Ridderprint

Chapter 6 132 6.6.3 Leadership Potential In contrast to Hypotheses 2a and 2b, leadership potential assessments did not affect turnover at either organization and we propose three explanations. First, potential assessments may indeed not affect turnover. Prior studies that found improved commitment and retention among high potentials did often not control for performance evaluations and employed a cross-sectional design (e.g., Björkman et al., 2013; Dries et al., 2012). Our longitudinal results did demonstrate the same positive effect of potential ratings, but only when performance evaluations and STIA were not considered. Once these other important predictors were included, potential ratings no longer influenced retention in our study. Hence, prior research might have mistakenly attributed improved retention to potential status whereas its actual cause was a confounding variable, such as performance evaluation, affecting both employees’ potential ratings and their retention. Second, opposing effects may be at play. Favorable potential assessments lead to increased employability resources, causing employees to perceive more and more easily attainable career opportunities (Dries et al., 2014). However, these opportunities may not necessarily lie within the current organization (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2011). If talents perceive more opportunities in- and outside of their current organization, this could result in a zero-net retention effect, which explains why we, and others before us (e.g., Dries et al., 2014), have not found increased loyalty among high potentials. Finally, the relationship between potential and turnover may depend on the perceived or received rewards. Although both talent management policies stated that additional developmental opportunities were given to high potential employees (e.g., access to specific courses), career progression was not guaranteed in either organization. Consumer Goods documentation stated that “being listed [as High Potential] is no guarantee of a bigger opportunity […] and this can prove frustrating ” (2017, p. 71). Similarly, over half of Shell’s trainees was assessed with potential for upper or executive management already in their first cycle. This proportion is nowhere near the number of open leadership positions at those organizational levels. Nevertheless, high potentials may interpret their talent status as a promise by their organization (King, 2016). Not meeting these expectations could cause talents to leave. High potentials may become convinced of their own capabilities, perceive opportunities on the external market, and thus seek alternatives if they are not rewarded according to their expectations. 6.6.4 Short-term International Assignment STIA affected trainees’ turnover in more complex ways than expected. In line with Hypothesis 3a, employees on STIA were 2.5 to 3.8 times less likely to leave, at Consumer Goods and at Shell, respectively. The challenging overseas roles may have fostered personal and professional growth on which young professionals willingly capitalized. Simultaneously, assignees may have perceived increased barriers to turnover as the overseas move increased their psychological investment in the job and organization. Turnover during STIA would have implied a loss of the developmental opportunities and the associated status, making termination costly from financial, career, and psychological perspectives.