Why it’s time to ditch the grid and get better at spotting potential where it really lives.

Every year, organisations pour hours into talent reviews. The goal? To spot high-potential individuals and support their growth into bigger, more complex roles.

But while the intent is sound, the execution often isn’t.

Because accurately assessing potential – what it is, where it is, and how to grow it – turns out to be one of the most challenging (and subjective) things we do in talent management.

I watched a video the other day that captured this brilliantly. It was a tongue-in-cheek reflection on the classic pitfalls of talent review meetings – and while it made me laugh, it also made me wince.

You know the kind of scenario: someone walks into the room ready to champion a brilliant team member, only to have the nomination unravel because another stakeholder remembers a single off-colour comment from six months ago. Suddenly, you’re scanning the room to see whose side people are on – and before you know it, the conversation isn’t about performance (let alone potential). It’s about vague impressions, politics, and personal preference.

Funny because it’s true. Frustrating because it still happens.

And maddening because there’s so much we could be doing better.

The Skills Obsession – And What It’s Costing Us

In recent years, the conversation has shifted. Where we once fixated on “talent,” we now obsess over “skills.” Skills gaps. Skills taxonomies. Skills-based hiring. All useful in their own right – but often missing the point when it comes to long-term growth.

Because skills are what someone can do now.

Potential is what they could do next – with the right experiences and support.

And too often, organisations conflate the two. Or worse: they default to what’s visible and measurable (skills) instead of what’s developmental and predictive (capability). In a world that’s changing faster than most job specs can keep up, that’s a risky approach.

So What Does Good Look Like?

A recent study in the Consulting Psychology Journal offers some valuable insights. It challenges the whole idea of “universal potential” and makes the case for something more grounded: a behavioural, context-specific, and psychologically-informed approach.

It’s a perspective that aligns closely with one of our core values at Peoplewise – bringing science to business.

Here are five ideas from the research that feel especially relevant – along with some thoughts on how progressive organisations are putting them into practice.

1. Potential is always context-specific

A lot of organisations still rely on generic models to define high potential – think “learning agility,” “executive presence,” or “growth mindset.” And while those labels might sound good on a slide, they rarely reflect the actual realities of the role or the organisation.

It’s not that these traits are bad. In fact, many of them are directionally useful. The problem is they’re often used without clear definition, behavioural anchoring, or context-specific meaning – which makes them hard to apply consistently in real-world decisions.

That’s why the best organisations are shifting away from abstract labels and instead asking: What does great look like here? They’re building success profiles tied to real business demands, surfacing observable behaviours, and grounding talent conversations in something you can actually defend.

2. The 9-box isn’t the villain – but it’s definitely not the hero

Most of us have seen the 9-box in action. On paper, it looks like clarity: performance on one axis, potential on the other. But in reality? It’s often a matrix full of assumptions.

Potential ratings get influenced by visibility, confidence, likeability – even proximity to power. The quiet high-performer gets overlooked. The charismatic, maybe-not-so-ready one gets pushed forward. (Confession: I actually like the 9-box. I just hate seeing it used without a reliable way to assess potential. It’s a bit like using a spreadsheet to guess someone’s star sign — structured, but wildly speculative.)

That’s why we’re seeing a shift toward deeper insight – not just looking at what people are doing now, but at the underlying psychological capabilities that enable them to thrive in unfamiliar or complex environments.

Frameworks like Peoplewise’s PsyCap help make those internal resources — mental agility, emotional agility, confidence, resilience, and drive — tangible, defined, and observable. But we don’t stop there. Using Perspectives™, we integrate those psychological indicators with context-specific behavioural expectations, cultural motivators, and derailers — all mapped to the success profile for a given role.

And when you build your talent reviews on that kind of foundation, the conversations get sharper, more equitable, and more predictive of actual future success.

3. We’re no longer climbing career ladders but career jungle gyms

One of the most persistent myths in talent conversations is that potential = promotion. But upward isn’t the only direction that matters.

Some of the most meaningful development comes through lateral moves: new functions, tougher stakeholders, broader scope. These experiences stretch thinking, build versatility, and give people a more complete view of the business.

Organisations that define potential in terms of scope and complexity, not just hierarchy, tend to create richer career pathways – ones that unlock motivation and help the business build leadership capacity in all the right places.

4. Off-the-shelf frameworks won’t cut it

There’s no shortage of models that promise to identify potential. But most of them weren’t built for your strategy, your culture, or your talent pool. They tend to offer generic labels without enough behavioural clarity.

The result? People try to apply them in performance reviews or succession meetings and either a) give up, or b) argue about definitions. Neither is particularly useful.

That’s why more organisations are investing in internally developed frameworks or bespoke profiles of success  – simple, practical tools built around real transitions, observable behaviours, and the nuances of what success looks like for them.

It’s not about reinventing the wheel. It’s about making sure it actually fits your car.

5. Better tools unlock better conversations

The magic of a good framework isn’t just in the model – it’s in what it makes possible.
When people have a shared language and clear behavioural anchors, everything from calibration meetings to career conversations improves.

We’ve seen the difference it makes when teams are aligned:

• • Calmer, more confident decision-making

• • Greater diversity surfacing

• • Stronger development planning

• • Fewer “how did that happen?” promotion regrets

But maybe most importantly: the whole posture shifts.
Leaders stop trying to judge potential and start trying to foster it – asking not “Who’s got it?” but “What will it take to grow it?”

So, Where Does That Leave Us?

There’s no denying the pressure to find, grow, and keep great talent. But maybe it’s time to stop looking outward – and start looking inward, with better tools, sharper lenses, and a little more honesty.

Because the talent is there.
It’s in the meetings. On the project teams. In the awkward silences and the “aha” moments.
It’s not always the loudest. Or the most obvious.
But it’s there.

The challenge isn’t finding it. It’s seeing it – clearly, consistently, and in context.

That’s where good practice matters.

Not process for its own sake. Not vague labels or magic formulas. Just clear, behaviourally-grounded models, backed by science and shaped by your reality – so talent reviews can finally do what they were meant to:

Help you spot the future.
Not just reward the past.

---

To learn more, get in touch with us at letushelp@peoplewise.co.uk. We look forward to speaking with you!

Written by Ashleigh Fowler, Principal Business Psychologist at Peoplewise.