic analysis of text”, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (Eds),
Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research, Sage Publications,
London, pp. 256-70.
Kovach, B.E. (1986), “The derailment of fast track managers”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 41-8.
Kuznia, K. (2004), The Rhetoric and Reality of Fast Track Management Development Programs,
available at: www.midwestacademy.org/Proceedings/2004/papers/Kuznia.doc (accessed
March 27, 2007).
Larsen, H. (1997), “Do high-flyer programs facilitate organizational learning?”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 48-59.
Littleton, S.M., Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. (2000), “The future of the boundaryless career”,
in Collin, A. and Young, R.A. (Eds), The Future of Career, Cambridge University Press,
New York, NY, pp. 101-14.
Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S.A. and Hennessey, H.W. (1985), “What do successful managers
really do? An observation study of managerial activities”, The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 255-70.
McCall, M.W. (1998), High Flyers: Developing the Next Generation of Leaders, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Mayo, A. (1991), Managing Careers, IPM, London.
Miller, J. (2006), “Attend to the talent: the right team can be the secret to success”, CA Magazine,
Vol. 139 No. 1, pp. 49-50.
Pepermans, R., Vloeberghs, D. and Perkisas, B. (2003), “High potential identification policies:
an empirical study among Belgian companies”, Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 660-78.
PR Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Lee, J. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral
research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied
37,1 Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Rousseau, D.M. (1995), Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and
Unwritten Agreements, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Sabbe, C. and Timmerman, M. (2007), High Potentials: Feiten en Fabels (High Potentials: Facts
108 and Fictions), Kluwer, Mechelen.
Savickas, M. (1995), “Current theoretical issues in vocational psychology: convergence,
divergence, and schism”, in Walsh, W.B. and Osipow, S.H. (Eds), Handbook of Vocational
Psychology: Theory, Research and Practice, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 1-34.
Segalla, M., Rouziès, D. and Flory, M. (2001), “Culture and career advancement in Europe:
promoting team players vs fast trackers”, European Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 44-57.
Snipes, J. (2005), “Identifying and cultivating high-potential employees”, available at: www.
ninthhouse.com/papers/2%20CLO_HIPOsArticle.pdf (accessed March 27, 2007).
Spreitzer, G.M., McCall, M.W. and Mahoney, J.D. (1997), “Early identification of international
executive potential”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 6-29.
Sturges, J., Guest, D., Conway, N. and Mackenzie Davey, K. (2002), “A longitudinal study of the
relationship between career management and organizational commitment among
graduates in the first ten years at work”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23
No. 6, pp. 731-48.
Sullivan, S.R., Carden, W.A. and Martin, D.F. (1998), “Careers in the next millennium: directions
for future research”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 165-85.
Tulgan, B. (2001), “Winning the talent wars”, Employment Relations Today, Vol. 23 Nos 1-2, p. 104.
Viney, C., Adamson, S. and Doherty, N. (1997), “Paradoxes of fast-track career management”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 174-86.
Walton, S. and Mallon, M. (2004), “Redefining the boundaries? Making sense of career in
contemporary New Zealand”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 75-95.
White, B., Cox, C. and Cooper, C. (1992), Women’s Career Development: A Study of High Flyers,
Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
About the authors

Nicky Dries is a doctoral student at the Department of Work, Organisational and Economic
Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. Her primary research interests include high
potentials (especially the assessment and identification of potential in employees), 21st century
careers and career success, and (meta-) competency assessment and development. Nicky Dries is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: nicky.dries@vub.ac.be
Roland Pepermans is a professor of Organisational Behaviour at the Department of Work,
Organisational and Economic Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. His recent
international publications deal with topics such as quality management, stress, mentoring, high
potentials and non-profit management. Roland has co-authored books on high potentials and
retention management.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Amina Raza Malik, Parbudyal Singh. 2014. ‘High potential’ programs: Let's hear it for ‘B’ players. Human
Resource Management Review 24, 330-346. [CrossRef]
2. Igor Kotlyar, Leonard Karakowsky. 2014. Sources of satisfaction with high-potential employee programs.
Journal of Management Development 33:10, 1035-1056. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. David G. Collings. 2014. Toward Mature Talent Management: Beyond Shareholder Value. Human
Resource Development Quarterly 25:10.1002/hrdq.2014.25.issue-3, 301-319. [CrossRef]
4. Nicky Dries, Anneleen Forrier, Ans De Vos, Roland Pepermans. 2014. Self-perceived employability,
organization-rated potential, and the psychological contract. Journal of Managerial Psychology 29:5,
565-581. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Maria Christina Meyers, Marianne van Woerkom. 2014. The influence of underlying philosophies on
talent management: Theory, implications for practice, and research agenda. Journal of World Business 49,
192-203. [CrossRef]
6. Ashlea C Troth, Christopher Gyetvey. 2014. Identifying leadership potential in an Australian context.
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
7. Igor Kotlyar, Leonard Karakowsky, Mary Jo Ducharme, Janet A. Boekhorst. 2014. Do “rising stars”
avoid risk?: status-based labels and decision making. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 35:2,
121-136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Nicky Dries, Sara De Gieter. 2014. Information asymmetry in high potential programs. Personnel Review
43:1, 136-162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Nicky Dries. 2013. The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource
Management Review 23, 272-285. [CrossRef]
10. Eva Gallardo-Gallardo, Nicky Dries, Tomás F. González-Cruz. 2013. What is the meaning of ‘talent’ in
the world of work?. Human Resource Management Review 23, 290-300. [CrossRef]
11. Carole Tansley, Susan Kirk, Susanne Tietze. 2013. The currency of talent management—A reply to
“talent management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach”. Human Resource
Management Review 23, 337-340. [CrossRef]
12. Marian Thunnissen, Paul Boselie, Ben Fruytier. 2013. Talent management and the relevance of context:
Towards a pluralistic approach. Human Resource Management Review 23, 326-336. [CrossRef]
13. M. Christina Meyers, Marianne van Woerkom, Nicky Dries. 2013. Talent — Innate or acquired?
Theoretical considerations and their implications for talent management. Human Resource Management
Review 23, 305-321. [CrossRef]
14. Alessia Sammarra, Silvia Profili, Laura Innocenti. 2013. Do external careers pay-off for both managers and
professionals? The effect of inter-organizational mobility on objective career success. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 24, 2490-2511. [CrossRef]
15. Marian Thunnissen, Paul Boselie, Ben Fruytier. 2013. A review of talent management: ‘infancy or
adolescence?’. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24, 1744-1761. [CrossRef]
16. Ans De Vos, Nicky Dries. 2013. Applying a talent management lens to career management: the role of
human capital composition and continuity. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24,
1816-1831. [CrossRef]
17. Nicky Dries, Frederik Van Acker, Marijke Verbruggen. 2012. How ‘boundaryless’ are the careers of high
potentials, key experts and average performers?. Journal of Vocational Behavior 81, 271-279. [CrossRef]
18. Marijke Verbruggen. 2012. Psychological mobility and career success in the ‘New’ career climate. Journal
of Vocational Behavior 81, 289-297. [CrossRef]
19. Claartje J. Vinkenburg, Torsten Weber. 2012. Managerial career patterns: A review of the empirical
evidence. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80, 592-607. [CrossRef]
20. Nicky Dries, Roland Pepermans. 2012. How to identify leadership potential: Development and testing of
a consensus model. Human Resource Management 51:10.1002/hrm.v51.3, 361-385. [CrossRef]
21. Jacqueline Dahan, Yvon Dufour. 2012. Middle managers' career success and business strategy in the
Canadian aerospace industry. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 4:1, 82-94. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
22. Nicky Dries, Tim Vantilborgh, Roland Pepermans. 2012. The role of learning agility and career variety
in the identification and development of high potential employees. Personnel Review 41:3, 340-358.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Natalie Govaerts, Eva Kyndt, Filip Dochy, Herman Baert. 2011. Influence of learning and working climate
on the retention of talented employees. Journal of Workplace Learning 23:1, 35-55. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
24. Sally J. Power. 2010. Career management tactical innovations and successful interorganizational
transitions. Career Development International 15:7, 664-686. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Heiner Minssen. 2009. Karriere durch Auslandsentsendungen?. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 34,
41-59. [CrossRef]
26. Eva Kyndt, Filip Dochy, Maya Michielsen, Bastiaan Moeyaert. 2009. Employee Retention: Organisational
and Personal Perspectives. Vocations and Learning 2, 195-215. [CrossRef]
27. Gillian Maxwell. 2009. Mentoring for enhancing females' career development: the bank job. Equal
Opportunities International 28:7, 561-576. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Nicky Dries, Roland Pepermans, Joeri Hofmans, Laura Rypens. 2009. Development and validation of
an objective intra-organizational career success measure for managers. Journal of Organizational Behavior
30:10.1002/job.v30:4, 543-560. [CrossRef]
29. Nicky Dries, Roland Pepermans, Olivier Carlier. 2008. Career success: Constructing a multidimensional
model. Journal of Vocational Behavior 73, 254-267. [CrossRef]

Personnel Review: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Personnel Review: Article Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personnel Review: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personnel Review

“Real” high-potential careers: An empirical study into the perspectives of organisations

Downloaded on: 11 February 2015, At: 06:30 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The twenty-first century world of work

Postmodern career theory

Career management literature

High potentials (HP)

Organisational representatives (OR)

HP1.0 1 HR consulting Junior consultant Executive search 2.5 yrs 25 Female

Participant code Organisation Position Field of work Tenure Age Gender

OR7.1 7 Materials technology Manager Management development 20 yrs 49 Male

ORb interview sample

Interpretations of the concept “high potential”

High-potential career types

The low inter-organisational mobility of our 14 HP interviewees was demonstrated by

. . . see them as role models rather than be jealous of them (HP2.1).

Establishing an internal pool of successors (a “leadership pipeline”) was the number

High-potential career management

Identification Performance Performance appraisals

Training and development MBA Management skills training

Succession planning Internal job applications Job interviews

Retention management Critical contributions Workforce segmentation

argumentation is the notion of “workforce segmentation”. In that view, high potentials

and Commitment, Prentice-Hall, London.

About the authors

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

You might also like