Leadership Potential Isn’t Fixed, It’s Shaped by Who’s Looking

Two years ago, an operator was told she wasn’t “management material.” But only six months later – new manager, new opportunity – she was leading a cross-site safety improvement project.

Her potential didn’t change. The lens did.

In chemical facilities, we monitor pressure to the decimal. We track every deviation in flow, temperature and system response. But when it comes to people — especially how we judge their potential — we’re often running on hunches, habit and hierarchy.

“High potential.” “Leadership material.” “Not quite ready.” These phrases are all too common in the workplace, but the problem is that potential is not an objective fact. It’s a perception, and like any perception, it’s shaped by environment, culture and bias.

The Myth of Fixed Potential

Often, potential is treated like a binary status – either you’ve got it, or you don’t. Real potential, however, is dynamic. It shows up under the right conditions, it grows with the right support and it can be completely missed in the wrong environment.

In project and engineering-based industries, we tend to value technical competence over career development conversations. If someone is reliable, capable and low-maintenance, we reward them by leaving them exactly where they are.

Meanwhile, those who advocate for themselves, network visibly or mirror leadership styles get fast-tracked. That’s not meritocracy. That’s a mirror test.

In due course, when leadership changes – when a new project manager arrives or an asset team rotates – it is common for an individual’s career prospects to shift dramatically. This is not because their skills changed, but because someone saw them differently.

Who Sees Potential?

Let’s talk about the subjectivity. When a leader says “I see potential in her,” what are they actually seeing? More often than not:

• Confidence (which we mistake for competence)
• Communication style (especially verbal fluency in meetings)
• Likability and relatability (which are deeply shaped by shared background or values)
• Familiarity (we tend to trust what looks familiar)

These are not necessarily indicators of long-term success, especially in a high-risk, complex facility. However, they are easy shortcuts when time is tight, and decisions are informal. The result? Brilliant team members can be passed over simply because they don’t “look the part.”

The Danger in High-Stakes Environments

In a chemical plant or engineering project, performance is often easier to measure than potential. You can track uptime and quantify errors, but unfortunately, a P&ID cannot be used to determine a person’s career trajectory! We therefore fall back on opinions.

In high-stakes environments — where safety and stability are essential — we tend to play it safe with people decisions. We give stretch assignments to those we’ve seen perform under pressure. This makes sense until you realize that many others never get the chance to prove themselves in the first place.

But what if we’re only measuring potential by how well someone performs when everything is already in their favor?

A Better Way to Spot Talent

Instead of relying on gut instinct or previous exposure, what if we identified potential based on behaviors?

Here are a few to look for:

• Influencing without authority: Can this person bring others on board even when they do not have formal power?
• Problem-solving under pressure: Do they think clearly and creatively when things go wrong?
• Resilience after setbacks: Do they bounce back and learn fast?
• Team trust: Do others go to them for help or advice?

These are observable, testable indicators that do not require a title. They offer a much fairer way to spot future leaders and technical experts compared with a subjective opinion. However, recognizing this kind of potential takes intentional effort. It requires organizations to move away from “manager knows best” to “let’s check our assumptions.”

What Leaders Can Do Differently

If you are a project or operations leader reading this, here’s how you can break the cycle:

• Double-check your criteria: Is your definition of “potential” based on personality traits or on performance patterns?
• Widen the input: Include peers, other supervisors and even team members when discussing talent. Who do they trust and follow?
• Track stretch opportunities: Who is getting them, and who is consistently overlooked?
• Ask this in 1:1s: “What would you want to lead if I had your back?”

You might be surprised by what people are capable of — once they know someone believes in them.

If the only people being recognized are those who “speak up in meetings” or “act like leaders,” you are not measuring potential — you are measuring performance in a very narrow window.

In chemical processing, risk is best managed when we broaden our view. The same goes for people.