research report: assessing leadership potential · pdf fileresearch report: assessing...

Assessing Leadership Potential

© 2015 Civil Service College

Research Report: Assessing Leadership Potential

By Iris Wong

of the Institute of Leadership and Organisation Development November 2015

Assessing Leadership Potential 2

© 2015, Civil Service College RESTRICTED

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Iris Wong is a Researcher in the Institute of Leadership and Organisation Development (ILOD), Civil Service College, Singapore. In addition to research, Iris is also actively involved in ILOD’s suite of leadership development programmes for Public Service leaders.

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE

The Institute of Leadership and Organisation Development (ILOD) promotes and supports the development of leadership and organisation development capabilities in the Singapore Public Service. Its research seeks to inform and sharpen practice of effective leadership and organisational intervention in public agencies.

SYNOPSIS The assessment of leadership potential is a topic of much interest and relevance in the Singapore Public

Service, especially with the increasing recognition that the process of identifying of leadership potential can

have an extensive and long-lasting impact on Public Service leadership. Appropriate identification of leadership

potential in the Public Service is thus essential towards surviving and thriving in a changing environment.

This paper integrates and consolidates existing frameworks of leadership potential, and utilises ILOD’s

philosophy of leadership and leadership development to offer a perspective of leadership potential in the

Singapore Public Service.

KEYWORDS POTENTIAL; LEADERSHIP; LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT



Contents

Assessing Leadership Potential.................................................................................................. 4

What is leadership? .................................................................................................................... 5

What is leadership potential? ..................................................................................................... 6

Are there other components of leadership potential? .............................................................. 11

Derailers ................................................................................................................................... 15

Issues related to the identification of leadership potential ....................................................... 16

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 22

References ................................................................................................................................ 24

Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 30

Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 34

Appendix C .............................................................................................................................. 37




Every organisation faces a challenge in ensuring a capable workforce to serve their

business strategy and outcomes, in order to retain a competitive advantage in the ever-

changing world today. Talent management is therefore important to organisations so that

they can select, develop, and sustain a leadership pipeline of people who have the proper

capabilities to perform the appropriate roles at the appropriate times. There is an additional

focus beyond allocating resources to improving current performance, and beyond

performance for promotion, towards ensuring and sustaining long term future performance.

To do this, organisations have begun to put in place various processes that help to identify

and develop talent and high potentials (Silzer & Church, 2009). Leadership potential, in

particular, is a construct of much academic and practical interest. There is an increasing

recognition that identifying leadership potential is vital towards the continuing survival of

the organisation (Troth & Gyetvey, 2014). Identifying leadership potential presumably

allows us to make better predictions of future leadership behaviour that has an impact on

the organisation. Although the exact definition of leadership potential can differ from

organisation to organisation (or even from individual to individual), we broadly define

leadership potential as the capacity and interest towards leadership growth,

development, capability, and the ability to make leadership transitions.

It is notable that the concepts of leadership potential and high potential are

overlapping and the literature frequently does not differentiate them clearly. However, this

paper has a special interest in leadership potential. While high potential is about being

effective in various roles at more senior positions in an organization, we believe that

leadership potential should additionally include more components that speak to what

enables the ability to make leadership transitions and what makes good leadership in a

particular context.

This paper therefore aims to consolidate and integrate existing research to gain a

clearer understanding about the construct of leadership potential in the workplace, and in

the Singapore Public Service. We will begin by discussing what leadership means for the

Singapore Public Service. We will then outline existing models of leadership potential.



Following that, we will attempt to utilise our understanding of leadership, along with the

frameworks of leadership potential, to inform how we view leadership potential. In doing

so, we hope to encourage further contemplation about how we may possibly think about

leadership potential for the Singapore Public Service.

Rothwell (2001) believes that the definition of leadership potential should be

different for each unique organisation. Karaevli & Hall (2003) similarly state that each

distinct definition of leadership potential should be aligned with the organisation’s business

context, and that their people are also aligned in their understanding and practice. Likewise,

we believe our mental model of leadership potential must be informed by our philosophy of

leadership within the Singapore Public Service. Hence, before we can explore what

constitutes leadership potential, we must understand what leadership means to us and

define what we mean by ‘leadership’.

What is leadership?

In the globalised world today where the environment is volatile and issues are

increasingly complex, it is difficult for a single individual or group to possess the immense

knowledge that is necessary to support an organisation. An adaptive, dynamic, and

interactive form of leadership is needed to enable organisations to be resilient and

responsive to rapid changes.

The Singapore Public Service similarly faces complex challenges that span across

boundaries. The future of Singapore and her Public Service is also unpredictable and

uncertain, and there is an increasingly diverse public, and increasing public expectations.

Therefore, while the Singapore Public Service is structured under a firm hierarchy and

bureaucracy, it also needs to be able to adapt according to the swiftly changing times, and

her leadership plays a significant role in enabling this. Given the nature of Public Service, its

connectedness with the machinery of nation-building, and its regulation of societal issues, a

failure to adapt will have wide-spread ramifications. It is thus crucial that the nature of

Public Service leadership and its impact is constantly and heavily considered and discussed.



According to ILOD’s philosophy of leadership (Goh, 2012), leadership is a relational

and dynamic process of influence and interaction between leader(s) and followers who do

leadership together. This expands beyond positional leaders to include non-positional

leaders, where leadership is not necessarily inherent in an individual and what he/she does,

but within the process of interaction between people (Lichtenstein et al., 2006). This also

means that leadership and followership is interchangeable. Furthermore, leadership is a

facilitative process of enabling direction, alignment and commitment by leaders who

provide meaning, structure, and value people and their ideas. This process must also be

based on a moral ground, whereby it has to emerge from an intention for good, and an

attitude for service towards others. The ultimate result should be positive transformation.

ILOD’s view of leadership development follows from how we define leadership.

Leadership includes (but is not restricted to) the ability to enhance one’s capacity for

continuous personal leadership development by seeking developmental opportunities and

learning from experiences by engaging in the reflective process. It includes the ability to

coach and facilitate others’ learning by believing in a coaching/developmental mindset.

Leadership is also the capacity to activate a moral consciousness of the morality of

leadership and to view leadership through an ethical lens.1 Leadership potential takes into

account an individual’s capacity for leadership development and hence is the capacity to

build one’s leadership in these ways.

What is leadership potential?

Organisations and researchers across the world in different sectors and industries

believe that identifying leadership potential is a top priority, yet struggle to define and

recognise it (Buckingham & Vosburgh, 2001; Fulmer & Bleak, 2008). Studies have found

wide variations in how people define leadership in the first place (i.e. their implicit

leadership theories), depending on their context and demographics such as culture (Xiao &

1 Refer to “Essence of Leadership” at https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/pages/essence-of-leadership.aspx, a

position paper by Goh Han Teck, Institute of Leadership and Organisation Development (ILOD), Civil Service College. This paper expresses what ILOD believes leadership is and should be in today’s context. It also discusses more factors that leadership development should entail.



Wu, 2014; Ayman & Korabik, 2010; House, Javidan, Hanges & Dorfman, 2002;), gender (Deal

& Stevenson 1998; Ayman & Korabik, 2010), personality (Keller, 2000), self-concept

(Ehrhart, 2015), or other individual differences such as attachment styles (Keller, 2003) This

would unmistakably result in differing definitions of what constitutes leadership potential,

even within a single organisation.

As evident in Charan, Drotter and Noel’s (2001) six leadership passages2 model,

leadership requirements such as skills, values and job functions change across each

transition to the next level of leadership. Apart from the specific skills and values needed at

every milestone, navigating such leadership transitions necessitates certain universal

abilities that will facilitate an individual’s exit and entry to a new role. These abilities are

likely to be meta-abilities that underlie and support the acquisition of other specific skills

and abilities. Studies of the construct of leadership potential should have an interest in

these general, universal meta-abilities.

There is an expanding body of empirical work in defining and identifying leadership

potential (e.g. Bhatnagar 2007; Dries & Pepermans, 2012; Hirschfield & Thomas, 2011; Silzer

& Church, 2009). Some of these arose through academic research (e.g. Church, 2006;

Sprietzer, McCall & Mahoney, 1997; Dries & Pepermans, 2012), and others emerged from

consultancies’ in-house practice research (e.g. Hogan, 2009; Hay, 2008; Korn Ferry, 2015)3.

However, all models of leadership potential unanimously agree that leadership potential is

not one single factor, and the assessment of leadership potential must be

multidimensional. A sample of models of leadership potential can be found in Appendix A.

Appendix B contains more detailed information and illustrations of some models that are of

particular interest to us.

2 Refer to “The leadership pipeline: How to build the leadership powered company” by Charan, Drotter and Noel (2001) for

more information on specific skills, values, job requirements needed for transitions. 3 When looking up frameworks of leadership potential, it would be useful to keep their purposes and origins in mind.



The various models of leadership potential tend to agree on a number of broad qualities

that are often categorised differently:

Cognitive ability

Drive and motivation

Learning potential

Interpersonal intelligence

1. Cognitive Ability

This is the raw cognitive ability and intelligence that we possess, such as the capacity

for conceptual, abstract, strategic, and analytical reasoning. This translates to problem-

solving and decision-making abilities. It also includes the important element of navigating

complexity and dealing comfortably with ambiguity, which is a vital capability needed to be

effective in the volatile world today (Silzer & Church, 2009; Troth & Gyetvey, 2014).

Leadership involves being able to solve complex issues related to organisational

effectiveness, and intelligence or mental ability has been found time and again to be

associated with general performance, leadership performance, and potential (e.g. Silzer &

Church, 2009; Schmidt & Hunter, 2004; Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran & Salgado, 2010). In the

various models of leadership potential, general mental ability and its derived abilities are

almost unanimously agreed upon as a crucial factor in determining leadership potential.

2. Drive and Motivation

Drive and motivation refers to the motivation to serve and the drive towards

leadership influence. Existing models of leadership potential include factors such as

perseverance, dedication, aspiration, ambition, commitment, and results-orientation,

among others. It should be noted that the motivation to serve and the drive towards

leadership influence can be distinct, or overlapping, depending on whether the intentions

behind them are primarily self-serving or other-serving. For instance, individuals could be



motivated to lead and serve4 when they pursue leadership influence because they believe in

the service value of leadership work, which is the opportunity to have a positive impact on

others, and to make a positive difference (Korn Ferry, 2015). On the other hand, leadership

ambition can exist for various personal reasons without a motivation to serve others.

Leadership drive includes leadership aspirations, self-promotion, self-development,

motivation to lead, and ambition. This motivation to lead is associated with leadership

potential (Waldman, Galvin & Walumba, 2013). It is vital because leadership potential

requires a particular orientation and preference towards having leadership influence, and it

is broadly agreed that it would not be wise to place an individual into a leadership role

against his or her preferences. Other-centric service factors and motivations may include

organisational commitment, dedication, stakeholder-orientation, and organisational

citizenship behaviour. Some authors make a distinction between leadership drive and the

motivation towards service (Dries & Pepermans, 2012) and other authors combine it (Silzer

& Church, 2009; Troth & Gyetvey, 2014). We believe this distinction is important and will

expand upon it in the following sections.

3. Learning Potential

As the world becomes more dynamic and the future harder to foresee, it becomes

more challenging to predict competencies that each leadership level requires. It is also

unreasonable to expect a junior level staff to exhibit the same sort of competencies that

those in advanced leadership positions do. However, many of these leadership skills can be

learned through experience and either formal or informal training. Thus, it can be argued

that the ability of people to learn and adapt becomes increasingly important (Yost &

Plunkett, 2010). Moreover, Lombardo and Eichinger (2000) effectively state that learning

agility is what characterises high potentials, such as being able to simultaneously hold

multiple perspectives while maintaining one’s own view, and then shifting between them.

4 Refer to “Servant Leadership” by Greenleaf (1977) for an insight into the notion of a leader who is motivated

to ensure that others’ needs are served first.



Learning oriented-skills are the self-regulation strategies which Yost and Plunkett

(2010) define as the “ability to capture lessons of experience and apply them to future

challenges”. Although having leadership experiences is important, it does not automatically

guarantee that learning occurs. Having the ability to mindfully engage in and reflect on the

experience, for instance, aids in an individual’s learning (Khoo, 2015). Many authors also

deem these strategies “meta-capabilities/skills/abilities” (e.g. Derry & Murphy, 1986; Yost &

Plunkett, 2010; Sternberg, 1998) that determine how “developable” an individual is. It

includes metacognition, which is the ability to be aware of and monitor one’s own learning

processes (Peters, 2000), such as the ability of an individual to engage in double-loop

learning (Argyris, 1991), a reflective practice in which they learn (and flex) how they learn.

An ability to learn is useful but insufficient, and this category also includes the

motivation towards learning. Egon Zehnder’s research suggested that the motivation to

learn is a major indicator of potential (Pande, 2015) and labelled it “curiosity”, which they

defined as “the penchant for seeking out new experiences, ideas and knowledge; seeking

feedback and learning new things in order to change” (Blais, 2013). Lombardo and Eichinger

(2000) similarly describe this as seeking out learning experiences, appreciating the

associated complex challenges, and sense-making from those experiences to expand one’s

behavioural repertoire. Silzer and Church (2009) label it as an “interest for learning” and

“learning orientation”, which are both sub-dimensions under their leadership potential

framework of learning variables.

4. Interpersonal intelligence

Interpersonal intelligence is a distinct category that frequently emerges in models of

leadership potential. This is understandable as leadership roles cannot be exempt from the

relational aspect of work. Leadership cannot exist without people, and cannot exist without

followership. Essentially, people bring legitimacy to leadership. Leadership is thus a process

of influence, and interpersonal intelligence fundamentally provides the emotional

intelligence and the capacity to empathise with others’ motivations, intentions and desires

(Gardner, 1999), as well as the interpersonal skills involved in influencing, persuading,



inspiring, managing, and empowering others. Apart from staff and colleagues, these

interpersonal skills also extend to stakeholder and customer sensitivity.

Most models of leadership potential propose factors associated with leadership

potential that can be broadly classified or subsumed under these categories. The next

section will discuss some factors that are less emphasised in the leadership potential

literature, yet we believe to be just as important because they are aligned with how we

think about leadership.

Are there other components of leadership potential?

Based on our conception of leadership, we believe that the discussion of leadership

potential in the Public Service might benefit with an emphasis on a few more factors. Some

common themes that emerge from our leadership and leadership development philosophy

are the importance of:

Intrapersonal intelligence

Developmental orientation

Values

1. Intrapersonal Intelligence

Interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence is often combined under the term

“emotional intelligence”, defined by Salovey and Mayer (1990) as “the ability to monitor

one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this

information to guide one’s thinking and action”, even during stressful and ambiguous

circumstances (Wong & Law, 2002). It is this emotional and social intelligence that enables

one to learn and nurture emotional competencies that facilitate leadership effectiveness

(Goleman, 1995). However, while frameworks of leadership potential usually include

constructs related to interpersonal intelligence (as shown previously), they tend to under-

represent the importance of intrapersonal intelligence or exclude it altogether.



Gardner (1999) defines intrapersonal intelligence as “the recognition and

understanding of one's own emotions and desires” and the “ability to use the information in

productively regulating one's life.” In the perspective of leadership potential, this is an

individual’s existing self-awareness (Bebb, 2009), as well as the desire, capacity and ability

to increase self-awareness. It is the awareness of one’s own strengths, weaknesses and

aspirations, a mindfulness towards self-regulation (Langer, 1992), the ability for active and

continual reflection, and the desire for feedback.

Self-awareness is a fundamental quality that underlies our notion of what leadership

should be. It feeds into the capacity for personal leadership development, enables the

expansion of one’s repertoire in using influential power and enacting leadership, helps in

coaching capabilities, and is central towards cultivating mindfulness in the practice of

leadership (Goh, 2012). While self-awareness can be developed to a certain extent, the

measurement of one’s leadership potential would also benefit from a consideration of their

inherent capacity and openness towards the enhancement of their self-awareness and

intrapersonal intelligence.

2. Developmental Orientation

A quality that deserves attention is the developmental mindset and orientation5

towards oneself and others. This involves having firm beliefs that professional and personal

development is important, and that time and effort would be well-spent in pursuing it. The

individual with a developmental orientation inherently adopts a “growth mindset”, believing

that people’s abilities are not immutable and that they can grow over time (Blackwell,

Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Dweck, 1999; Dweck, 2007). This is the belief that these

abilities are essentially potentials that emerge with effort, practice and direction (Dweck,

2009).

5 Refer to “Nurturing a Developmental Culture” at https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/pages/nurturing-a-

developmental-culture.aspx by Iris Wong and Goh Phek Suan, Institute of Leadership and Organisation Development (ILOD), Civil Service College. The section on Guiding Principles of a Developmental Culture provides more information on what could enable a developmental mindset and orientation.

https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/pages/nurturing-a-developmental-culture.aspx

https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/pages/nurturing-a-developmental-culture.aspx



Existing frameworks of leadership potential do sometimes include leadership skills

that involve development, such as coaching, motivating, and empowering others (e.g. Silzer

& Church, 2009; Hezlett, Ronnkvist, Holt & Hazucha, 1997). However, it should be noted

that a developmental orientation goes beyond having the skills, interpersonal intelligence,

and intrapersonal intelligence to develop oneself and others. It also includes the drive to

develop oneself and others, and the belief that it is important to do so.

To have a developmental mindset for oneself is to believe that one is developable

and ready to be developed6. This can show up as perseverance, a “never-say-die” attitude,

experimentation, and a welcoming of challenges and feedback. Additionally, according to

interviews from a qualitative study by ILOD and researchers at the University of Michigan

(Myers & DeRue, 2012), Singapore Public Service officers who are developmentally ready

have an open, learning-oriented and reflective attitude, and intentionally create time,

space, and energy to learn from developmental experiences. This comes about because they

believe in the importance of self-improvement, that they can improve, that the time and

resources spent are worth it, and they are motivated to grab opportunities that allow them

to develop themselves.

Since leadership potential includes the capacity and interest for self-improvement

towards future leadership growth, a developmental mindset (and developmental readiness

7) towards oneself is a crucial factor that should be considered when assessing someone for

leadership potential.

Furthermore, in Singapore’s Public Service today, leadership that develops, engages

and enables others is also becoming increasingly important, such as the ability to coach and

facilitate learning in others (Goh & Goh, 2011; Goh, 2012). This can emerge as a concern for

the welfare of others, as well as the intentional practice of coaching, mentoring,

empowering others, and facilitating others’ development. Similar to the creation of

6 Refer to “Understanding Developmental Readiness” at https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/pages/understanding-

developmental-readiness.aspx by Chia Nah Nah and Khoo Ee Wan, Institute of Leadership and Organisation Development (ILOD), Civil Service College. 7 Developmental readiness broadly refers to developability and how much someone is ready to develop themselves. It is a

combination of many variables, including cognitive abilities (such as those listed earlier) and meta-cognitive abilities (such as those that determine learning potential), beliefs and attitudes (such as a growth mindset), motivational factors, personality-related factors, and self-constructs.

https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/pages/understanding-developmental-readiness.aspx

https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/pages/understanding-developmental-readiness.aspx



bandwidth for oneself to develop, a developmental mindset means believing in the

importance of others’ development, and facilitating the creation of bandwidth for them to

learn from developmental experiences.

First and foremost, having an overall developmental mindset is vital to facilitate

one’s own leadership growth. Secondly, a developmental mindset also allows one to

facilitate the growth of others, which is becoming increasingly essential in today’s

leadership context. A core responsibility of leadership, then, is to facilitate the development

of oneself and of others, so a developmental mindset just might be an important factor to

consider in identifying potential for leadership.

3. Values

One facet of our view of leadership that must be emphasised is the values behind

the practice of leadership. As discussed earlier, frameworks of leadership potential take into

account the drive and motivation towards leadership. However, they often do not clarify the

intentions and motivations behind it. We believe that leadership and a drive for leadership

should ideally stem from a moral ground, so this is fundamentally a question about values

and motivations. This suggests that just having a drive towards leadership is insufficient in

the identification of leadership potential because such a drive could very well be self-

serving, and having a self-serving leader will be harmful to the organisation in the longer

term.

The values associated with stewardship8 are relevant here. Stewardship is essentially

linked to a moral orientation for the welfare of others, and refers to a leadership drive and

motivation that is society-centred, since the role of leaders are to work in service of the

people in the organisation, as well as to sustainably drive the organisation forward in the

longer term. Paying attention to the right values, attitudes, and mindsets certainly seems

8 Refer to “Stewardship in the context of public sector leadership” at

https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/pages/stewardship-in-the-context-of-public-sector-leadership.aspx by Khoo Ee Wan, Institute of Leadership and Organisation Development (ILOD), Civil Service College. This paper explores the concept of stewardship and its applications in the Singapore Public Service.

https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/pages/stewardship-in-the-context-of-public-sector-leadership.aspx



important, considering the detriment that could occur upon misjudgement. In fact, in their

model of potential, Egon Zehnder’s research states that the very first indicator of potential

is “motivation”, which they define as a “fierce commitment to excel in the pursuit of

unselfish goals” (Fernández-Aráoz, 2014). Clearly, having the right values is significant,

particularly since it is difficult to impart or change a person’s values. The identification of

leadership potential should therefore include a consideration of one’s values, whether they

are aligned with the values that the organisation believes in, and whether they are values

associated with stewardship.

Derailers

Models of leadership potential typically include positive qualities that are sought after.

However, it is also important to consider dysfunctional attributes that could eventually

result in leadership failure. Leadership potential is effectively limited by the presence of

derailers9. Some derailers are unfortunate traits or idiosyncracies that people possess but

are unable to manage. Other derailers could be traits that may have propelled individuals

towards leadership positions in the first place but have become excessive. For example, a

large part of leadership performance is the drive towards achieving results. This is

undeniably beneficial, but an over-emphasis on results could bring about increasing

amounts of pressure on themselves and others to succeed, which eventually leads to

exhaustion and disengagement on both sides.

Derailment risks are a signpost of Korn Ferry’s (2015) model of leadership potential,

which they have separated into three sub-dimensions of risk: 1) Volatile – Being mercurial,

erratic or unpredictable, 2) Micromanaging – Controlling the work of direct reports, and 3)

Closed – Lack of openness to alternative perspectives and opportunities. Other researchers

9 Refer to “Understanding Managerial Derailment” at

https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/ethos/issue%209%20jun%202011/pages/understanding-managerial-derailment.aspx by Khoo Ee Wan, Institute of Leadership and Organisation Development, Civil Service College, for a deeper understanding of the nature of managerial derailment.

https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/ethos/issue%209%20jun%202011/pages/understanding-managerial-derailment.aspx

https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/ethos/issue%209%20jun%202011/pages/understanding-managerial-derailment.aspx



have also identified other “dark side” traits10 that can cause derailment, such as narcissism,

emotional illiteracy, a lack of self-awareness, Machiavellianism, subclinical psychopathy,

mischievousness, and scepticism (Paulhus & William, 2002; Burke, 2006; Hogan & Hogan,

2001; Palmer, 1994). The effects of derailment and leadership failure could include poor

work performance, bad decision-making, employee disengagement, high turnover, and

organisational decline at worst.

In essence, derailers lead to bad leadership, which can result in much damage to the

organisation. Since the tendency towards derailment increases as one progresses through

leadership levels (Korn Ferry, 2015; Tang & Dai, 2013), it is crucial that we consider

derailment risks when discussing the identification and assessment of leadership potential

at any stage. Together with the typical assessments of leadership potential, Korn Ferry

(2015) also recommends a thorough assessment of derailment risks and managing them

before making leadership decisions.

Issues related to the identification of leadership potential

Potential is not Performance

Performance and potential are intuitively related but theoretically distinct concepts.

Performance refers to how effective individuals are in their current or previous role and

position, while leadership potential refers to a projected estimate of how effectively

individuals can make leadership transitions and how effective they will be in future

leadership roles. Performance is basically about the past and present, while potential is

about the future. McKinsey’s Performance-Potential 9-box matrix is a widely-used talent

management tool that arose in the 1970s that illustrates this differentiation by showing how

employees can fall on either end of the performance and potential spectrum (See Appendix

B for a diagram). For instance, a content expert may be high in performance but low in

10

Refer to “the Dark Side of Leadership” at https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/pages/the-dark-side-of-leadership.aspx by Aurora de Souza Watters, Institute of Leadership and Organisation Development, Civil Service College for a longer discussion on “dark side” leadership traits and how organisations can support leaders in developing self-awareness and tempering them.

https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/pages/the-dark-side-of-leadership.aspx

https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/pages/the-dark-side-of-leadership.aspx



potential for leadership, while a new hire may be low in performance but judged to be high

in potential for leadership. Furthermore, Qotywa (2014) investigated leadership potential in

the Australian public sector and found that there was no significant relationship between

performance and leadership potential11.

At the moment, researchers and organisations have differing opinions on the use of

performance evaluations to predict leadership potential. Some, like the Singapore Public

Service, incorporate performance and technical measures into their frameworks (e.g. Silzer

& Church, 2009; Corporate Leadership Council, 2005), while others do not (e.g. Lombardo &

Eichinger, 2000; Hezlett, Ronnkvist, Holt, & Hazucha, 1997). Some explicitly state that they

have intentionally steered clear of performance assessments for a number of reasons (Dries

& Pepermans, 2012).

In practice, the identification of leadership potential often involves some measure of

performance, and many organisations believe that performance is an important factor to

consider when making decisions about future leadership roles (Troth & Gyetvey, 2014; Silzer

& Church, 2009; Robinson, Fetters, Riester & Bracco, 2009). Silzer and Church (2009) state

that identifying and managing leadership potential should originate and extend from

developing current performance towards future positions, and extrapolate into sustained

future development. Their model of potential thus includes performance, technical, and

functional skills. Furthermore, although high performance is not indicative of leadership

potential, high leadership potential is what enables high performance in a leadership

position. Having high performance also helps by bringing attention to the existence of

leadership potential (Khoo, 2011). Along these lines, performance and potential seem very

much related.

A problem arises, however, when organisations and their employees are unclear

about the distinction between assessments of performance and potential12 (E.g. Rogers &

11

This study utilised Dries and Pepermans’ (2012) model of leadership potential. The model intentionally excludes measures of performance. 12

Dries and Pepermans (2012) developed a broadly accepted of leadership potential that addresses many inherent issues

with existing models. Their model focuses on leadership potential at any level, in opposition to pegging against successful

and mature leadership. It also makes a clear distinction between leadership potential and current performance.



Smith, 2007; Hewitt Associates, 2008) and assume that high performance results in high

potential for future roles (Silzer & Church, 2009). Church and Waclawski (2010) called this

tendency the “performance-potential paradox”, which occurs when performance and

potential are tied too closely together and when there is a lack of clarity regarding the

difference between them. Some organisations even promote individuals to higher positions

with different job roles mainly based on their performance (Dries & Pepermans, 2012).

Although the individual could be a good performer in their previous role, such a move

results in their derailment or inability to perform effectively, because the requirements and

responsibilities of the new role are different. Furthermore, a dip in performance is often not

visible for a length of time. Similarly, stellar leadership performance in a current leadership

role does not guarantee a high leadership potential for the same reasons.

Other criticisms of the use of performance evaluations for leadership potential

assessments include the increased possibility of a halo (or horns) effect bias, which occurs

when a supervisor’s good (or bad) impression of their employee’s performance influences

their judgment on his or her other characteristics, such as leadership potential (Dries &

Pepermans, 2012; Konczak & Foster, 2009; Heidemeier & Moser 2009). Greer and Vrick

(2008) also argue against attributing too much value to performance evaluations as they

typically assess technical competency and expertise. These become less important as one

climbs the ladder of leadership, and a different set of strategic and managerial skills become

more important. For instance, a person may be promoted based on their good operational

capabilities. However, at higher levels of leadership, operational capabilities no longer

differentiate good and poor performers simply because they are no longer considered to be

a requirement of the new role. Operational performance, then, is a factor of performance at

lower levels, but not of leadership potential.

Furthermore, Dries and Pepermans (2012) state that organisations tend to rely on

performance reviews and specific competency models in identifying leadership potential.

They caution against using competency frameworks that are founded on successful cases of

leadership, because the frameworks are based on the assumption that leadership potential

and matured leadership are equivalent (McCall, 1998). The inherent issue with this is that



using matured leadership as a base refers to a sensing from experienced leaders about what

is required in their leadership positions currently, while leadership potential involves

identifying junior employees to perform in those leadership positions in the future. When

the competencies needed for these are assumed to be equivalent, the first concern is that

there is no clear distinction between what is expected of a junior and senior employee.

However, we intuitively know that it is not realistic to place similar expectations on them.

The second problem is that the environment is volatile and uncertain, and the mature

leadership competencies that are successful or required today will inevitably change over

time (McCall, 1998; Goh & Hennessy, 2011). Equating current competencies with leadership

potential thus means that people identified to have leadership potential today may not

actually have the leadership potential and competencies suitable for the future. This could

lead to 1) wasted organisational efforts at identification of leadership potential and

development of the leadership pipeline, or 2) people residing in leadership positions with

competencies that are not aligned with current needs, which could result in businesses that

stagnate and become more unsustainable as the world progresses. Thus, we believe it may

be more meaningful to seek capacities that could generally facilitate an individual’s

progress, rather than have a constantly-revised laundry list of selection criteria or specific

competencies. For instance, Egon Zehnder’s research acknowledged that competency-based

assessments and promotions are inadequate for today’s VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex

and ambiguous) world, and suggest assessing for higher-order qualities such as curiosity,

engagement, insight and determination (Fernández-Aráoz, 2014).

While it is up to an organisation to determine if an individual’s past performance is

essential in determining their leadership potential, it is important to be clear about the

difference between them. Managers themselves, who determine employees’ potential,

should also be clear that there is a difference between them, so that they may minimise

their biases in misattributing leadership potential. It is also important to ensure that

leadership potential is defined in ways that do not penalise employees simply due to their

lack of experience, and that we measure the potential to assume leadership positions in

future, rather than the capability to perform in those future positions based on how they

are performed currently. Using the current competencies of mature leaders as a baseline for



identifying leadership potential in junior employees is therefore inappropriate. The

literature universally indicates that there is much more to leadership potential than current

performance, and identifying and developing individuals simply using current performance

as the main predictor is inadvisable (Miller & Desmarais, 2007). Doing so will have far-

reaching implications on the organisation as a whole.

Assessment of Potential is an Interactive Task

Domnick and Gabriel (2009) raised an interesting perspective on the identification of

potential. They observed that the identification of potential involves multiple interactions

between multiple parties. Potential does not simply reside in an individual, but those who

seek to identify potential in others have influenced the process by their capacity to

perceive potential. In other words, the labelling of an individual’s potential is shaped by the

environment around them. This implies that the labelling of potential is not fixed. Although

some traits such as cognitive ability do remain relatively stable over time, the mindsets or

implicit leadership theories held by managers can affect the perception of their employees’

potential. For instance, managers’ self-awareness could influence their capacity to recognise

potential in their employees when they are better able to understand and regulate their

performance-based biases (Dominick & Gabriel, 2009) as well as beyond their implicit

leadership theories. Managers’ ‘fixed’ or ‘growth’ mindsets can also play a part in their

assessment of potential in their employees (Dweck, 2006). Managers with a ‘growth’

mindset are more likely to believe that their employees’ potential is changeable, while

managers with a ‘fixed’ mindset would tend to believe that potential stays constant over

time.

While we have earlier established that potential can change across time and context,

the self-fulfilling prophecy effect also comes into play, where the labelling of someone’s

potential can influence their actual potential. This implies that managers who are less able

to regulate their biases, or have ‘fixed’ mindsets, are likely to mislabel their employees’

potential, which will have unintended effects in the long run.



In sum, the identification of leadership potential is an interactive and dynamic

endeavour. Hence, in addition to looking at an individual’s potential, and the components of

potential, we should also be paying attention to those who identify potential in others.

This may have implications on selection and assessment processes, such as the way

assessors are trained and the way selection procedures are designed and executed.



Conclusion

The issue of identifying leadership potential is a topic of much interest and debate, given

the extensive real-world implications for organisations worldwide. This paper has sought to

explore and consolidate various conceptualisations of the construct of leadership potential

in the workplace, and also suggests additional components that are worth considering in the

identification of leadership potential.

Based on the integration of various frameworks of leadership potential , we have found

four common factors that seem to cut across the literature and need to be given due

consideration when thinking about leadership potential: cognitive ability, drive and

motivation, learning potential, and interpersonal intelligence. Furthermore, based on our

view of leadership in the Singapore Public Service, we have identified three more factors

that we believe are important to emphasise: intrapersonal intelligence, developmental

orientation, and values. Other than positive indicators of leadership potential, we have also

highlighted the need to consider derailers – negative factors that could undermine

potential. Lastly, we have discussed various issues surrounding the lack of clarity in

distinguishing between performance and potential, as well as introduced the perspective of

the identifier of leadership potential as some food for thought.

Additionally, we could benefit from seeking answers to a number of questions that

remain. Dries and Pepermans (2012) raised the question: How do we know which qualities

are predispositional, and which qualities are more developable over time? This would affect

how much emphasis we place on identifying various qualities in leadership potential. By

association, how do we know which qualities are more important than others? Some

authors have an opinion but most do not13. Moreover, if leadership potential can change

across time and across functions, when can it be assessed14? Finally, how far can an

assessment of leadership potential predict actual leadership performance? Perhaps further

13

Based on their framework, Silzer and Church (2009) ranked emergent leadership as most important, followed by drive, learning agility, and analytical skills. 14

Based on their framework, Egon Zehnder believes that the primary indicator of potential is someone’s “motives” (Fernández-Aráoz, 2014). Hence they believe that potential can be assessed anytime, even from the beginning, since “motives” are established early in a person’s lifetime.



empirical research could be done to explore some of these issues, particularly within a

distinctive context such as the Singapore Public Service.

Note:

This paper serves to stimulate thought and provides some direction about various aspects to

consider when thinking about potential. It does not intend to recommend or espouse any

existing measure of leadership potential. Many frameworks of leadership potential exist

(See appendix A for a sample), and some even come complete with recommendations of

measurement scales for each individual facet (e.g. Dries & Pepermans, 2012). However, it is

not advisable to adopt any measure wholesale. The organisation first has to thoroughly

consider and define its theory of leadership and leadership potential to suit its specific

context and environment.



References

Argyris, C. (1991) Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, May-June 1991, pp 99-109. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/1991/05/teaching-smart-people-how-to-learn.

Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65(3), 157.

Bebb, S. S. (2009). The Structure of Role Transition: A Phenomenological Study of Successful Executives from Five Countries.

Bhatnagar J (2007) Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ETES employees: Key to retention. Employee Relations 29(6), 640–663.

Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263.

Blais, L. G. (2013) Look past performance to see potential. Diversity Executive. March-April 2013. Retrieved from http://www.egonzehnder.com/files/look_past_performance_to_see_potential.pdf.

Buckingham, M., & Vosburgh, R. M. (2001). The 21st century human resources function: It's the talent, stupid!. People and Strategy, 24(4), 17.

Burke, R.J (2006) Why Leaders fail: exploring the darkside. International Journal of Manpower, 27, 91-100.

Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2001). The leadership pipeline: How to build the leadership powered company. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chia, N. N. & Khoo, E. W. (2010) Understanding Developmental Readiness. Retrieved from https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/pages/understanding-developmental-readiness.aspx

Church, A. H. (2006). Bring on the high potentials—Talent assessment at PepsiCo. In the symposium: Talent Management: Will the High Potentials Stand Up? Allan Church (Chair). Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial / Organizational Psychology, May 6th, Houston, Texas.

Church, A.H & Waclawski, J. (2010). Take the Pepsi Challenge: Talent Development at PepsiCo. In R.F. Silzer & B.E. Dowell (Eds.). Strategy Driven Talent Management: A Leadership Imperative, Jossey Bass: San Francisco.



Myers, C. G., & DeRue, D. S. (2012). Conceptions of Leadership and Development in the Singapore Public Service: A Qualitative Exploration of Developmental Readiness. Civil Service College, Singapore.

Corporate Leadership Council. (2005). Realising the full potential of rising talent (Volume 1): A quantitative analysis of the identification and development of high potential employees. Washington, D. C.: Corporate Executive Board.

Deal, J. J., & Stevenson, M. A. (1998). Perceptions of female and male managers in the 1990s: Plus ça change... Sex Roles, 38(3-4), 287-300.

Derry, S. J., & Murphy, D. A. (1986). Designing systems that train learning ability: From theory to practice. Review of educational research, 56(1), 1-39.

Dominick, P. G., & Gabriel, A. S. (2009). Two sides to the story: An interactionist perspective on identifying potential. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(4), 430-433.

Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2012). How to identify leadership potential: Development and testing of a consensus model. Human Resource Management, 51(3), 361-385.

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Dweck, C. S. (2007). The perils and promises of praise. Kaleidoscope, Contemporary and Classic Readings in Education, 12.

Dweck, C. S. (2009). Mindsets: Developing talent through a growth mindset. Olympic Coach, 21(1), 4-7.

Ehrhart, M. G. (2015). Self-concept, implicit leadership theories, and follower preferences for leadership. Zeitschrift für Psychologie.

Fernández-Aráoz, C. (2014) 21st century talent spotting. Harvard Business Review, June 2014. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2014/06/21st-century-talent-spotting

Fulmer, R. M., & Bleak, J. L. (2008). The leadership advantage: How the best companies are developing their talent to pave the way for future success. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21 century. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Goh, H. T. (2012) The Essence of Leadership. Retrieved from https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/Knowledge/Pages/Essence-of-Leadership.aspx



Goh, H.T. and Goh, H.C. (2011). Research Report: Leadership Gap Indicator Study. Centre For Leadership Development, Civil Service College. Singapore.

Goh, H. T., & Hennessy, J. (2011) Research Report: Generations and Leadership." Civil Service College. Retrieved from: https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/Knowledge/Pages/Generations-and-Leadership.aspx

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Greer, C. R., & Virick, M. (2008). Diverse succession planning: Lessons from the industry leaders. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 351-367.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership.

Hay Group. (2008), Growth Factor Index: Technical Manual. (www.haygroup.com)

Heidemeier, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self–other agreement in job performance ratings: A meta-analytic test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 353.

Hewitt Associates. (2008). Getting to High Potential: How organizations define and calibrate their critical talent. Hewitt Associates (www.hewitt.com)

Hezlett, S. A., Ronnkvist, A. M., Holt, K. E., & Hazucha, J. F. (1997). The PROFILOR® technical summary. Personnel Decisions International, Minneapolis, MN.

Hogan assessment Systems. (2009). Sample High Potential, Candidate assessment report.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40–51.

House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of world business, 37(1), 3-10.

Karaevli, A. & Hall, D. T. (2003). Growing leaders for turbulent times: Is succession planning up to the challenge? Organizational Dynamics, 32(1), 62-79.

Keller, T. (2000). Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 589-607.

Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(2), 141-160.

Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1993), Leaders, Fools and Imposters: Essays on the Psychology of Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.



Khoo, E. W. (2011). Perspectives on High Potentials: Defining and Identifying Talent in an Organisation. Civil Service College.

Khoo, E. W. (2011). Understanding Managerial Derailment. Civil Service College.

Khoo, E. W. (2015). Research Review: Stewardship in the context of public sector leadership. Civil Service College.

Konczak, L., & Foster, J. (2009). Developing next generation leaders: High priority on high potentials. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 47(2), 39-45.

Korn/Ferry. (2015). Assessment of Leadership Potential. Retrieved from: http://static.kornferry.com/media/sidebar_downloads/KFALP_Technical_Manual_final.pdf

Langer, E. J. (1992). Matters of mind: Mindfulness/mindlessness in perspective. Consciousness and cognition, 1(3), 289-305.

Lichtenstein, B. B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton, J. D., & Schreiber, C. (2006). Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems.

Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2000). High potentials as high learners. Human Resource Management, 39(4), 321–330.

McCall, M. W. (1998). High flyers: Developing the next generation of leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Miller, D., & Desmarais, S. (2007). Developing your talent to the next level: Five best practices for leadership development. Organization development journal, 25(3), P37.

Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Salgado, J. F. (2010). Cognitive abilities. In J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 255–275). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Palmer, P.J. (1994), ``Leading from within: out of the shadows, into the light'', in Conger, J.A. (Ed.), Spirit at Work: Discovering the Spirituality in Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Pande, S. (2015, February 27). Curiosity is a major indicator of potential: Egon Zehnder's senior adviser. Retrieved from http://www.businesstoday.in/opinion/interviews/curiosity-is-indicator-of-potential-egon-zehnder-senior-adviser/story/216155.html

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563.

Peters, M. Does Constructivist Epistemology Have a Place in Nurse Education? Journal of Nursing Education 39, no. 4 (April 2000): 166-170.



Qotywa, G. B. (2014). Identifying leadership potential in the public sector from an intentional change perspective.

Robinson, C., Fetters, R., Riester, D., & Bracco, A. (2009). The paradox of potential: A suggestion for guiding talent management discussions in organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(4), 413-415.

Rogers, R. W. & Smith, A. B. (2007). Finding future perfect senior leaders: Spotting executive potential. Bridgeville, PA: Development Dimensions International.

Rothwell, W. J. (2001). Effective succession planning: Ensuring leadership continuity and building talent from within (2nd Ed). New York: AMACOM.

Rowe, K. (2007). How to Identify Leadership Potential. UK guide to skills and learning,

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and personality, 9(3), 185-211.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. H. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 162–173.

Silzer, R., & Church, A. H. (2009). The pearls and perils of identifying potential. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(4), 377-412.

Spreitzer, G. M., McCall, M. W., & Mahoney, J. D. (1997). Early identification of international executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 6-29.

Sternberg, R. .Metacognition, Abilities, and Developing Expertise: What Makes an Expert Student?. Instructional Science 26, nos. 1- 2 (March 1998): 127-140.

Tang, K. Y., & Dai, G. (2013). The Leadership Architect® 2013 global norms report II: Career stallers and stoppers norms and analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Korn Ferry

Troth, A. C., & Gyetvey, C. (2014). Identifying leadership potential in an Australian context. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 52(3), 333-350.

Waldman, D.A., Galvin, B.M., Walumbwa, F.O. (2013). The development of motivation to lead and leader role identity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(2), 156-168.

Watters, A. (2014). Research Report: The Dark Side of Leadership. Civil Service College, Singapore.

Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The leadership quarterly, 13(3), 243-274.



Wong, I., & Goh, P. S. (2015). Research Report: Nurturing a Developmental Culture. Civil Service College.

Xiao, M Z. & Wu, X. H. (2014). Chinese Leadership: Culture and Confucianism. Public Integrity, 16(2), 165-172.

Yost, P. R., & Plunkett, M. M. (2010). Developing leadership talent through experiences. Strategy driven talent management: A leadership imperative, 313-348.



Appendix A

Frameworks of Leadership Potential (In chronological order)

Korn Ferry (2015) Egon Zehnder: Fernández-Aráoz (2014) Dries & Pepermans (2012)

Drivers - Advancement drive - Career planning - Role preferences

Experience - Core experience - Perspective - Key challenges

Awareness - Self-awareness - Situational self-awareness

Learning agility - Mental agility - People agility - Change agility - Results agility

Leadership traits - Focus - Persistence - Tolerance of ambiguity - Assertiveness - Optimism

Capacity - Problem solving

Derailment risks - Volatile - Micromanaging - Closed

Motivation - Being energized and engaged on an emotional

level with the work of leadership. Curiosity

- Seeking out new experiences, ideas and knowledge

- Seeking feedback and learning new things in order to change.

Insight - Proactively gathering and making sense of a

vast amount of information from a wide range of sources, and discovering new insights that, when applied, transform views or set new directions.

Engagement - Deeply engaging others, - Communicating a persuasive vision and

inspiring genuine emotional connection between individuals, the organization and the leader.

Determination - Managing and maintaining long term, sustained

effort and focus despite obstacles and distractions, while not ignoring evidence that the nature of the activity should change.

Analytical skills - Intellectual curiosity - Strategic insight - Decision making - Problem solving

Learning agility - Willingness to learn - Emotional intelligence - Adaptability

Drive - Results orientation - Perseverance - Dedication

Emergent leadership - Motivation to lead - Self-promotion - Stakeholder sensitivity



Silzer & Church (2009) Hogan Assessment Systems (2009) Hay Group (2008)

Cognitive abilities - Conceptual or strategic thinking, breadth of

thinking - Intellect, cognitive ability - Dealing with complexity/ambiguity

Personality variables - Interpersonal skills, sociability - Dominance - Maturity, stability, resilience

Learning variables - Adaptability, flexibility - Learning orientation, interest in learning - Learning agility - Openness to feedback

Leadership skills - Leadership capabilities, managing and

empowering people - Developing others - Influencing, inspiring, challenging the status

quo, change management Motivation variables

- Drive, energy, engagement, tenacity - Aspiration, drive for advancement, ambition,

career drive, organisational commitment, interests

- Results orientation, risk-taking Performance record

- Performance track record - Leadership experiences

Other variables - Technical/functional skills, business

knowledge - Qualifiers - Cultural fit

Business domain - Strategic reasoning - Tactical problem solving - Operational excellence

Leadership domain - Results orientation - Talent development

Interpersonal domain – relationships - Respect for people - Collaboration

Interpersonal domain - work challenges - Strategic self-awareness - Tenacity - Judgment

Eagerness to learn - Willingness to take risk to learn something

new - Curiosity

Breadth of Perspective - Thinking beyond boundaries, take broad view - Conceptual ability, raw computing power or

IQ Understanding others

- Capacity to accurately understand other’s perspective and experiences

- Motivation and ability to listen Personal Maturity

- Ability to experience feedback as chance to learn and grow

- Maintain emotional balance, resilience & realistic optimism



YSC (UK): Rowe (2007) Development Dimensions: Rogers & Smith (2007)

Corporate Leadership Council (2005)

Intellect / judgment - Style of thinking - Analytical rigor, balanced approach to

decision making, successfully spotting key issues

Individuality - Drive to make a distinct impact, relentless

almost obsessive quality - Initiative - Self-assurance to enable them to operate

with optimism about their ability to overcome problems

- Aspiration Shaping the environment

- Influencing - Adapt to situations

Leadership Promise - Propensity to lead - Brings out best in people - Authenticity

Personal Development Orientation - Receptivity to feedback - Learning agility

Mastery of Complexity - Adaptability - Conceptual thinking - Navigates ambiguity

Balance of Values and Results - Culture fit - Passion for results

Ability - A combination of innate characteristics

(mental/cognitive agility and emotional intelligence), and learned skills (technical/functional skills and interpersonal skills) that an employee uses to carry out his/her day to day work.

Engagement - Consists of four elements: emotional

commitment, rational commitment, discretionary effort, and intent to stay.

Aspiration - The extent to which an employee wants or

desires prestige and recognition in the organization, advancement and influence, financial rewards, work-life balance, and overall job enjoyment.



Lombardo & Eichinger (2000) Spreitzer, McCall & Mahoney (1997)

Hezlett, Ronnkvist, Holt & Hazucha (1997)

Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan (1994)

People agility - Know themselves well - Learn from experience - Treat others constructively - Cool and resilient under

pressures of change Results agility

- Get results under tough conditions

- Inspire others to perform beyond normal

- Exhibit the sort of presence that builds confidence in others

Mental agility - Think through problems

from a fresh point of view - Comfortable with

complexity - Comfortable with ambiguity - Comfortable with explaining

their thinking to others Change agility

- Curious - Have passion for ideas - Like to experiment with test

cases - Engage in skill building

activities

End-state competencies - Has broad business

knowledge - Is sensitive to cultural

differences - Has the courage to

take a stand - Brings out the best in

people - Acts with integrity - Is insightful - Is committed to

success - Takes risks

Learning-oriented competencies

- Seeks feedback - Uses feedback - Is cross-culturally

adventurous - Seeks opportunities

to learn - Is open to criticism - Is flexible

Thought leadership - Analyse issues - Champion change - Establish plans - Know the business - Manage execution - Provide direction - Use sound judgment - Use technical/functional

expertise Results leadership

- Drive for results - Lead courageously - Show work commitment

People leadership - Build relationships - Coach and develop - Display organizational savvy - Foster open communication - Foster teamwork - Influence others - Listen to others - Manage disagreements - Motivate others - Speak effectively

Self-leadership - Act with integrity - Demonstrate adaptability - Develop oneself

Surgency - Sociability - Gregariousness - Assertiveness - Dominance - Capacity for status - Social presence - Need for power

Emotional intelligence - Calmness - Steadiness - Coolness - Self-confidence - Positive affect

Conscientiousness - Hard work - Perseverance - Organization - Responsibility - Ambition - Need for achievement - Dependability

Agreeableness - Cooperativeness - Likeability - Friendly compliance - Need for affiliation

Intellectance - Imaginativeness - Broad-mindedness - Curiosity - Culture - Openness to experience



Appendix B

Dries and Pepermans (2012) developed a broadly accepted framework of leadership potential that addresses many inherent issues with existing

models. Their model focuses on leadership potential in opposition to successful and mature leadership. It also makes a clear distinction between leadership

potential and current performance. The model, illustrated in the diagram below, consists of two dimensions: 1) Conation vs. Cognition (Heart vs. Head),

where conation refers to drive, motivation and action, while cognition refers to analytical skills. 2) Extrapersonal vs. Intrapersonal (Context vs. Self), where

extrapersonal refers to interactions between an individual and the external environment, while intrapersonal refers to one’s inner life. Their notion of the

extrapersonal-conation (context-heart) in the form of emergent leadership is of particular interest to us and our view of leadership, whereby emergent

leadership is the capacity to be influential, and emerges not from position or authority but by the legitimacy granted to them by their followers.

Figure 1. Dries and Pepermans (2012) Two-Dimensional Model of Factors of Leadership Potential



The Korn Ferry Assessment of Leadership Potential (KFALP) was developed based on extensive research and review of academic and business literature. It is characterised by seven signposts of potential, organised into four dimensions of leadership and talent. Interestingly, it considers factors that are uncommonly found in the literature, such as derailment risks and self-awareness. Under the dimension of experiences, it also considers core experiences, diversity of perspectives gained from experience, and experience with key challenges.

More information on the KFALP can be found at: http://static.kornferry.com/media/sidebar_downloads/KFALP_Technical_Manual_final.pdf

Figure 2. Egon Zehnder’s Seven Signposts of Potential Figure 3. Egon Zehnder’s Four Dimensions of Leadership and Talent



Egon Zehnder’s framework of potential emerged from empirical and experiential research that included academic sources, interview data, appraisal data, and other sources of information. Four core leadership traits are considered to be hallmarks of potential: Curiosity, insight, engagement, and determination.

An additional factor, which they consider to be the first indicator of potential, is the appriopriate motivation. They define this as the “fierce commitment to excel in the pursuit of unselfish goals.” This is considered first because motives and values are often unconscious and stable, are formed very early in life, and underlie who people really are. Motivation is of interest as it speaks to the importance of values towards leadership, and when identifying leadership potential.

More information on Egon Zehnder’s model can be found at: http://www.egonzehnder.com/files/look_past_performance_to_see_potential.pdf.

Curiosity: Seeking out new experiences, ideas and knowledge; seeking feedback and learning new things in order to change.

Insight: Proactively gathering and making sense of a vast amount of information from a wide range of sources, and discovering new insights that, when applied, transform views or set new directions.

Engagement: Deeply engaging others, communicating a persuasive vision and inspiring genuine emotional connection between individuals, the organization and the leader.

Determination: Managing and maintaining longterm, sustained effort and focus despite obstacles and distractions, while not ignoring evidence that the nature of the activity should change.



Appendix C

The GE/McKinsey Performance-Potential 9-box matrix is a performance management tool that arose in the 1970s and was first used by General Electric. It is a tool commonly used in organisations to categorise individuals based on ratings of performance and potential, in order to make talent decisions, such as identifying individuals with high potential, individuals who may benefit from a change in position, and individuals who could be successors for various positions. It distinguishes between potential and performance, whereby high potentials can have poor performance, and vice versa.

Figure 4. GE/McKinsey Performance-Potential 9-box matrix (Viapeople, Inc)

More information about the use of this model can be found at: http://web.viapeople.com/viaPeople-blog/bid/81566/Development-at-the-Top-Use-

the-9-Box-to-Develop-Talent-in-Succession-Planning.



Civil Service College, Singapore

31 North Buona Vista Road Singapore 275983

www.cscollege.gov.sg

www.facebook.com/CivilServiceCollegeSingapore

© 2014 Civil Service College, Singapore. All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced,

modified, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic,

mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the

Civil Service College, Singapore.

research report: assessing leadership potential · pdf fileresearch report: assessing...

Documents