Every organisation loves a rising star. The one marked early, moved faster, stretched harder and spoken about in succession meetings with quiet certainty. High-potential frameworks promise clarity in an uncertain future—but they also create an uncomfortable imbalance. While a chosen few are groomed for what’s next, an entire ecosystem of steady performers keeps the business running today.
The question leaders are beginning to ask is no longer whether high potentials matter—but whether the premium placed on them has begun to crowd out the very people who deliver year after year.
Gautam Srivastava, Group CHRO, The Phoenix Mills
In India, the focus on high-potential talent is important—but often overstated.
The confusion between performance and potential is where organisations go wrong. Performance is success in today’s role. Potential is the ability to handle greater complexity, ambiguity and scale. They’re related, but not the same—and mistaking one for the other leads to skewed decisions.
Assessing potential must go beyond outcomes. It needs to include learning agility, engagement, skill depth and the ability to move across roles, functions or geographies. At the same time, we must recognise India’s realities—mobility is often shaped by family responsibilities and social structures, not lack of ambition.
Consistent performers, especially in long-tenure and relationship-driven Indian organisations, are invaluable. They bring stability, continuity and deep organisational memory. Their loyalty and sustained delivery create long-term value that no fast-track programme can replace.
The answer isn’t choosing between acceleration and stability. It’s building a learning ecosystem where both can coexist. Potential should be seen as dynamic, not exclusive—and talent systems must reward continuity as much as they celebrate speed.
Takeaway: Performance and potential aren’t the same—systems must reward both the continuity of steady performers and the promise of rising stars.
Aniruddha Khekale, Group CHRO, Waaree Group
Yes, the emphasis on high-potential talent is often overestimated.
I’ve seen organisations almost romanticise high-potential talent—as future growth czars who, with the right coaching and exposure, will change the business trajectory. That belief isn’t wrong, but it becomes problematic when it sidelines the steady contributors who form the organisation’s backbone.
The reality is that these are two very different talent segments and they cannot be developed using the same lens. High-potential talent thrives on stretch—on ambiguity, risk and high-impact assignments. Give them transformation projects, new market entries or complex turnarounds. Their growth comes from exposure and accountability.
But the second group—the silent majority—grows very differently. Their impact comes from discipline and depth. They improve processes, reduce waste, enhance quality, strengthen controls and drive incremental gains in productivity, safety and customer experience. These improvements may seem small in isolation, but they compound over time.
The mistake organisations make is evaluating apples and oranges using the same framework. Traditional performance-versus-potential grids almost automatically score steady performers low on potential, which is unfair and inaccurate. For high potentials, we should measure realised potential versus proven execution. For consistent performers, it should be sustained performance versus incremental contribution.
Balance isn’t optional—it’s what keeps organisations delivering today while building for tomorrow.
Takeaway: High potentials and steady performers require different development lenses—measuring them with the same framework creates unfair outcomes and organisational imbalance.
Yuvaraj Srivastava, Group CHRO, MakeMyTrip
I fundamentally struggle with rigid high-potential frameworks.
The moment you categorise people into HiPo and non-HiPo buckets, you risk damaging the very ethos of the organisation. Over-structuring talent identification can do more harm than good—especially if you get it wrong.
In my experience, high potentials don’t need a framework to stand out or get identified. They naturally do. Most frameworks simply act as validation tools—ways to reassure ourselves that we aren’t biased. But they come with their own defects, biases, and blind spots. Sometimes, seasoned judgement from leaders who’ve spent real time with teams is far more accurate than any matrix.
Context matters enormously. In niche industries—defence, space research, advanced R&D—everyone is expected to be high potential. If they aren’t, they won’t survive. In such environments, frameworks are redundant. Talent strategy must reflect the business and the talent market, not generic HR playbooks. Organisations prefer to retain and invest on talent which is high performing and aligned to the Org culture. No one wants to hire and retain, “Brilliant Jerk”, who may be talented and high on potential but lacks basics of attitude and character.
At MakeMyTrip, we recognise something else very deliberately—the Bunker category. These are people with deep institutional knowledge, proven success, and unwavering loyalty. They may not always be flashy, but they are the ones you’d take into the bunker during shelling. They protect the organisation, sustain morale, and keep the engine running when things fall apart. Bunker category may have people of all sorts including typical high potentials as well as solid citizens and performers.
During COVID, this became crystal clear. Our bunker employees held the fort, worked on unglamorous but critical tasks, counselled and mentored team members and embodied the organisation’s values when business momentum was at its lowest. We treat them differently—sometimes even on par with HiPos—because while high potentials drive the future, bunker talent ensures survival. Ignore them, and you weaken the spine of the organisation.
Takeaway: Rigid HiPo frameworks can damage organisational culture—recognising ‘bunker talent’ who ensure survival is as critical as identifying future stars.