Simply the best? Star performers and high‐potential employees: Critical reflections and a path forward for research and practice

Abstract

In recent decades, scholars' and practitioners' interest in star performers and high-potential employees (HiPos) has increased dramatically. To date, however, researchers have considered these two classifications of exceptional talent in relative isolation of one another, despite the fact that they are widely considered to comprise organizations' most valuable employees. The current article identifies and explores key intersections in the heretofore-siloed streams of research on star employees and HiPos. In so doing, we identify core assumptions, highlight questions that emerge at focal intersections, and offer a foundation for the crossfertilization of insights to strengthen the scholarly and practical impact of inquiry related to both groups. We then consider the implications of four significant recent trends in the world of work -increased employee mobility; greater focus on issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace; cross-cultural issues; and the broader set of technological changes that are shaping the workplace -for research and practice related to stars and HiPos.Along the way, we highlight the integral and path-breaking contributions of publications in Personnel Psychology to our knowledge about organizations' best talent.

Above the law? How motivated moral reasoning shapes evaluations of high performer unethicality.

“…Studies have identified nuanced effects that can stem from employees’ success at work, such as greater victimization (Campbell et al, 2017; Jensen et al, 2014) and contingent impact on peers’ performance (e.g., Downes et al, 2021). Special treatment of high performers has typically been viewed through a strategic lens to recruit and retain them (Kehoe et al, 2022; Rousseau et al, 2006). However, to our knowledge, little research has considered whether high performers also enjoy more favorable evaluations within the domain of ethics.…”

What's in a name? talent: A review and research agenda

“…Considering talent through a matching lens can advance the consideration of talent beyond traditional binary talent definitions, allowing a broader approach to defining and managing talent (Kehoe et al., 2022). Implementing matching requires a greater focus on the different jobs (and required skillsets) in an organization and simultaneously identifying different types of talent, such that the definition of talent expands beyond the core talent pool while recognizing that other employees could also possess valuable skills or potential for contributions at any time point.…”

“…Conversely, the research on stars virtually ignored this question, with a greater focus on output and productivity as an outcome, not on the characteristics that determine it. In summary, although many of the articles failed to address this dimension, paradox thinking offers significant potential as a lens through which to create value (see also Kehoe et al., 2022).…”

“…Being a high potential is closely connected to displaying high performance, and past and current performance are often used as key indicators for predicting future potential (Kehoe et al., 2022; Silzer & Church, 2009). Learning agility has been noted as a stronger predictor of high potential (Dries et al., 2012; Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000).…”

“…Each of the above streams adopts a particular terminology and conceptualization of talent, and although conceptually different, they share commonalities (Kehoe et al., 2022). In scaffolding our review, we built on Dries' (2013) framework of five dimensions (or “tensions”) of talent: inclusive and exclusive, innate and acquired, transferable and context‐dependent, a focus on subject and object, and input and outcomes.…”