There is, almost certainly, going to be something in this book you object to. The problem is that there are certain behaviours, activities and results that are desirable in particular times, societies and environments . . . and not in others. There are certain things that make people successful at work that may cause difficulties in other areas of life. Similarly, there can be qualities that make someone an excellent friend, but a terrible boss. A brilliant accountant but a terrible counsellor. A sublime performer but a lacking conversationalist. The problem of potential is always a question of what kind of potential do you mean? Many people believe that a leader of a massive company or country is the pinnacle of achievement: success is power.
Others believe that a very different type of achievement is the pinnacle of human achievement. Some stridently announce that art, science, military victory, spiritual awareness, athletic performance, personal power, wealth, happiness, conformity or even extreme suffering (i.e. douleur exquise) is the pinnacle of achievement. The more specific you get about particular types of achievement, the more discriminating people can be. Tchaikovsky once said of Brahms, ‘What a giftless bastard’. Others will disagree.
Our purpose in this book is not to say what is valuable, socially desirable, or to say potential is a specific behaviour or accomplishment. That would be an error. Instead, we see potential as a probability or likelihood to behave in a particular way. That means high potential at work can be seen as a high probability to be successful at a particular type of work, and will likely lead to exceptional performance in a particular area (but not always). Potential is a bet, but not a guarantee. But it is based on an extremely important set of traits and characteristics. The probability of performance can also mean people with ‘low’ potential in a certain area may still perform well in that area, under exceptional circumstances – but exceptions are by no means the rule.
Make decisions based on potential, on probabilities, but leave room for people to surprise you – give people the benefit of the doubt, and the occasional opportunity to prove you wrong. Not everyone will surprise you, but it’s worth waiting for the person who will. Uniformed decisions in favour of, or against, people lead to frequent errors. As we discuss in this book, there are very many factors that contribute to potential. In many cases, being ‘average’ is a strength. Yet, as positions get more demanding, responsibilities are greater, consequences of failure become more dire, scrutiny becomes more important. Exceptionality is also abnormality – with all the implied strengths and weaknesses.The more demanding the position, the more particular the requirements.
Also, remember that the focus of this book is on potential at work. The characteristics one would use to evaluate an employee or boss are not the same one should use to judge the personal relationship with a partner, lover, friend, parent or child. We will describe the components of potential at work, while the question remains for you, dear reader, to name the potential to do what.
That is, in fact the purpose of this book: to provide a framework for describing potential at work along with some of the key attributes. These attributes are based on the best available scientific evidence and applied research. This is a framework, an efficient way of describing and thinking about potential, within a particular structure.
That being said, only one point remains before moving from the preface into the very real face of this book – and that is to recognise the contributions. Just as potential does not exist without someone defining potential to do what, and many others developing potential. Likewise, this book would not exist without many contributions. Heather Stewart, Lloyd Craig, Ken Whittall, Matthew Griffiths, Jessica Weaving, Róisín O’Connor, Kamilla Bahbahani, Cherie Mandoli, Brendan MacRae, Rebecca Milner, Luke Treglown, John Taylor and Alison Lui all contributed directly (whether knowingly or unknowingly) to the content in these pages.