Consulting Psychology Journal

© 2022 American Psychological Association 2022, Vol. 74, No. 3, 237–252

ISSN: 1065-9293 https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000238

LEARNING AGILITY AS A KEY DRIVER

OF LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL FOR
TALENT IDENTIFICATION, PIPELINE
DEVELOPMENT, AND SUCCESSION
PLANNING IN ORGANIZATIONS
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Allan H. Church1 and Gina A. Seaton2

1
SVP Global Talent Management, PepsiCo, Inc., Purchase, New York, United States
2
Senior Director Global Talent Management, PepsiCo, Inc., Purchase, New York,
United States

Learning agility is a core element of any successful talent-management (TM) system.

Decades of research in both academic and applied domains have demonstrated the critical
role that learning from experience plays in predicting both leader performance and potential.
Although many organizations recognize the importance of learning agility and are using it
for different TM-related purposes, several issues in the extant literature can make it difficult
for practitioners to find the right emphasis or the most useful application for their respective
organizations. The purpose of this article is to address some of these challenges and provide
greater clarity for applied psychologists working in this area by summarizing the literature
and discussing the application of learning agility specifically as it relates to several core TM
practices. First, we review the history and research on learning agility in the context of
understanding current leadership performance and future capabilities. Next, we discuss the
application of learning agility as it relates to key practice areas for TM professionals and
consulting psychologists: (a) identifying high-potential talent at multiple career stages, (b)
developing a longer-term pipeline of future leaders (i.e., leadership bench), and (c) building
robust succession plans and slates of candidates for staffing senior-leadership roles (i.e.,
focusing on bench strength). We conclude with suggestions for future research.

What’s It Mean? Implications for Consulting Psychology

This article focuses on the construct of learning agility and how it can be used to
enhance the quality and scientific rigor of talent-management processes in organizations.
Taking an internal-practice perspective, applications for learning agility in high-potential
identification, leadership-pipeline development, and succession planning are discussed.
Consulting psychologists should find this discussion helpful when seeking to improve
leadership and talent-management efforts in organizational settings.

Allan H. Church https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0913-1758

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Allan H. Church, SVP Global Talent
Management, PepsiCo Inc., 700 Anderson Hill Road, Purchase, NY 10577, United States. Email: [email protected]

237
 238 CHURCH AND SEATON

Keywords: learning agility, high-potential, leadership development, assessment, succes-

sion planning

The ability and willingness to learn from experience and then apply those lessons to perform well in new
and challenging leadership situations (Harvey & De Meuse, 2021)—or stated more simply, learning agility
(Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000)—are arguably core elements of any successful talent-management (TM)
system (Church, 2021). Decades of research in both academic and applied domains have demonstrated the
critical role that learning from experience plays in predicting both leader performance and potential (e.g.,
De Meuse, 2017, 2019; Dries et al., 2012; McCall, 1988; Silzer & Church, 2010). Indeed, most mainstream
high-potential frameworks include the concept of learning in some capacity (e.g., Church & Silzer, 2014;
Conger & Church, 2018; Finkelstein et al., 2018; Hoff & Burke, 2017; MacRae & Furnham, 2014;
Silzer & Church, 2009; Thornton et al., 2017). It is also one of the few shared underlying values of both
TM and organizational-development (OD) processes and interventions (Church et al., 2018).
For example, recent benchmark studies (e.g., Church & Rotolo, 2013; Church et al., 2015;
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

McHenry & Church, 2018) of large organizations with a dedicated focus on development and robust
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

TM systems have reported multiple ways in which feedback and learning from critical experiences
(e.g., promotions, lateral moves or expanded accountabilities in-role, cross-functional and cross-
business assignments, special projects and task forces, action learning, and externships) are
imbedded in their processes for leadership and executive development (see Figure 1). Consolidating
findings across studies, 92% of these organizations reported basing their talent philosophy on the

Figure 1
Key Findings From Benchmark Studies Concerning the Use of Critical Experiences

Note. Data in this figure are from: “How are top companies assessing their high-potentials and senior execu-
tives? A talent management benchmark study,” by A. H. Church and C. T. Rotolo, 2013, Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65(3), 199–223. Copyright (2013) by the American Psychological
Association. Adapted under APA Fair Use; “How are top companies designing and managing their high-
potential programs? A follow-up talent management benchmark study,” by A. H. Church, C. T. Rotolo,
N. M., Ginther, and R. Levine, R., 2015, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 67(1),
17–47. Copyright (2015) by the American Psychological Association. Adapted under APA Fair Use; and
“Leadership development programs: Current state and state-of-the-art,” by J. J., McHenry and A. H. Church
(2018), Pre-Conference Workshop delivered at the 33nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology (SIOP), April 18th, Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (2018) by J. J. McHenry and A. H.
Church. Adapted with permission.
 LEARNING AGILITY, TALENT MANAGEMENT, AND SUCCESSION 239

classic 70-20-10 model of development (70% from experiences, 20% from feedback and coaching,
and 10% from formal training). Further, 70% emphasize experiences to support leader development,
with 54% formally embedding targeted learning experiences in talent-planning processes and 44%
going as far as matching experiences to individual leaders (also known as assignmentology; see
Lombardo & Eichinger, 2001). Together, these data suggest that the measurement and development
of learning agility (or some variation of it) in leadership is central to most strategic TM efforts
(Milani et al., 2021).
While many organizations recognize the importance of learning agility and are using it for dif-
ferent TM-related purposes, several issues in the extant literature can make it difficult for practi-
tioners to find the right emphasis or the most useful application for their respective organizations.
Over the past 20 years the concept of learning agility has been defined in a variety of ways with a
host of different subdimensions and underlying facets (see De Meuse, 2017, for a review). There
remains no singular unified or recognized definition of learning agility or agreement on how best to
measure it (DeRue et al., 2012; Harvey & De Meuse, 2021; Silzer & Church, 2010), and some
debate remains about whether it is distinct from other factors (DeRue et al., 2012; Thornton et al.,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2017)—that is, whether it is a metacompetency. Although recent work (Dai & De Meuse, 2021) has
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

been done to further refine a learning-agility framework that is grounded in theory and whose facets
can more easily be operationalized and measured, there is more work to be done from an applied-
consulting perspective. For example, which aspects of TM can benefit the most from the use of
learning agility as an indicator (or behavioral manifestation) of future potential? In other words,
what are the ways in which consulting psychologists can assist their internal and external clients in
taking full advantage of the construct to improve their short- and long-term leadership pipelines?
This is an area where consulting psychologists can leverage their expertise to help improve the cli-
ent’s processes and systems.
The purpose of this article is to summarize the literature and discuss the application of learning
agility specifically as it relates to several core TM practices. For context, learning agility is defined
here as “the ability and willingness to learn from experience, and then apply those lessons to perform
well in new and challenging leadership situations” (Harvey & De Meuse, 2021). First, we review the
history and research on learning agility in the context of understanding current leadership perform-
ance and future capabilities. Next, we discuss the application of learning agility as it relates to key
practice areas for TM professionals and consulting psychologists: (a) identifying high-potential talent
at multiple career stages, (b) developing a longer-term pipeline of future leaders (i.e., leadership
bench), and (c) building robust succession plans and slates of candidates for staffing senior-leadership
roles (i.e., focusing on bench strength). We conclude with suggestions for future research.

History of Learning Agility and Overview of Research

The origins of learning as an individual psychological variable used to evaluate successful in-role
performance in organizational settings dates to assessments performed in the military and the assess-
ment-center work in the 1980s at AT&T (Bray & Grant, 1966; De Meuse et al., 2010; Jeanneret &
Silzer, 1998; Scott & Reynolds, 2010). It was the applied research done in the 1980s, however, as a
collaboration between scientists at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) and several key organ-
izations including General Electric, American Express, and PepsiCo that ushered in the current era
of “lessons of experience” (McCall et al., 1988; McCauley & McCall, 2014). In those studies, data
collected from quantitative and qualitative sources on the careers of hundreds of leaders identified
experiential learning as the key driver of success, whereas a lack of willingness to adapt and change
was determined to be a primary derailer. These findings about the importance of challenging, stretch
assignments for development (e.g., often experiences that include unfamiliar or increased responsi-
bilities, change, managing across boundaries, or dealing with diversity; see McCall, 1998; Ohlott,
2004; Swisher et al., 2013; Yip & Wilson, 2010), combined with the right motivation or mind-set
(e.g., Dweck, 2006), have been guiding human-resource (HR) and TM practices ever since. Subse-
quently, examples from organizations such as PepsiCo (Church & Waclawski, 2010), Siemens
(Ruddy & Anand, 2010), and many others (e.g., McCauley & McCall, 2014; Silzer & Dowell,
 240 CHURCH AND SEATON

2010) have shown the prominence that key experiences (or critical experiences, as many organiza-
tions refer to them as today) play in the way they think about and move individuals as part of talent
processes.
The role of one’s ability and willingness to learn from experiences in determining future leader-
ship potential began soon after with early research on the identification of future international exec-
utives (McCall, 1994; Spreitzer et al., 1997), where it was operationalized as taking advantage of
experiences offered (McCall, 1994). Based on data collected from 838 managers across multiple
levels from six different firms, results indicated that learning agility significantly predicted the like-
lihood of being classified as a high-potential and this was above and beyond other factors (e.g., gen-
eral competency ratings). Using a different measure of learning agility, Lombardo and Eichinger
(2000) found similar results in their study of over 200 manager-employee pairs across six compa-
nies where learning agility was predictive of manager ratings of potential regardless of level, gen-
der, age, or line-versus-staff functions. These authors all generally concluded that learning agility
can be used as a means of assessing future leadership potential.
However, it was not until 2000 that the term learning agility was coined by Lombardo and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Eichinger (2000), two of the original researchers involved in the CCL research. The concept was
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

initially defined using four different facets: people agility, mental agility, change agility, and results
agility. These facets were commercialized into various self-rating and multirater tools for feedback
(e.g., viaEDGE, Choices) and used for leadership development and decision-making in organiza-
tional settings (De Meuse, 2017; Swisher et al., 2013). Over the years, this framework and the mea-
surement tools associated with it have continued to evolve, and other models have emerged such as
the TALENTx7 (De Meuse, 2017) and the Burke Learning Agility Inventory (LAI; Burke et al.,
2016; Hoff & Burke, 2017). Dai and De Meuse (2021) and Harvey and De Meuse (2021) have also
presented theoretical models of learning agility.
With the increase in attention on the concept of learning agility and the emergence of several
competitive models and measurement tools, there has been accompanying growth in empirical
research about its relationship to both performance and potential. Reviews of both the current aca-
demic (De Meuse et al., 2010; DeRue et al., 2012; Dries et al., 2012; Finkelstein et al., 2018; Silzer
& Church, 2009, 2010) and practitioner literatures (e.g., Conger & Church, 2018; Hoff & Burke,
2017; McCauley & McCall, 2014; Swisher et al., 2013) have suggested there is considerable agree-
ment that individuals who have and leverage the capacity to learn from their surroundings and expe-
riences have the potential to become more successful in the long term.
Recent meta-analyses by De Meuse (2017, 2019) have reviewed these findings in depth, while
also highlighting the research challenges that remain. Based on 20 studies using a variety of differ-
ent instruments, and data collected from almost 5,000 employees, De Meuse (2019) reported the
overall relationship between learning agility and leader success (defined largely by managerial rat-
ings of performance or potential) as r = .47, p , .001. Breaking the results down further, he reported
a correlation of r = .47 across those studies measuring performance, and r = .48 for the studies that
included leadership potential as an outcome variable (both significant at p , .001). Similar positive
findings have been reported in technical reports by others as well (e.g., Burke, 2018) with a number
of different samples. In short, even across different instruments and models of learning agility, the
data point to a strong relationship between learning agility and managerial ratings of performance
and potential. Whether this is called learning agility, learning ability, (see Silzer & Church, 2009),
learning capability, or catalytic learning (see Conger & Church, 2018), the apparent utility from a
TM and leadership-development perspective remains the same.

Learning Agility as a Key Component of TM

In view of the fundamental nature of the research describing how successful executives learn from
their experiences, and the increasing empirical evidence about the relationship between learning
agility and both performance and potential ratings, it is not surprising that leaders and HR professio-
nals have embraced the concept. Recent benchmark research conducted with top development
organizations has established that learning agility is often a focus of assessments used for
 LEARNING AGILITY, TALENT MANAGEMENT, AND SUCCESSION 241

identifying, developing, and confirming leadership potential (see Church & Rotolo, 2016; Church et al.,
2015; McHenry & Church, 2018). Specifically, 56% of the companies surveyed reported incorporating
learning agility in their assessment batteries for identifying or confirming high-potential talent, and 51%
reported leveraging it as part of their processes for assessing executive talent (see Figure 2).
Many current models of leadership potential (e.g., Church & Silzer, 2014; Conger & Church,
2018; Finkelstein et al., 2018; MacRae & Furnham, 2014; Silzer & Church, 2009) conceptualize
learning agility as one facet rather than the sole indicator. However, from an applied-TM perspec-
tive, learning agility can be used in connection with a variety of other tools across the employee life
cycle. In the following paragraphs we explore three key areas where learning agility can be applied
to improve the identification and development of future leaders for succession planning and long-
term pipeline development.

Future-Potential Identification
One of the most promising approaches based on the original research on the lessons of experience
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

and on more recent studies (including meta-analytic findings; see De Meuse, 2019) is to leverage
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

the concept of learning agility as part of a suite of tools designed to identify future leadership poten-
tial in early to midcareer employees. As an important facet of many potential models, integrating a
measure of learning agility or some form of the capability should help increase the predictive power
of identifying those employees with greater capacity to learn and be high-potential. Given that 64%

Figure 2
Key Findings From Benchmark Studies Concerning Concerning High-Potential Talent
Identification and Succession

Note. Data in this figure are from: “How are top companies assessing their high-potentials and senior
executives? A talent management benchmark study,” by A. H. Church and C. T. Rotolo, 2013,
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65(3), 199–223. Copyright (2013) by the
American Psychological Association. Adapted under APA Fair Use; “How are top companies designing
and managing their high-potential programs? A follow-up talent management benchmark study,” by A.
H. Church, C. T. Rotolo, N. M., Ginther, and R. Levine, R., 2015, Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 67(1), 17–47. Copyright (2015) by the American Psychological Association.
Adapted under APA Fair Use; and “Leadership development programs: Current state and state-of-the-
art,” by J. J., McHenry and A. H. Church (2018), Pre-Conference Workshop delivered at the 33nd
Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), April 18th, Chicago,
Illinois. Copyright (2018) by J. J. McHenry and A. H. Church. Adapted with permission.
 242 CHURCH AND SEATON

of organizations benchmarked rely on managerial judgment of potential (often “calibrated” in talent

discussions) based on someone’s perceived ability to perform effectively at two levels above one’s
current role (Church & Waclawski, 2010; Church et al., 2015; Silzer & Church, 2009), incorporat-
ing actual learning-agility measures into reviews would provide clear value both in terms of accu-
racy and consistency.
This distinction between high-potential identification processes in organizations that are based
solely on managerial judgments (i.e., “designated potential’) versus measurement-based approaches
using validated psychological tools (i.e., “assessed potential”) is an important one for applied psychol-
ogists to address in their consulting efforts with line clients and HR professionals (Church et al.,
2021). Although rarely studied empirically because designated potential reflects an internal classifica-
tion that is highly confidential in nature and often not even transparent to employees (Church et al.,
2015), it is a critical intervention point for demonstrating the return on investment (ROI) of data-
based insights on constructs such as learning agility. The implications of being designated (or classi-
fied) as a high-potential based solely on perceptions versus scientific measures can have sweeping
consequences for organizations in terms of leadership bench, cultural dynamics, and business success
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

overtime. Recent applied research by Church and colleagues (Church et al., 2021) provided support
to this argument in a study of 9,784 early-career professionals in PepsiCo’s Leadership Assessment
and Development (LeAD) Program. Their study illustrates the value of using an approach that
employs multitrait multimethod assessments that embed the concept of learning agility in predicting a
several notable outcomes over time such as promotions, positive reactions, and leadership buy-in
(Church et al., 2021). Results such as these point to the value of adding psychological assessment
data to the identification of potential above and beyond performance metrics, which has been part of a
long-standing debate in the use of “9-Box” frameworks of potential as well (e.g., Church, 2018;
Church & Waclawski, 2010).
As with any tool or construct, targeted validation studies are needed for any organization desir-
ing to use learning agility as part of their talent-identification suite. It is particularly important at
lower levels in the organization (e.g., with early-career professionals) where an assessment tool
might be the only real source of objective information beyond the immediate manager’s perception
of potential (Church & Rotolo, 2016). The best approach here is to create a validated predictive
index or composite metric of future potential that is informed by behavioral measures of learning
agility along with other important skills or constructs, rather than using any single assessment on its
own (Church et al., 2021; Rotolo et al., 2018). As an example, preliminary research has perhaps sur-
prisingly shown that learning agility and intelligence are relatively distinct from one another (e.g.,
Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2002; De Meuse et al., 2012). Thus, assessing both may result in predict-
ing success to a higher degree than either alone (more research is needed to confirm incremental va-
lidity; De Meuse, 2019).
Further, it is important to recognize that the presence, absence, or degree of an employee’s
learning agility should not be the end-state of the assessment but rather used as an indicator of future
capability. In other words, having higher levels of learning agility might be an indicator of someone
with greater potential, but this data point needs to be factored in with other indicators and variables.
As TM practitioners and consulting psychologists, it is critical that we help our respective organiza-
tions and other HR professionals understand the role that learning agility (and other dimensions of
human behavior) plays in the process of career progression and success, rather than use the concept
itself as the sole differentiator. Although more research needs to be done on the long-term impact of
learning agility, not to mention a full consideration of the organizational and contextual factors that
play a role in promotions over time (DeRue et al., 2012; Finkelstein et al., 2018), the inclusion of
some measure of learning agility as part of an early-identification model seems highly valuable.

Leadership-Pipeline Development
Although there remains some debate about whether learning agility is an innate capability, a devel-
opable skill, or a combination of both (Church, 2021; Harvey & De Meuse, 2021), decades of
broader learning research and evaluation studies in the training literature (e.g., Kirkpatrick &
 LEARNING AGILITY, TALENT MANAGEMENT, AND SUCCESSION 243

Kirkpatrick, 2006) indicate that those employees who apply new knowledge and skills on the job
are more likely to change behaviors and increase their performance. Stated plainly, employees who
can learn and adapt are more likely to be higher performers over time.
Given that learning agility can be thought of as a metacompetency as discussed above (see De
Meuse et al., 2010), it is likely that certain elements are trait-based (e.g., general cognitive and per-
sonality attributes) and others are behaviors or skills that can be enhanced over time (e.g., via envi-
ronmental scanning, practice, and reflection). Consistent with this perspective, in the context of the
Leadership Potential BluePrint (Church & Silzer, 2014; Silzer & Church, 2009), learning has been
defined as a growth dimension. As such, it represents a stable characteristic building off the founda-
tional principles of cognitive skills and personality characteristics yet is also an individual capability
that can be developed throughout someone’s career. Thus, learning agility would likely be a useful
component for any developmental agenda, particularly considering the call for learning organiza-
tions and learning cultures (e.g., Garvin et al., 2008; Senge, 2006), and the concept of lifelong learn-
ing (or catalytic learning as defined by Conger & Church, 2018) in general. The best approach for
leadership-pipeline development is to focus on those aspects of learning agility that are developable
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

rather than trait-based to support enhanced coaching effectiveness (Church, 2014b).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Feedback and reflection are central to the concept of learning agility, as noted above, as they
promote greater self-awareness (Adler & Neiman, 2021; Anseel & Ong, 2021; Bracken et al., 2016;
Church, 2000; De Meuse et al., 2010; Nowack & Mashihi, 2012). Many models of learning agility
also place explicit emphasis on the role of self-awareness in ensuring a reflective process (Dai & De
Meuse, 2021; De Meuse, 2017; Hoff & Burke, 2017; Mitchinson & Morris, 2014), and research dat-
ing back 25 years has demonstrated that higher self-awareness is a differentiator of performance and
potential (e.g., Church, 1997, 2000; Lawrence et al., 2018; Tekleab et al., 2008). Recently con-
ducted internal research on PepsiCo’s newest leadership-potential framework, the GREAT5
(Church & Ezama, 2020; see Figure 3), is consistent with these external findings. Specifically,
results show that higher scores on the self-focused elements of learning agility embedded in the
model (e.g., self-regulation, self-reflection, and feedback-seeking; see Dai & De Meuse, 2021, for a
framework) are among the strongest predictors of future potential (r = .34, p , .001).1
These patterns are observed at all levels of management where the model has been applied via
PepsiCo’s LeAD practice (Church, 2019; Church et al., 2021; Church & Rotolo, 2016); however, the
strongest effects were observed among midcareer talent. Therefore, targeted feedback (e.g., a 360-
degree-feedback measure or self-assessment) followed by comprehensive development-planning and
coaching efforts is perhaps one of the best ways to apply learning agility to development efforts. This
approach is consistent with the models for design and application offered by various multirater meas-
ures of learning agility currently available (e.g., Burke et al., 2016; De Meuse, 2017).
Although targeted feedback tools might be used in a stand-alone manner (e.g., via an annual feed-
back program), the guidance for internal and external consulting practitioners is to ensure they are inte-
grated with other measures (constructs) within the broader context of TM, leadership-development, or
executive-assessment efforts (e.g., Church, 2019, 2021; Church et al., 2017; Scott et al., 2017). The lat-
ter approach also affords organizations the option of including learning modules on the concept of learn-
ing agility and opportunities to practice new behaviors to break old patterns and develop automaticity of
new behaviors (Harvey & Prager, 2021). Given that 360-degree-feedback measures can be used effec-
tively under the right conditions for both development and talent decision-making processes (Bracken
et al., 2016; Church et al., 2019), it seems prudent to use them to assess learning agility as well, at least
at the behavioral level. The key is understanding exactly which behaviors (and based on what model) to
measure.
Because the types of tools available to measure learning agility range in level of complexity, as
well as expertise and expense required to deliver, broad-based development can be more difficult to
do depending on the size and scale of the company. In addition, unless there is a cultural mandate to
specifically enhance learning agility or learning capability the focus may be lost to other more press-
ing cultural agendas (e.g., a broader set of leadership competencies or cultural indicators). For those

1
Based on unpublished internal research conducted by the authors.
 244 CHURCH AND SEATON

Figure 3
PepsiCo’s Model of Leadership Potential
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

organizations where the scale is beyond a TM or OD teams’ ability to manage feedback individu-
ally, surrogates or composite scores for learning agility via other assessments (such as standard per-
sonality measures with learning subcomponents) might be warranted. Many organizations take the
approach of integrating key behaviors reflecting a host of different factors (that could easily include
learning agility) into their existing broader feedback models (Bracken et al., 2016). For example,
PepsiCo has a long-standing history over the past 30 years of embedding the construct of learning
in its leadership frameworks (Alziari, 2001; Church et al., 2018; Church & Waclawski, 2010;
Oliver et al., 2009; Tichy & DeRose, 1996) dating back to some of the earliest thinking on “mus-
cle-building the organization” through experiences (Pearson, 1987).
As noted above, the organization’s most recently implemented model, the GREAT5, embeds
learning agility throughout the different constructs of growth, relationships, execution, agility, and
thinking (Church & Ezama, 2020). The 360-degree-feedback tool that accompanies the model is
designed to tap these behaviors at different levels of leadership and is supported by other forms of
measurement including trait-based components (via a personality tool) as well as experienced-based
tools (i.e., a simulation that places leaders in novel and complex challenges that mirror real organi-
zational challenges two leadership levels [in the structural hierarchy] above the participant’s current
role). As Church et al. (2021) have noted, focusing on internal language of leadership competencies
(with learning agility incorporated rather than being uniquely identified) affords greater adoption of
the behavioral components because it reflects the cultural nuances of how those aspects are expected
to be manifested in a given organizational setting.
Another option for using learning agility to accelerate leadership-pipeline development, which
has its own set of debates in practice, is to include learning efforts and outcomes as part of the for-
mal performance-management process (e.g., as suggested by Hoff & Burke, 2017). Performance
management is one of the most powerful levers for promoting behavioral change (Bracken &
Church, 2013; Pulakos, 2009; Pulakos et al., 2015). Good organizational-change practice would
indicate that broader systems need to be fully aligned (Burke & Litwin, 1992) and that applied psy-
chologists and OD and TM professionals need to be aware of what is being measured and rewarded
versus simply espoused, communicated, or trained on specific competencies for their own inherent
 LEARNING AGILITY, TALENT MANAGEMENT, AND SUCCESSION 245

value. For example, if learning objectives are incorporated into annual or ongoing performance eval-
uations, employees are more likely to execute those even when their own internal motivation to do
so may be limited. From the performance-management perspective, accountability becomes the pri-
mary driver of behavior.
At the same time, there are potential downsides to formally embedding learning objectives into
performance evaluations—for example: (a) the possibility of creating a negative perception of learn-
ing because of inadequate time or managerial support, (b) increased expectations of greater reward
or opportunities on the part of employees as a result of completing their learning objectives, (c) lim-
ited organizational resources to meet increases in demand for building learning-agility capabilities,
or (d) the establishment of a check-the-box learning agenda without any meaningful outcomes. It is
likely one of the reasons why (along with the concern over learning agility as a trait vs. state dimen-
sion) only 13% of top development companies formally link learning progress to their performance-
management programs or hold managers accountable for the learning objectives of their staff
(McHenry & Church, 2018). It is certainly an area where future research could benefit practice.
Further, including an objective to develop earning agility could be even more challenging and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

difficult to measure without targeted tools before and after. Appropriate resources to develop new
knowledge, skills, and behaviors to support the change is also necessary. Just because someone has
learning objectives as part of their formal reviews does not ensure they will learn how to learn from
the process or enhance their ability to learn from future experiences.
Finally, the research is not clear on what specific elements of learning agility are most useful in
different contexts (McCauley & Yost, 2021). For example, it may be the case that different elements
of learning agility become more or less important at different levels of leadership. Of the nine differ-
ent facets of learning agility identified by Dai and De Meuse (2021), internal research at PepsiCo
using personality assessments, validation evidence from the GREAT5 leadership model, and exten-
sive observation via senior-leader interviews suggest that there are different facets that maintain em-
phasis across an employee’s career as well as those that change over time (Church & Ezama, 2019).
Specifically, although core personality dimensions remained consistent overtime, other aspects of
learning agility (e.g., derailers, motives, and behavioral work-arounds) do show evidence of change
during one’s career (Church et al., 2016). Internal research at PepsiCo has tended to show that in
general the application components of learning agility (see Dai & De Meuse, 2021) are slightly
more important (i.e., more predictive of performance and potential) earlier in one’s career whereas
ability components of learning agility have greater importance later in one’s career. If we look a
layer deeper, however, there are some nuances. Specifically, we see that unconventional thinking
(an ability component that involves questioning convention and experimenting with new methods)
and flexibility (an application component that involves interpersonal flexibility and examining sit-
uations from multiple perspectives) remain important across the employee life cycle, whereas
self-regulation (e.g., mindful and deliberate thinking and behaving) is particularly important in
midcareer leaders, and social astuteness (e.g., being social sensitive, demonstrating empathy, and
instilling confidence) is particularly important at more senior levels. In other words, leveraging
learning agility for employee-development efforts broadly, while likely very useful, might be
most useful when targeted to the development needs of certain populations.

Leadership-Succession Benches
A third way learning agility can play an important role in TM practices is for identifying (or slating)
and selecting candidates for succession, particularly at senior levels. In this context, the measure-
ment or formal assessment of learning agility could be included in a suite of tools as a critical indi-
cator of a leader with the ability to adapt to the most stressful and complex sets of roles in a
corporation (e.g., at the C-suite level or C-suite-minus-one level). Given that the early research on
executives demonstrated that the absence of learning agility led to derailing outcomes (McCall
et al., 1988), and other models of potential emphasize learning skills as critical at the highest levels
of the organization (e.g., catalytic learning as described by Conger & Church, 2018), the inclusion
of a measure of learning agility in some form could be instrumental in increasing the probability of
 246 CHURCH AND SEATON

effective succession. For example, Church et al. (2017) reported significant relationships between
the application of learning from an executive-assessment process with increased leadership skills
via behavioral ratings gathered 12 to 18 months after the feedback and coaching across managers,
peers, and direct reports (r = .53, p , .01).
At later career stages, however, there is also likely the need to understand motivation as well,
because many leaders either stop learning when they achieve a certain level of success or do not
want to engage in the behaviors necessary to achieve the next level (Conger & Church, 2018). In
addition to application of learning as noted above, Church et al. (2017) also showed that when lead-
ers participating in the process demonstrated a learning-oriented, growth mind-set (Dweck, 2006) it
also predicted improved leadership capability over time (r = .40, p , .05). In view of the prevailing
assumption that many senior leaders are resistant to feedback and change because their prior behav-
iors have made them successful to date (e.g., Charan et al., 2001; Goldsmith, 2010), learning orien-
tation and learning agility do appear to matter even in more senior succession contexts.
Relatedly, an important element of learning agility to consider as part of the process for talent
review and the succession pipeline is the determination of whether a leader actually learns from
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

experiences and applies those learnings to new ones. Although managers often cite challenging
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

assignments as central to their professional development (e.g., Van Velsor et al., 2013), research
lacks sufficient clarity and depth to understand the exact role that learning agility plays. It would be
important to understand if learning agility (or which facet or facets of learning agility) can be
viewed as a predictor (Dai & Hezlett, 2017; Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000), a moderator (Adler &
Neiman, 2021), an outcome (Dai et al., 2013; Hallenbeck & Santana, 2019), or a process (DeRue
et al., 2012; McCauley & McCall, 2014; McHenry & Church, 2018; Mitchinson et al., 2012).
Moreover, it is critical to acknowledge that senior-succession slates are often different from
final placement decisions (Church, 2014a). Because succession slates are typically generated using
a gradated model of “readiness” (e.g., “ready now,” “ready in 1–2 years,” “ready in 3–5 years,” or
“ready in 5þ”), the further away the individual talent is from potential selection into a given role,
the more likely they will need to demonstrate to the organization their ability to learn and apply
learnings from planned developmental assignments to move up the readiness scale.
Although creating learning objectives when onboarding someone to a new role or imbedding
learning goals in performance-management reviews can be useful, it is extremely difficult to assess
with any degree of accuracy whether someone developed their learning agility in these contexts.
This might not be an issue if learning agility is defined purely as an individual trait, but the difficulty
is inherent in the use of critical experiences to test or build greater potential. As mentioned above,
internal research at PepsiCo showed that the application component (e.g., self-regulatory behaviors
such as mindfulness and deliberate thinking and behavior) of learning agility is the strongest predic-
tor of differentiated performance (r = .38, p , .001) and potential (r = .36, p , .001) among midca-
reer leaders at PepsiCo. Indeed, only 44% of the companies benchmarked by Church and colleagues
reported formally matching/tailoring learning experiences to the specific skills individual leaders
needed to develop, and even fewer (13%) reported actually tracking the outcomes of learning expe-
riences (McHenry & Church, 2018). This raises important questions for research and practice about
how we assess learning-agility-related outcomes of new assignments (see McCauley & Yost, 2021,
for a review of the literature).
Further, while success in a new role can be defined in many ways (e.g., performance ratings,
tenure in the assignment, or promotion out of the assignment), political and organizational-culture
forces can impede learning and are often overlooked or minimized from a TM perspective. As an
example, planned or unplanned movement in the senior-leadership ranks (e.g., hiring new leaders
from outside with a different perspective on talent) or new organizational structures and shifting
business priorities all influence the process. Although leaders can adapt and learn from these new
dynamics, if specific learning experiences are part of a planned succession process based on a list of
desired “critical experiences,” then the development emphasis on learning may be disrupted.
The final consideration in using learning agility for succession planning, particularly at the sen-
ior-most levels of an organization, elicits questions that internal line leaders and HR professionals
can and do sometimes raise in talent-planning discussions. The first of these is: “If (designated)
 LEARNING AGILITY, TALENT MANAGEMENT, AND SUCCESSION 247

potential is defined as being successful at increasingly complex and higher-level roles, why do we
need a formal assessment of learning agility or leadership potential at all?” A second question is:
“Why cannot we just operate under the simple framework that a leader who thrives is a high-potential,
someone who survives with average performance is a solid player, and someone who fails should be
managed out of the organization?” The challenge with this seemingly legitimate approach is that
although it is intuitive (and eliminates the cost of assessments in the short term), it is also based solely
on current performance. Performance is a key gatekeeper variable, but it is not by itself fully predic-
tive of future success (Church et al., 2015; Silzer & Church, 2009, 2010). By adding a more rigorous
data-based approach using a formal assessment suite of leadership potential vis-à-vis learning agility
and other constructs, there is a significantly greater likelihood of being predictive rather than descrip-
tive in the organization’s approach to high-potential talent. This is the argument behind the call to
change the popular 9-Box framework in use today (Church, 2018; Church et al., 2015, 2021; Church
& Waclawski, 2010).
In other words, replacing the current use of performance ratings with assessed potential vis-à-
vis constructs such as learning agility and comparing that empirical data to perceptions of desig-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

nated potential will yield far better talent development and decision-making outcomes.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Future Directions for Practice and Research

Clearly, the concept of learning agility plays an important role in understanding and predicting lead-
ership potential and performance. Although the concept is still relatively new in terms of industrial-
organizational psychology (De Meuse, 2017; Harvey & De Meuse, 2021), significant progress has
been made in demonstrating the relationships among learning agility and individual outcomes.
There are several areas, however, where the field could benefit from additional theory and research
from the perspective of TM and consulting psychology.
First, as noted above, a key challenge from a theoretical perspective with practice implications
reflects the question of whether learning agility is a trait, a learnable behavior, or an outcome fol-
lowing a set of experiences (Church, 2021; Harvey & Prager, 2021; Mitchinson et al., 2012; Rotolo
et al., 2018). Given the retrospective nature of some of the original research in this area, and the
concurrent nature of most of the present studies, it is difficult to know where consulting practitioners
should focus from a TM perspective. Should senior leaders and HR practitioners emphasize (a)
identifying talent with learning agility, (b) developing said skills and behaviors by taking risks with
new experiences, or (c) focusing on the processes that enable a more conducive learning environ-
ment (DeRue et al., 2012; Harvey & De Meuse, 2021)?
Relatedly, even though internal research at PepsiCo has suggested that different facets of learn-
ing agility are more or less important across the employee life cycle (see above), it is not clear
which elements or facets of learning agility (e.g., application components vs. ability components;
see Dai & De Meuse, 2021) or more nuanced criteria (e.g., general leadership potential vs. destina-
tion potential) should be emphasized across different levels of leadership or across different TM
applications. Although a few studies in the past 20 years have included more hard metrics (such as
promotions and performance at the next level), and recent work has been done to identify a more
precise and measurable framework (Dai & De Meuse, 2021), the literature is generally lacking in a
long-term data-based view. What we do know, however, is that assessment of potential (using the
Leadership Potential BluePrint, which has learning agility as one of six key components) does
uniquely predict future success in terms of promotions and ratings of potential 2 to 3 years out
beyond simply performance in the current role based on a study of early-career professionals
(Church et al., 2021). This finding is important in that both measures are useful and both types of
data are needed to identify talent and build the leadership pipeline.
From a practice perspective, it would be useful to see a single unified model of learning agility
that is linked to other critical concepts (such as personality, potential, and leadership), with all the
various measures available that enable internal and external practitioners to choose the best one for
their TM purposes. Highlighting the contextual variables in a manner more amenable to organiza-
tional-development and culture-change interventions to improve the broader system of support for
 248 CHURCH AND SEATON

feedback and learning through self-awareness would also be helpful (Church et al., 2018). Such a
unifying solution across TM, OD, and even broader HR-development efforts also could benefit
theory in this area and quiet the debate about the inherent attributes and the developable compo-
nents. The model presented by DeRue et al. (2012) and the nomological net presented by Harvey
and De Meuse (2021) are compelling but still do not fully solve for the difficulty in operationaliza-
tion and application in an organizational context.
Finally, from a measurement perspective, it would be helpful see alternative forms of assess-
ment that can help both researchers and practitioners to tap learning agility in theoretically and
empirically sounds ways. To date, many tools measuring learning agility have been based on survey
questionnaires—either via self-assessments or types of 360-degree feedback (e.g., see Boyce &
Boyce, 2021, for a review of existing measures). Although some organizations have experimented
with alternative methodology such as structure interviews and even simulations to assess learning
outcomes and capabilities, there is an opportunity for researchers and consulting firms to continue
to expand their techniques and research to new models and tools (e.g., Scott & Reynolds, 2010). It
is well established that self-assessments are often subject to biases including social desirability and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

faking behavior (though some tools do include response checks such as the TALENTx7), and these
concerns are only exacerbated from a TM perspective when employees know that their data will be
used to inform talent decisions about future potential or placement on slates or into new roles. Thus,
the development, refinement, and utilization of more objective measures of learning agility can be
an effective method of minimizing bias that plagues manager ratings of potential (i.e., reflecting
only designated potential). This is an area where applied consulting psychologists can play a critical
role in assisting organizations to build more valid and bias-free TM and development processes.

Summary and Conclusion

In summary, it should be clear from the discussion above that the construct of learning agility is
indeed critical for understanding, identifying, and developing high-potential leaders in global TM
systems. The concept of learning from experiences and being able to apply those learnings adap-
tively to new scenarios is a hallmark of learning agility, and it has been shown to predict perform-
ance, potential, and promotions over time across a variety of applied settings. In its various forms,
the concept is central to other models of potential as well (e.g., the Leadership Potential BluePrint)
and has found its way into the majority of formal assessment-and-development efforts for both
early-career and senior executives in top development companies per recent benchmark studies.
Although the field has yet to fully coalesce on a single definition and preferred method of measure-
ment, and further research is still needed to determine causal directionality, the utility of learning
agility for a variety of TM programs and processes is clear. With appropriate validation in an organ-
izational setting, learning agility reflects a powerful component for determining future leadership
potential.

References
Adler, S., & Neiman, R. (2021). Seek and ye shall learn: Exploring the multiple links of learning agility and
feedback seeking. In V. S. Harvey & K. P. De Meuse (Eds.), The age of agility: Building learning agile lead-
ers and organizations (pp. 229–258). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190085353
.003.0009
Alziari, L. (2001). One-on-one with Lucien Alziari. Building leadership innovation at PepsiCo: Leadership from
Heidrick & Struggles [Special section]. Businessweek.
Anseel, F., & Ong, M. (2021). Behavioral strategies to structure and accelerate learning from experience. In
V. S. Harvey & K. P. De Meuse (Eds.), The age of agility: Building learning agile leaders and organizations
(pp. 259–281). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190085353.003.0010
Boyce, C. E., & Boyce, A. S. (2021). Measures of learning agility. In V. S. Harvey & K. P. De Meuse (Eds.),
The age of agility: Building learning agile leaders and organizations (pp. 90–117). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190085353.003.0004
 LEARNING AGILITY, TALENT MANAGEMENT, AND SUCCESSION 249

Bracken, D. W., & Church, A. H. (2013). The “new” performance management paradigm: Capitalizing on the
unrealized potential of 360 degree feedback. People & Strategy, 36(2), 34–40.
Bracken, D. W., Rose, D. S., & Church, A. H. (2016). The evolution and devolution of 360 degree feedback.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9(4), 761–794. https://doi
.org/10.1017/iop.2016.93
Bray, D. W., & Grant, D. L. (1966). The assessment center in the measurement of potential for business manage-
ment. Psychological Monographs, 80(17), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093895
Burke, W. (2018). Burke Learning Agility Inventory [Version 3.3]. https://easiconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/
2018/10/burke-learning-agility-inventory-technical-report.pdf
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of
Management, 18(3), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306
Burke, W. W., & Roloff, K. S. & Mitchinson, A. (2016). Learning agility: A new model and measure [Working
paper]. Teachers College, Columbia University.
Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2001). The leadership pipeline: How to build the leadership powered com-
pany. Jossey-Bass.
Church, A. H. (1997). Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in organizations. Journal of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Applied Psychology, 82(2), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.281

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Church, A. H. (2000). Do better managers actually receive better ratings? A validation of multi-rater assessment
methodology. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 52(2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10
.1037/1061-4087.52.2.99
Church, A. H. (2014a). Succession planning 2.0: Building bench through better execution. Strategic HR Review,
13(6), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-08-2014-0045
Church, A. H. (2014b). What do we know about developing leadership potential? The role of OD in strategic tal-
ent management. OD Practitioner, 46(3), 52–61.
Church, A. H. (2019). Building an integrated architecture for leadership assessment and development at PepsiCo. In
R. G. Hamlin, A. D. Ellinger, & J. Jones (Eds.), Evidence-based initiatives for organizational change and devel-
opment (EBOCD) (pp. 492–505). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6155-2.ch030
Church, A. H. (2021). The role of learning agility in identifying and developing future leaders. In V. S. Harvey
& K. P. De Meuse (Eds.), The age of agility: Building learning agile leaders and organizations (pp. 62–89).
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190085353.003.0003
Church, A. H., Bracken, D. W., Fleenor, J. W., & Rose, D. S. (Eds.). (2019). The handbook of strategic 360
feedback. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190879860.001.0001
Church, A. H., Dawson, L. M., Barden, K. L., Fleck, C. R., Rotolo, C. T., & Tuller, M. D. (2018). Enhancing
360 feedback for individual assessment and organization development: Methods and lessons from the field.
In D. A. Noumair & A. B. Shani (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 26,
pp. 47–97). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0897-301620180000026002
Church, A. H., Del Giudice, M. J., & Margulies, A. (2017). All that glitters is not gold: Maximizing the impact
of executive assessment and development efforts. Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
38(6), 765–779. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2016-0127
Church, A. H., & Ezama, S. (2019, November). Six truths about using personality data and talent decisions
[online ed.]. Talent Quarterly.
Church, A., & Ezama, S. (2020). PepsiCo’s formula for leadership potential. TD Magazine.
Church, A. H., Fleck, C. R., Foster, G. C., Levine, R. C., Lopez, F. J., & Rotolo, C. T. (2016). Does purpose mat-
ter? The stability of personality assessments in organization development and talent management applica-
tions over time. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(4), 450–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0021886316668748
Church, A. H., Guidry, B. W., Dickey, J. A., & Scrivani, J. A. (2021). Is there potential in assessing for high-
potential? Evaluating the relationships between performance ratings, leadership assessment data, designated
high-potential status and promotion outcomes in a global organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(5),
101516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101516
Church, A. H., & Rotolo, C. T. (2013). How are top companies assessing their high-potentials and senior execu-
tives? A talent management benchmark study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
65(3), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034381
Church, A. H., & Rotolo, C. T. (2016). Lifting the veil: What happens when you are transparent with people
about their future potential? People & Strategy, 39(4), 36–40.
Church, A. H., Rotolo, C. T., Ginther, N. M., & Levine, R. (2015). How are top companies designing and man-
aging their high-potential programs? A follow-up talent management benchmark study. Consulting Psychol-
ogy Journal: Practice and Research, 67(1), 17–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000030
 250 CHURCH AND SEATON

Church, A. H., Shull, A. C., & Burke, W. W. (2018). Organization development and talent management: Diver-
gent sides of the same values equation. In D. W. Jamieson, A. H. Church, & J. D. Vogelsang (Eds.), Enact-
ing values-based change: Organization development in action (pp. 265–294). Palgrave Macmillan.
Church, A. H., & Silzer, R. (2014). Going behind the corporate curtain with a Blueprint for Leadership Potential:
An integrated framework for identifying high-potential talent. People & Strategy, 36(4), 51–58.
Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (2010). Take the Pepsi challenge: Talent development at PepsiCo. In R. Silzer &
B. E. Dowell (Eds.), Strategy-driven talent management: A leadership imperative (pp. 617–640). Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., & Church, A. H. (2018). The high potential’s advantage: Get noticed, impress your bosses, and
become a top leader. Harvard Business Review Press.
Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2002, April). The five-factor model of personality and goal orientation
[Paper presentation]. At the 17th annual convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, Toronto, Canada.
Dai, G., & De Meuse, K. P. (2021). Learning agility and the changing nature of leadership. In V. S. Harvey &
K. P. De Meuse (Eds.), The age of agility: Building learning agile leaders and organizations (pp. 31–61).
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190085353.003.0002
Dai, G., De Meuse, K. P., & Tang, K. Y. (2013). The role of learning agility in executive career success: The
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

results of two field studies. Journal of Managerial Issues, 25(2), 108–131.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Dai, G., & Hezlett, S. A. (2007, April). Challenging experiences, learning agility, and extrinsic career success
[Paper presentation]. 32nd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Orlando, FL.
De Meuse, K. P. (2017). Learning agility: Its evolution as a psychological construct and its empirical relation-
ship to leader success. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 69(4), 267–295. https://doi
.org/10.1037/cpb0000100
De Meuse, K. P. (2019). A meta-analysis of the relationship between learning agility and leader success. Journal
of Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 25–34.
De Meuse, K. P., Dai, G., & Hallenbeck, G. S. (2010). Learning agility: A construct whose time has come. Con-
sulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019988
De Meuse, K. P., Dai, G., & Marshall, S. (2012). The relationship between learning agility, critical thinking,
and job performance: Engineers and project managers. Lominger International: A Korn/Ferry Company.
DeRue, D. S., Ashford, S. J., & Myers, C. G. (2012). Learning agility: In search of conceptual clarity and theo-
retical grounding. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(3),
258–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01444.x
Dries, N., Vantilborgh, T., & Pepermans, R. (2012). The role of learning agility and career variety in the identifi-
cation and development of high potential employees. Personnel Review, 41(3), 340–358. https://doi.org/10
.1108/00483481211212977
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Ballantine Books.
Finkelstein, L., Costanza, D., & Goodwin, G. (2018). Do your HiPos have potential? The impact of individual differ-
ences and designation on leader success. Personnel Psychology, 71(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12225
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business
Review, 86(3), 109–116.
Goldsmith, M. (2010). What got you here won’t get you there: How successful people become even more suc-
cessful. Profile books.
Hallenbeck, G., & Santana, L. (2019). Great leaders are great learners: How to develop learning-agile high
potentials [White paper]. Center for Creative Leadership.
Harvey, V. S. & De Meuse, K. P. (Eds.). (2021). The age of agility: Building learning agile leaders and organi-
zations. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190085353.001.0001
Harvey, V. S., & Prager, R. Y. (2021). Developing learning agile behavior. In V. S. Harvey & K. P. De Meuse
(Eds.), The age of agility: Building learning agile leaders and organizations (pp. 145–181). Oxford Univer-
sity Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190085353.003.0006
Hoff, D. F., & Burke, W. W. (2017). Learning agility: The key to leader potential. Hogan Press.
Jeanneret, R., & Silzer, R. (Eds.). (1998). Individual psychological assessment: Predicting behavior in organiza-
tional settings. Jossey-Bass.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, P. (2006). Evaluating training programs (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
Lawrence, E., Dunn, M. W., & Weisfeld-Spolter, S. (2018). Developing leadership potential in graduate students
with assessment, self-awareness, reflection and coaching. Journal of Management Development, 37(8),
634–651. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2017-0390
Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2000). High potentials as high learners. Human Resource Management,
39(4), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-050X(200024)39:4,321::AID-HRM4.3.0.CO;2-1
 LEARNING AGILITY, TALENT MANAGEMENT, AND SUCCESSION 251

Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2001). The leadership machine. Lominger.

MacRae, I., & Furnham, A. (2014). High potential: How to spot, manage and develop talent people at work.
Bloomsbury.
McCall, M. W. (1994). Identifying leadership potential in future international executives: Developing a concept. Con-
sulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 46(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.46.1.49
McCall, M. W., Jr. (1998). High flyers: Developing the next generation of leaders. Harvard Business School
Press.
McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience: How successful execu-
tives develop on the job. The Free Press.
McCauley, C. D., & McCall, M. W., Jr. (Eds.). (2014). Using experience to develop leadership talent: How
organizations leverage on-the-job development. Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118829417
McCauley, C. D., & Yost, P. R. (2021). Stepping to the edge of one’s comfort zone. In V. S. Harvey & K. P. De
Meuse (Eds.), The age of agility: Building learning agile leaders and organizations (pp. 204–228). Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190085353.003.0008
McHenry, J. J., & Church, A. H. (2018, April). Leadership development programs: Current state and state-of-
the-art. Pre-Conference Workshop delivered at the 33nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Organizational Psychology (SIOP), Chicago, IL.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Milani, R., Setti, I., & Argentero, P. (2021). Learning agility and talent management: A systematic review and
future prospects. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 73(4), 349–371. https://doi.org/10
.1037/cpb0000209
Mitchinson, A., & Morris, R. (2014). Learning about learning agility. Center for Creative Leadership. https://
doi.org/10.35613/ccl.2014.1012
Mitchinson, A., Gerard, N. M., Roloff, K. S., & Burke, W. W. (2012). Learning agility: Spanning the rigor-
relevance divide. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(3),
287–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01446.x
Nowack, K. M., & Mashihi, S. (2012). Evidence-based answers to 15 questions about leveraging 360-degree
feedback. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64(3), 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0030011
Ohlott, P. (2004). Job assignments. In C. D. McCauley & E. Van Veslor (Eds.), The center for creative leader-
ship handbook of leadership development (pp. 151–182). Wiley.
Oliver, D. H., Church, A. H., Lewis, R., & Desrosiers, E. I. (2009). An integrated framework for assessing, coaching
and developing global leaders. In W. H. Mobley, Y. Wang, & M. Li (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol.
5, 195–224). Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1535-1203(2009)0000005012
Pearson, A. E. (1987, July). Muscle-build the organization. Harvard Business Review.
Pulakos, E. D. (2009). Performance management: A new approach for driving business results. Wiley. https://
doi.org/10.1002/9781444308747
Pulakos, E. D., Mueller Hanson, R., Arad, S., & Moye, N. (2015). Performance management can be fixed: An
on-the-job experiential learning approach for complex behavior change. Industrial and Organizational Psy-
chology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8(1), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2014.2
Rotolo, C. T., Church, A. H., Adler, S., Smither, J. W., Colquitt, A. L., Shull, A. C., Paul, K. B., & Foster, G.
(2018). Putting an end to bad talent management: A call to action for the field of industrial and organizational
psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11(2),
176–219. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.6
Ruddy, T., & Anand, J. (2010). Managing talent in global organizations. In R. Silzer & B. E. Dowell (Eds.),
Strategy-driven talent management: A leadership imperative (pp. 549–593). Jossey-Bass.
Scott, J. C., Church, A. H., & McLellan, J. (2017). Effective practice guidelines report: Selecting leader talent.
Foundation of the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM). https://www.shrm.org/about/
foundation/products/pages/shrmfoundationepgs.aspx
Scott, J. C., & Reynolds, D. H. (Eds.). (2010). The handbook of workplace assessment: Evidenced based prac-
tices for selecting and developing organizational talent. Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Random House.
Silzer, R., & Church, A. H. (2009). The pearls and perils of identifying potential. Industrial and Organizational Psy-
chology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2(4), 377–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01163.x
Silzer, R., & Church, A. H. (2010). Identifying and assessing high-potential talent: Current organizational prac-
tices. In R. Silzer & B. E. Dowell (Eds.), Strategy-driven talent management: A leadership imperative (pp.
213–279). Jossey-Bass.
Silzer, R. & Dowell, B. E. (Eds.). (2010). Strategy-driven talent management: A leadership imperative. Jossey-
Bass.
 252 CHURCH AND SEATON

Spreitzer, G. M., McCall, M. W., Jr., & Mahoney, J. D. (1997). Early identification of international executive
potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.6
Swisher, V. V., Hallenbeck, G. S., Orr, J. E., Eichinger, R. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Capretta, C. C. (2013). FYI
for learning agility—A must have resource for high potential development (2nd ed.). Korn Ferry.
Tekleab, A. G., Sims, H. P., Jr., Yun, S., Tesluk, P. E., & Cox, J. (2008). Are we on the same page? Effects of
self-awareness of empowering and transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 14(3), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071791907311069
Thornton, G. C., Johnson, S. K., & Church, A. H. (2017). Selecting leaders: High potentials and executives. In
N. Tippins and J. Farr (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (Revised ed.), (pp. 833–852). Routledge.
Tichy, N. M., & DeRose, C. (1996). The Pepsi Challenge: Building a leader-driven organization. Training & De-
velopment, 50(5), 58–66.
Van Velsor, E., Wilson, M., Criswell, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2013). Learning to lead: A comparison of de-
velopmental events and learning among managers in China, India and the United States. Asian Business &
Management, 12(4), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1057/abm.2013.9
Yip, J., & Wilson, M. S. (2010). Learning from experience. In E. Van Velsor, C. D. McCauley, & M. N.
Ruderman (Eds.), Handbook of leadership development (3rd ed., pp. 63–95). Jossey-Bass.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Received February 6, 2022

Latest revision received May 4, 2022
Accepted May 10, 2022 n