redactedA compelling discussion emerged in my class last week that I haven't been able to shake. One of my students, an executive at a mid-sized business, shared a hiring dilemma that perfectly crystallized something I've been thinking about for years: the profound difference between evaluating talent and developing it. The Tale of the Uncertain Assistant Manager My student described interviewing candidates to replace a departing general manager. Among the contenders was an internal candidate, an assistant manager who had been with the company for years. On paper, she seemed ideal: she knew the business inside and out, understood the company culture, and had demonstrated competence in her current role. But there was a catch. Unlike the external candidates who projected unwavering confidence (whether warranted or not), this assistant manager expressed genuine uncertainty about her readiness for the promotion. And her colleagues, who knew both her strengths and her weaknesses intimately, weren't exactly rallying behind her with unbridled enthusiasm. As my student described the situation, I could feel the familiar tension that exists in so many leadership decisions, the pull between expediency and development. And I couldn't help but wonder: What if the real problem wasn't the candidate's readiness but the framework being used to evaluate her? Fixed Mindset vs. Growth Mindset in Leadership The executive viewed this assistant manager through what psychologist Carol Dweck would call a "fixed mindset" lens—seeing her capabilities as static rather than evolving. He was asking: "Is she ready right now?" rather than "Could she become ready with the right support?" This gets to the heart of a critical distinction in leadership philosophy: the belief that someone is who they are today and will always be that way, versus the belief that who they are today is not fixed, but rather that the person is capable of developing given a shared commitment between them and their leader. This development absolutely requires commitment from the individual. But it can be enhanced, accentuated, and encouraged by their leader, sometimes dramatically. This got me thinking about how fundamentally different leadership looks when we approach it with a growth mindset. The questions transform: "Who is the best candidate today?" becomes "Who has the potential to grow into someone remarkable?" "What are their weaknesses?" becomes "What developmental opportunities could we create together?" "Can they handle this responsibility?" becomes "How can we prepare them to thrive with this responsibility?" I challenged my student with some uncomfortable questions: What if he had approached her development months ago with the belief that she could grow into the general manager role? How might his actions have differed if he had been actively preparing her for this opportunity? Would he have communicated career prospects more clearly, identified skill gaps together, and created experiences to build her confidence and competence? The silence that followed told me everything I needed to know. Recruiting as Development, Not Just Selection This scenario highlights a critical shift that needs to happen in how we think about recruiting and promoting talent. At its best, the evaluation process shouldn't just be about selecting the "most qualified" candidate in a static sense. It should be about: 1. Assessing a candidate's current strengths 2. Identifying gaps between their current abilities and what they need for near-term success 3. Understanding the distance between where they are and where they ultimately want to be in their career 4. Having frank conversations about these gaps 5. Developing specific plans to close them through learning, experience, and mentorship When we make closing these gaps an explicit component of someone's experience with the company—and a commitment from their manager—we transform the relationship from transactional to developmental. The Attribution Question: Who's Responsible for Failure? What struck me most about this scenario was the attribution of success and failure. There's an interesting tendency in business: when someone succeeds, we attribute it to their inherent capabilities, ignoring contextual contributions. When they fail, we still attribute it to their inherent capabilities. If you succeed, you’re special; if you fail, you’re not. I believe companies, teams, and businesses would be better served by leadership that adopts a different perspective: that anyone's failure to achieve should be first attributed to the success or failure of their manager, their leader, their mentor in facilitating the necessary development for success. Many of us have this habit of creating sink-or-swim situations. And when the person inevitably sinks rather than swims, we let ourselves off the hook by saying, "Well, somewhere along the line in my career, I was put in a similar circumstance and I succeeded. So I know it can be done, and this person didn't make it. That's on them." But that feels like a cop-out. I'm not suggesting helicopter management or that everyone will succeed given the right support. I am suggesting the adoption of a mentor’s mindset (thank you, David Yeager, PhD) whereby you create demanding standards for someone while simultaneously committing to creating the conditions that allow them to meet those demanding standards. And some of those conditions include fostering the self-belief required for sustained effort. In this particular instance, I found the conversation disappointing because research has empirically demonstrated that internal candidates typically outperform external hires for leadership positions. A study published in Organization Science by researchers from Cornell University's ILR School found that "internal hires had greater objectively measured performance than their external hire counterparts." Their research not only showed better performance but also higher retention rates, noting that "the highest performing internal hires tend to stay the longest, while the highest performing external hires tend to leave more quickly." Similarly, Wharton School professor Matthew Bidwell's research discovered that "external hires get significantly lower performance evaluations for their first two years on the job than do internal workers who are promoted into similar jobs." And yet, despite this performance gap, organizations often pay external hires substantially more. Yet this person, who was quite vulnerable in expressing her own self-doubt about fulfilling the role's needs, was being dismissed rather than developed. The Revelation: Leadership as Active Development I've come to believe that creating conditions for success means fostering an environment where team members can continuously grow and ascend in their careers. Leaders must invest in their people's development, ensuring they are prepared and confident when new opportunities arise. This isn't just nice-to-have; it's essential. In today's complex business environment, no one is ever "ready" in a complete sense. We're all works in progress, constantly adapting to new challenges and opportunities. The most effective leaders recognize this reality and embrace their role as developers of human potential. What if my student had approached his assistant manager six months ago and said: "I see GM potential in you. Let's work together to prepare you for that opportunity when it arises." Imagine how different the conversation might be today. There might be appropriate confidence instead of uncertainty. Instead of colleagues seeing only her current limitations, they might recognize her growth trajectory. Most importantly, instead of evaluating her based on a snapshot of her capabilities, the company would be investing in her ongoing evolution. That's the kind of leadership that builds not just successful organizations, but people who continue to surprise themselves with what they can accomplish. A Call to Action If this resonates with you, I'd love to hear about your experiences developing talent rather than simply evaluating it. Have you seen the transformative effects of a growth mindset in leadership? Or perhaps you've experienced the frustration of a fixed mindset approach. I'm particularly passionate about helping organizations build developmental hiring processes—ones that identify potential rather than just current capabilities, and that create clear pathways for growth from day one. If you want to learn more about implementing this developmental approach in your own leadership practice or organization, DM me. I'd be happy to share specific frameworks and methodologies that have helped my clients successfully make this shift. Remember: The best leaders don't just select talent. They develop it. References: • Rissing, B.A., & Benson, Aredacted). "Strength from Within: Internal Mobility and the Retention of High Performers." Organization Science. • Bidwell, Mredacted). "Paying More to Get Less: The Effects of External Hiring versus Internal Mobility." Administrative Science Quarterly.