Our Take
The piece identifies a design flaw (conflating top performers with high-potential talent) but offers no evidence, benchmarks, or case studies to prove the failure rate or what actually works instead.
Why it matters
HR teams routinely waste budget and management attention on identification systems that select the wrong people. If the criteria are broken from the start, no amount of coaching or mentorship rescues the program.
Do this week
People Ops: audit your high-potential selection rubric this quarter to separate "current performance" from "readiness for next role" before you enroll the next cohort.
The performance-potential mismatch
High-potential employee development programs fail at predictable points. HR Dive reports that one root cause sits upstream: organizations conflate strong individual performance with high-potential status. A top performer in their current role does not automatically signal readiness for advancement, scope expansion, or leadership responsibility.
The article frames this as a foundational design flaw. Programs that begin with unclear or performance-only selection criteria struggle to retain participants, deliver measurable outcomes, or justify their cost.
Selection error cascades through the entire program
If you enroll the wrong people, coaching and mentorship become reactive patches instead of catalysts. A high performer who lacks coachability, appetite for risk, or collaborative orientation will stall in a development program designed for people ready to grow into new domains.
The cost surfaces later: wasted manager time, participant frustration, and a program reputation that dampens future enrollment. By then, the program budget is already allocated and the cohort is already in flight.
Separate performance from potential before screening
Start with explicit criteria that distinguish the two. Performance is backward-looking (current output, reliability, expertise). Potential looks forward (learning velocity, systems thinking, ability to operate in ambiguity, willingness to be managed differently at the next level).
This separation is not novel, but it is consistently overlooked in practice. When selection rubrics treat "exceeds expectations in role" as a proxy for "ready for advancement," you fill programs with people who excel at the wrong things. Conduct a diagnostic audit of your last three cohorts: how many are still in accelerated tracks 18 months later? How many left the organization or plateaued?
Use that data to reset the rubric before the next enrollment cycle. The program itself may be sound. The screener may be the liability.