Allison S Gabriel

Peter G Dominick

CiteSeerX

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2 (2009), 430–433.
Copyright ! 2009 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/09
Two Sides to the Story: An
Interactionist Perspective on
Identifying Potential
PETER G. DOMINICK
Stevens Institute of Technology
ALLISON S. GABRIEL
The University of Akron
Treat people as if they were what they
ought to be and you help them to become
what they are capable of being.
—Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
Silzer and Church (2009) rightly point out
that the identification of potential must
begin with a clear and contextually rele-
vant definition of the construct. As they
note, across varying fields of practice and
research, one will find a wide array of
variables emphasized as critical to that def-
inition. Their article makes a significant
contribution toward the integration and
synthesis of those divergent perspectives.
Yet, in today’s global workplace where
the competition for a qualified workforce
is ever increasing (e.g., Farrell et al., 2005;
Gandossy & Effron, 2003), perhaps the more
pressing challenges organizations face cen-
ter on what they can do not just to identify
high potential but also to optimize and,
perhaps in some cases, create potential
among the workforce they possess.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Peter G. Dominick.
E-mail: peter.dominick@stevens.edu
Address: W.J. Howe School of Technology Man-
agement, Stevens Institut e of Technology, Castle Point
on Hudson, Hoboken, NJ 07030
Peter G. Dominick, W.J. Howe School of Tech-
nology Management, Stevens Institute of Technology;
Allison S. Gabriel, Department of Psychology, The
University of Akron.
In this commentary, we explore what
might be gained by defining potential as
a more emergent and interactive entity as
opposed to understanding it as something
that only resides within a person. Not unlike
the proverbial question about the sound a
falling tree makes if no one is around to
hear it, one might also ask, ‘‘What is poten-
tial that goes unrecognized or unacknowl-
edged?’’ In other words, potential exists not
just because of what an individual (an actor)
does or does not do, but often (although
not exclusively) because of someone else’s
(an observer’s) capacity to perceive their
actions as indicative of potential and their
power to help nurture it into performance.
In presenting this more interactionist per-
spective, our intention is not to contradict
Silzer and Church’s conceptualizations of a
high-potential individual. Rather, we want
to encourage scholars and practitioners to
fully consider how the dynamic nature of
potential informs what it means to develop
not just those with high potential but all
organizational members. Specifically, we
examine the ways in which one’s potential
is perceived and shaped by others (espe-
cially those in managerial positions) in con-
junction with the role one’s environment
plays in creating and bringing forth
potential.
430
Interactionist perspective on identifying potential 431
Do We Ever Create Potential
in Others?
Classic social psychology works such as
McClelland’s (1966) Achieving Society,
Seligman and Maier’s (1967) experiments
on learned helplessness, and Bandura’s
(1977) social learning theory all demon-
strate the role others’ expectations and
examples play in shaping individuals’ inter-
ests, drives, and beliefs about their own
abilities. Therefore, any practical discussion
of how to identify potential has to take into
account the powerful ways in which social
influence processes factor into not just its
manifestation but also its creation.
Although Silzer and Church do acknowl-
edge that self-fulfilling prophecies can play
a role in the identification of potential, we
argue that such processes are profoundly
important to the overall practice of iden-
tifying potential. For instance, others have
the ability to influence a person’s poten-
tial through merely labeling that person as
having potential. This label is likely to have
an even stronger effect when it comes from
an authority figure or organizational leader
(e.g., Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007; Cial-
dini & Goldstein, 2004).
The Pygmalion effect further demonstrates
that others’ perceptions and judgments
also influence third-party perceptions of
an individual’s potential. As Eden (1984)
explained, ‘‘the conventional Pygmalion
paradigm involves duping supervisors on
the basis of partially false information into
believing that certain subordinates have
high potential’’ (p. 69). In depicting this,
Eden and Shani (1982) manipulated trainer
expectations for a sample of adult sol-
diers and found that the trainees who were
labeled prior as having a great expectancy
for high performance during a simulated
training session did, in fact, learn more than
their peers who did not receive a similar
label.
Presumably, there are limits to the trans-
formational effects of one individual’s labels
and beliefs on another’s ability. Regardless,
a more complete understanding of what
it means to accurately identify potential
needs to take into account the dynamic
ways in which expectations and judgments
shape what is manifested and discernable
as potential. Those dynamics should be a
cause for optimism and also caution. We
express optimism in that with the right
kind of social support, many employees
would be capable of more than what might
be immediately apparent. This is not to
imply that organizations and their leaders
need not distinguish between others’ levels
of abilities. Rather, the potency of social
influence only magnifies the importance of
ensuring the information utilized to form
judgments about others is credible, verified,
and complete. After all, there is an element
of perception in the process of identifying
potential. Consequently, the process is as
subject to attribution error as much as any
other.
Further, careful consideration must be
given to the consequences for those not
labeled as high potential. As Silzer and
Church have noted, some organizations
do keep those labels confidential, but in
our experience and as per the Pygmalion
effect, the message still comes across. For
example, Martinko and Gardner (1982), in
their theoretical overview of learned help-
lessness in the workplace, characterized the
ways in which organizational practices can
unintentionally increase passive and mal-
adaptive behavior. One ought to be mindful
of the fact that not being labeled as high
potential might have similar unintended
consequences. Therefore, in our efforts to
separate the ‘‘wheat from the chaff,’’ care
must also be taken to ensure that we do
not actually create more chaff than was
there in the first place. Doing so likely
includes helping managers better discern
situational factors that contribute to a per-
son’s performance and/or their opportunity
to demonstrate talent. It should also include
helping people capitalize on the relevant
strengths they do possess (e.g., Bucking-
ham & Clifton, 2001) and providing them
with regular feedback about the reasons for
their success and failures. Moreover, it helps
to keep in mind that individuals’ growth
needs and trajectories are often dynamic.
432 P.G. Dominick and A.S. Gabriel
As a result, a label designating someone as
having (or not having) high potential may
be more relevant at one point in time than
it is at another.
Ultimately, from both a humanistic
and performance perspective, organiza-
tions have the most to gain by putting
more emphasis on what they do to nur-
ture overall talent. For instance, to the
extent that growth components related to
potential include social cognitive variables,
we also need to understand more about
how promoting a learning culture and
related practices encourage their expres-
sion (e.g., Kraiger, 2003). Cultivating talent
also includes appreciating the role played
by leaders in modeling what it means to be
effective. Arguably, the most important kind
of leadership potential for organizations to
develop is the capacity to help others real-
ize their potential. However, embracing this
view requires somewhat of a paradigm shift.
No longer would an individual in a manage-
ment position be asking, ‘‘How do I identify
who has the most potential?’’ Rather, in
this framework the more important question
becomes ‘‘How do I help others become the
best people I need them to be?’’
Servant leadership (Greenleaf & Spears,
2002) and authentic leadership (Avolio &
Gardner, 2005) are two current models
that strike us as putting more emphasis on
this latter question. As Avolio and Gardner
(2005) stress with respect to authentic lead-
ership, ‘‘environments that provide open
access to information, resources, support,
and equal opportunity for everyone to learn
and develop will empower and enable lead-
ers and their associates to accomplish their
work more effectively’’ (p. 326).
What Shapes Our Capacity
to Recognize Potential?
Even with talent review boards, well-
articulated competency models, and other
mechanisms for screening and monitor-
ing, ensuring consistency in the talent
identification process is a challenging
endeavor. In meeting that challenge, we
must acknowledge that the concept of
potential resides, at least in part, in the eye
of the beholder. This fact draws attention
to interesting questions that have less to do
with what someone is capable of and more
to do to with the nuances of recognizing it.
Consider, for instance, this observation by
a Fortune 500 executive, commenting on
global talent identification in his organiza-
tion: ‘‘We don’t modify the process. Instead,
it is the content that changes between the
various regions’’ (Ryan & Dominick, 2008,
p. 4). What’s more, even if there is a con-
ceptual agreement about what to look for,
cognitive biases and other individual dif-
ference factors will continue to influence
a person’s capacity to recognize potential
and/or how potential is defined for a given
position (e.g., Aguinis, Mazurkiewicz, &
Heggestad, 2009).
Building upon earlier work by Dweck
(1999), Heslin, Latham, and VandeWalle
(2005) demonstrated that managers’ degree
of growth (as opposed to fixed) mindset
made them better able to discern between
good and bad employee performance.
Their findings highlight the important role
individual differences play in detecting
potential and we direct readers to Heslin’s
thoughtful commentary in this issue.
It is also worth considering whether other
individual difference factors derived from
the social cognitive tradition shape a per-
son’s capacity to recognize potential and
develop talent. For example, Silzer and
Church point out that a person’s poten-
tial is closely related to important social
cognitive factors such as locus of control,
self-efficacy, self-esteem, and mastery ori-
entation. How might those same factors
influence a person’s capacity to recognize
potential in others? Might, for example,
individuals with a stronger mastery orien-
tation be more inclined to look for and
support others’ efforts to develop?
We should also examine how self-
awareness relates to one’s capacity to
recognize potential in others. Presumably,
more self-aware individuals are better at
regulating the extent to which certain per-
ceptual biases influence their judgments of
others’ potential, and they might be better
Interactionist perspective on identifying potential 433
able to recognize that high potential means
something different than what they them-
selves are like. Self-awareness might also
help individuals better discern potential
even when viewing it through other filters
that can include, for example, cultural, eth-
nic, gender, and generational differences.
Conclusion
Silzer and Church have aptly noted that the
identification of potential is an area toward
which the field of industrial–organizational
(I–O) psychology has already contributed
and can continue to do so. We agree, but
have further stressed that it is not enough to
just focus on what we should be looking for
in others. A more complete understanding
of how to identify potential comes from
viewing it as an interactive experience
shaped by social influence, context, and
personal biases.
In closing, we want to stress one more
‘‘potential’’ benefit that can come from
advancing our understanding and experi-
ence of potential. Recently, others have
argued that I–O psychologists should look
to expand their image by doing more to
incorporate humanistic models into their
scientist–practitioner paradigm (Gillespie,
2009; Lefkowitz, 2008). We too would
agree, and it is hard to imagine any topic
better suited to the objective than the study
of talent and potential. It clearly represents
one area in which attempts to advance orga-
nizational performance can clearly intersect
with efforts to help individuals lead fuller
lives.
References
Aguinis, H., Mazurkiewicz, E. D., & Heggestad, E. D.
(2009). Using web-based frame of reference
training to decrease biases in personality-based job
analysis: An experimental field study. Personnel
Psychology, 62, 405–438.
Avolio, B., & Gardner, W. (2005). Authentic leader-
ship development: Getting to the root of positive
forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16,
315–338.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York:
General Learning Press.
Buckingham, M. A., & Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now
discover your strengths. New York: The Free Press.
Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence
of leaders’ and other referents’ normative expecta-
tions on individual involvement in creative work.
The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 35–48.
Cialdini, R., & Goldstein, N. (2004). Social influence:
Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 591–621.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in moti-
vation, personality, and development. Philadel-
phia: Psychology Press.
Eden, D. (1984). Self-fulfilling prophecy as a manage-
ment tool: Harnessing Pygmalion. The Academy of
Management Review, 9, 64–73.
Eden, D., & Shani, A. (1982). Pygmalion goes to
boot camp: Expectancy, leadership, and trainee
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,
194–199.
Farrell, D., Laboisse, M., Pascal, R., Rosenfeld, J., de
Segundo, C., Sturze, S., et al. (2005). The emerging
global labor market. San Francisco: McKinsey
Global Institute.
Gandossy, R., & Effron, M. (2003). Leading the way:
Three truths from the top companies for leaders.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Gillespie, J. (2009). A humanistic viewpoint on use-
inspired motivation research. Industrial and Orga-
nizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and
Practice, 2, 115–117.
Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. C. (2002). Servant leader-
ship: A journey into the nature of legitimate power
and greatness (25th anniversary edition). Mahwah,
NJ: Paulist Press.
Heslin, P. A., Latham, G. P., & VandeWalle, D. (2005).
The effect of implicit person theory on perfor-
mance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90, 842–856.
Kraiger, K. (2003). Perspectives on training and devel-
opment. In W. Borman, D. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski
(Volume Eds.), Industrial and organizational psy-
chology (Vol. 12 of The comprehensive handbook
of psychology, pp. 171–192). London: Wiley.
Lefkowitz, J. (2008). To proposer, organizational psy-
chology should . . . expand the values of organi-
zational psychology to match the quality of its
ethics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29,
439–453.
Martinko, M., & Gardner, W. (1982). Learned helpless-
ness: An alternative explanation for performance
deficits. The Academy of Management Review, 7,
195–204.
McClelland, D. C. (1966). Achievement motivation.
Reprinted in W. E. Natermeyer & J. T. McMahon
(Eds.), Classics of organizational behavior. Long
Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society.
Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company.
Ryan, M. R., & Dominick, P. G. (2008). Leadership
development in accelerated grown markets. Tech-
nical Report. Hoboken, NJ: Stevens Institute of
Technology.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Maier, S. F. (1967). Failure to
escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 74, 1–9.
Silzer, R., & Church, A. H. (2009). The pearls
and perils of identifying potential. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on
Science and Practice, 2, 377–412.


Two Sides to the Story: An Interactionist Perspective on Identifying Potential

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=3733FE755FCB0FA9F670D3529609E8DB?doi=10.1.1.1054.389&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Two Sides to the Story: An Interactionist Perspective on Identifying Potential

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CiteSeerX