On the importance of predicting talent and future performance before others can.
Girl laughing while looking up sitting on cloud against green background
getty
Few ideas have captured the corporate imagination as powerfully as “potential.” Across boardrooms and HR functions, leaders are increasingly preoccupied with identifying it, measuring it, and harnessing it. The logic is straightforward. Organizations do not succeed by managing the past; they succeed by shaping the future. And every promotion, hiring decision, or succession plan is, at its core, a prediction about what someone will do next.
Consider how much hinges on these bets. Promoting an individual contributor into a managerial role, elevating a manager into an executive position, or hiring an external candidate into a leadership role all require a judgment about capabilities that have not yet been demonstrated. The same applies beyond business. Sports clubs scout teenagers in the hope of finding the next Lionel Messi. Political parties back relatively unknown figures who later rise to prominence. Venture capitalists invest in founders with little more than an idea and a narrative. In each case, the central question is the same: who is most likely to succeed in the future, and how can I know that sooner (and better) than anyone else?
In fact, the obsession with potential is not new. It is as old as organized society itself.
A Brief History of Betting on Potential
Ancient civilizations were already grappling with the challenge of identifying talent before it fully emerged. In imperial China, the civil service examination system (arguably the first formal, large-scale assessment of potential) sought to identify individuals capable of governing based on their mastery of Confucian texts and intellectual ability. In Ancient Greece and Rome, leadership selection often combined lineage with perceived aptitude, with generals and statesmen judged not only by their achievements but by their promise.
Military institutions later refined these practices. The need to identify capable officers under conditions of uncertainty led to early forms of systematic assessment, including simulations, psychological evaluations, and structured observations. In modern times, countries such as Singapore have institutionalized the identification of high-potential individuals early in life, using academic performance and psychometric assessments to channel talent into leadership pipelines.
The underlying challenge has remained constant: how do you predict what someone will do before they have done it?
What Do We Actually Mean by Potential?
Despite its popularity, “potential” is not a tangible attribute. It is an inferred construct, namely a probabilistic judgment about future behavior. To say that someone has high potential is simply to say that we believe (ideally with some data, evidence, or substance) they are more likely than others to achieve a valuable outcome in the future.
This matters because it highlights a fundamental distinction. Predicting what someone will continue to do is relatively easy. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. If someone has consistently performed well in a role, it is reasonable to expect they will continue to do so. The real challenge lies elsewhere: predicting whether someone can succeed in a role they have never performed.
This is why leadership potential is such a compelling and difficult problem. A high-performing employee may excel as an individual contributor, but that does not guarantee they will succeed as a manager. Similarly, a competent manager may struggle when elevated to a leadership role that requires vision, influence, and strategic judgment. In each case, the decision hinges on extrapolating beyond the available data.
In essence, potential is about estimating the likelihood that someone will do something new… and valuable!
How Early Can You Assess Potential?
If potential is a probabilistic judgment, then timing becomes critical. The earlier the assessment, the greater the uncertainty. Predicting whether a seasoned executive will succeed as a CEO is inherently easier than predicting the same outcome when that individual is in their twenties.
This is not because the person fundamentally changes later in life. Many of the traits that underpin potential —such as intelligence, curiosity, resilience, and interpersonal skill — are relatively stable over time. Behavioral genetics research suggests that a substantial proportion of variance in these traits (often 40–60%) is heritable. In other words, elements of what we might call “core potential” are present early, as early as before we are born, even if they are not yet fully expressed.
However, the expression of these traits depends on context, opportunity, and development. This is why predictions become more accurate over time: not because the underlying traits suddenly emerge, but because we have more data points and deeper signals.
In some domains, early identification of potential is both possible and common. In music, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was composing at the age of five. Pablo Picasso displayed extraordinary artistic ability as a child. In science, Marie Curie’s intellectual promise was evident long before her groundbreaking discoveries. In sport, elite academies identify and nurture talent in adolescence, recognizing that early indicators can translate into later performance.
The trade-off is simple: earlier bets are cheaper but riskier; later bets are more accurate but more expensive. A football club that signs a teenager takes on uncertainty but pays a fraction of the cost of acquiring an established star. The same logic applies in organizations.
Identifying Potential Is Not Enough
One of the most persistent mistakes organizations make is to treat potential as something to be discovered rather than developed. Identifying high-potential individuals is only the first step. Without the right environment, even the most promising talent will fail to deliver.
In sport, this is well understood. Elite academies such as FC Barcelona’s La Masia do not simply identify talent; they systematically develop it through coaching, mentoring, and exposure to progressively challenging environments. The same principle applies in business. Organizations that excel at talent management operate as “talent factories,” creating conditions in which potential can be realized.
This requires more than training programs. It involves aligning roles with individual strengths, providing meaningful feedback, fostering a culture of learning, and ensuring that leaders act as coaches rather than gatekeepers. Research consistently shows that managerial quality is one of the strongest predictors of employee performance and engagement. In other words, potential is not just an individual attribute; it is a relational and contextual phenomenon.
Why Potential Matters More in the AI Age
If predicting the future has always been difficult, it is becoming even more so. Advances in artificial intelligence are reshaping the nature of work, automating tasks that were once considered uniquely human and rendering certain forms of expertise obsolete.
In this context, traditional indicators of talent, such as experience, technical knowledge, or credentials, become less reliable. What matters is not what individuals know, but how quickly they can learn, adapt, and apply judgment in novel situations. As I have argued elsewhere, AI is commoditizing knowledge while increasing the premium on human qualities such as curiosity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence.
This shift places potential at the center of talent decisions. Organizations must identify individuals who can thrive in environments that are not yet fully defined. This requires a greater emphasis on underlying traits and capabilities rather than accumulated experience.
Common Mistakes in Betting on Potential
Despite the growing focus on potential, many organizations continue to make predictable errors.
The first is overreliance on experience and technical expertise. While these factors are easy to measure, they are often poor predictors of success in new roles, particularly at higher levels of leadership.
The second is the influence of politics and subjectivity. Decisions about potential are frequently shaped by personal biases, informal networks, and organizational dynamics rather than objective evidence.
The third is a preference for familiarity. Organizations tend to favor candidates who resemble existing leaders, reinforcing homogeneity and limiting diversity of thought. This “clone effect” undermines innovation and adaptability.
Finally, many organizations fail to create environments in which diverse forms of potential can flourish. Identifying unconventional talent is of little value if the organizational culture discourages deviation from established norms.
In a nutshell
Betting on potential is unavoidable. Every talent decision is, in essence, a gamble on the future. The question is not whether to make these bets, but how to make them better.
Psychology provides the most reliable tools for doing so. By grounding assessments in evidence, focusing on stable and relevant traits, and combining selection with development, organizations can improve the odds of success. At the same time, they must recognize the inherent uncertainty of these decisions and remain open to revising their judgments as new information emerges.
In the end, betting on potential is less about predicting the future than about recognizing what is already latent: as Michelangelo put it, seeing the angel in the marble and carving until it is set free.