No abstract

Organizations today are increasingly focused on talent as a strategic asset and a competitive advantage for achieving business success. As a result, most major organizations have recognized the need for and outlined a formal process to identify and assess high‐potential talent. There is, however, little agreement within or between organizations on the definition and components of the concept of potential. The existing definitions and models of potential are often narrowly focused on only a few select factors and give little attention to the broad spectrum of potential talent in an organization. This article introduces a new integrated model of potential that incorporates previous literature and current assessment practice regarding high potentials, provides a coherent structure of potential, and is reflective of a variety of different talent pools. The model provides a useful method for answering the key question—Potential for what? Three key components of potential are described by the model: (a) foundational dimensions, (b) growth dimensions, and (c) career dimensions. Implications for assisting organizations in more effectively managing their high potential talent for strategic business objectives are discussed.

Individual differences in the construct of managerial self-awareness (MSA) -operationalized as congruence between self and direct reports' behavioral ratings-were examined in 134 high-performing (HP) and 470 average-performing (AV) managers obtained from 4 independent datasets. Results based on several different approaches to measuring ratings agreement indicated that HPs were significantly more managerially self-aware compared with AVs. This relationship was consistent regardless of data source, organization, or method of assessing managerial performance. No overall relationships were found between congruence and level of item importance, gender, management level, age, or tenure. When compared with other measures for assessing self-focus, the construct of selfmonitoring was found to be convergent with managerial self-awareness, whereas the construct of self-consciousness appeared to reflect primarily rating leniency effects. The article concludes with a comparison of the measurement approaches used, limitations, and suggestions for further study.

The assessment and development of leadership potential in organizations is a critical factor in an effective talent management strategy. Given the business environment, war for talent, and greater involvement from Boards of Directors on succession planning many organizations have prioritized their high-potential identification practices over other human capital goals. Although much has been written about theories and tools in the area of high-potential assessment, there remains little independent guidance for practitioners looking to compare practices across organizational settings. This article represents a follow-up study to Church and Rotolo (2013) based on responses from 80 top leadership development companies on their high-potential and senior executive talent programs and assessment practices. The results of this more in-depth study focus on how organizations define leadership potential, content domains being assessed today, and various other design elements including degree of transparency of high-potential labels, shelf-life of assessments, talent distributions, and access to results. Attitudes toward assessments, including performance impact, are also discussed. The article concludes with summary observations and implications for industrial-organizational psychologists, consulting psychologists, and talent management professionals.

Although high-potential and executive assessment has been a popular topic in practice for decades, the primary emphasis in the literature has been on the development and use of specific tools and interventions. As a result, when organizations seek guidance on the practice of assessment in corporations, Industrial-Organizational psychology (I-O) practitioners and consulting psychologists have limited information available with which to compare. Moreover, industry reports often represent a specific tool, technique or point of view. There are relatively few empirical perspectives of the current practice of assessment in corporations, and even fewer that focus specifically on high-potentials and senior executives. This article attempts to close the gap in the literature by presenting the results of a benchmark survey. The survey was designed to provide insights and visibility to talent assessment efforts in large organizations with strong talent management and leadership development functions. Specifically, the results focus on the use of formal assessments with high-potentials and senior executives, including the purpose of the assessments, the application of various methodologies, a discussion of scope and ownership models, and the type of resources used to support such efforts. The article concludes with summary observations and implications for internal and external I-O, talent management and consulting practice.

This paper provides a comparative analysis of behavioral observations made on 152 service providers in a business advisory and professional services firm from 5 distinctly different ratings sources (self, direct reports, peers, supervisor, and clients). Results focused on differences in ratings level and degree of congruence with self‐assessments by observer type. The data suggested that service providers and their clients may have a different perceptual frame of reference than do internal observers (e.g., direct reports, peers, and supervisors). Moreover, congruence in self‐others' ratings was found to be a significant predictor of performance assessments from the same observer source. Implications of these results for the use of multirater appraisal systems are discussed.

Organizations are undergoing unprecedented transformation in the area of talent management (TM). Companies are rapidly adopting new tools and approaches in a variety of what has traditionally been core areas of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology such as performance management, employee attitudes, recruiting, testing and assessment, and career development. Increasingly, however, these new approaches have little to no research backing behind them, and they do not tend to be the focus of I-O psychology theory and research. We call this trend anti-industrial and organizational psychology (AIO), as we believe these forces to do not advance the field for long-term strategic impact. We present a framework that describes how AIO practices are adopted by organizations, and how I-O psychologists often gravitate away from these practices rather than actively help to separate the wheat from the chaff. We found support for our hypothesis through a brief analysis of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, the peer-reviewed journal of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). In this analysis, we found that only 10% of the focal articles from 2008 to 2016 represented topics that we call frontier—emerging areas in organizations but where there is no research support for them. We propose a set of recommendations for the field of I-O psychology and call for a more strategic approach to identifying and vetting new TM trends in order to increase the relevancy and impact of I-O psychology for our key stakeholders.

A mail survey was conducted to empirically measure respondents' perceptions of the values, motives, and interventions of today's organization development (OD) practitioners. The survey sample consisted of 1,500 names randomly selected from three different professional organizations. Overall, 416 practitioners (27.7%) returned the questionnaire. Data from each of the three content areas were analyzed through: (a) factor analyses to determine the underlying structure and to generate subscales, and (b) MANCOVAs to assess the degree of differences among various types of respondents (e.g., professional association membership, gender, internal vs. external status) across the respective summary scores. In terms of the values of OD, results indicated that practitioners perceive the field today to be focused more on business effectiveness and productivity issues than on the humanistic concerns and orientation of the past. Although respondents rated interest in social action and helping people as the most important motivators of OD work in the ideal, exercising personal power and reaping the rewards of the consulting relationship were considered to be the more dominant motivators for people in the field today. Regarding interventions, practitioners reported engaging primarily in activities aimed at long-term organizational change, action research methodologies, and management skills training.