For decades, organizations have tried to answer one deceptively simple question: Who has the potential to lead us into the future? But as business environments evolve at dizzying speed, the criteria for identifying “high potential” leaders — or HiPos — must evolve with them. The days of one static, universally accepted HiPo definition are long gone. The data is clear: what constitutes high potential is both highly subjective and deeply situational.
Yet many organizations still rely on legacy assumptions, static competency models, or opaque processes for determining future talent — leaving both leaders and HR teams frustrated, and in some cases, exposed to unnecessary risk.
In this first post in our deep dive on our The Roundtable Report on High Potentials, I want to start with the foundation: defining what a high potential truly is, and why that definition requires ongoing attention, not a one-time label.
The Most Useful Definition Comes from the Research
One of the strongest, most practical definitions comes from the long-standing global research conducted by Management Research Group (MRG). They describe a high potential leader as someone who is viewed as having:
“…the skills and drive to go beyond their current role, take on greater responsibility, and become a major contributor to the organization.”
This definition is powerful because it does three important things:
- It distinguishes potential from performance. Someone can be brilliant at their current role and still not be effective — or motivated — to lead at the next level.
- It acknowledges both ability and drive. Potential isn’t just about skill; it’s also about the internal motivation to stretch into unfamiliar territory.
- It centers contribution to the organization. Not merely “promotion potential,” but impact potential.
The definition matters — but here’s where many organizations get stuck.
High Potential Is Not an Absolute State — It’s Contextual
MRG’s decades of research highlights just how dramatically “high potential” varies depending on organizational context, industry, generational cohort, and even economic cycles. For example:
- Millennial HiPos place more emphasis on achievement and less on persuasion or delegation.
- HiPos in consulting industries show higher energy and relational engagement, while those in resource-based sectors show more conservative risk tolerance.
- HiPo Human Resource professionals demonstrate lower empathy than their peers whereas HiPo senior leaders, demonstrate higher empathy.
When you cut through the data, there is only one consistent finding that pulls all HiPo profiles together and that’s this: there is no single HiPo profile.
This means that having a static definition of HiPo — created once and never revisited — is a recipe for misalignment. As strategy and market conditions shift, so must your HiPo criteria.
Simply put:
High potential is not a label. It’s a projection — and projections must be updated.
Why This Matters More Than Ever
We are living in a time when leadership roles are transforming rapidly. When business environments shift, the behaviours and motivations required for future leadership shift with them. If your HiPo definition doesn’t evolve, your talent pipeline will eventually stall.
The Transparency Myth: What HR Should Actually Share
One of the most common dilemmas senior HR leaders face is whether to tell individuals they are on the high-potential list. The fear is understandable — labelling someone a HiPo can create entitlement, disengagement among others, or risk if that leader ultimately fails.
The truth?
Whether or not you explicitly share HiPo status is far less important than being transparent about expectations.
High potential identification is inherently subjective. But expectations for future leadership should never be.
Here’s the transparency people are craving:
- What does “high performance” look like here — right now?
Make the behavioural expectations explicit and observable. - What capabilities matter most for the business going forward?
Align development with the strategy, not legacy competency models. - How often are those expectations being reviewed?
Quarterly or biannually, not annually, and certainly not “whenever succession planning comes up.”
If you do those three things consistently, you can safely choose either level of transparency around your HiPo list — and avoid the risks of mislabeling altogether.
Three Practical Actions HR and Leaders Can Take Now
- Revisit your High Potential criteria annually
Anchor it in your strategy, your current challenges, and the leadership behaviours most associated with future success.
- Use behavioural and motivational data to reduce bias
Tools like the LEA 360™ and IDI help counterbalance subjective judgments, spotlight blind spots, and clarify readiness.
- Make expectations visible, measurable, and coachable
Shift from “Are they a HiPo?” to “What will it take for them to succeed at the next level?”
Coming Up Next
In the next post, we’ll dig into one of the most compelling findings from the Roundtable Report: the behavioural patterns that differentiate high potential leaders — and what they mean for development.
If you haven’t already, download the full report to access the full insights that are informing leadership strategies across Canada.
Let’s talk if you’re looking to translate these insights into practical development experiences or update your HiPo identification process.
Catch the recording here if you missed our first deep dive session—it’s full of ideas and ahas.
