Well the jury is out, Let’s Talk Talent has an allergic reaction to the 9‑box grid — no shock there. We believe it’s an outdated model that doesn’t represent your people or your business in the right way. But we totally understand that Rome wasn’t built in a day and some organisations and leaders are wedded to it, or have bigger fish to fry.
For those HR leaders desperate for change, who can’t seem to get the board to side with them and are stuck with it for now… what should they do? In our latest blog we deep dive into the 9‑box and why we believe organisations should be moving away from it. For those stuck with it, how can they maximise the 9‑box tool, make it fairer, and use it to quietly build the case for something better?
In this blog we:
- Uncover seven reasons why the 9‑box doesn’t work for modern organisations
- Explore the impact of the 9-box grid on employees
- Cover eight ways to make the 9‑box work better
The 9‑box grid: the tool HR professionals love to hate
Just Google it: you’ll be inundated with criticisms from YouTube clips from our own MD and Founder Jo Taylor, conference keynotes, LinkedIn posts and leadership podcasts alike. When listening or reading to most, they often describe the 9‑box as outdated, subjective, labour intensive, overly simplistic and misaligned with modern ways of working.
But yet… look at online forums, or talk to HR and business leaders: many organisations are still deeply wedded to it and have it woven into the fabric of their employee experience. We get it — boards and leadership teams love to see the graphic. They recognise it. It appears in succession planning decks year after year. So for some HR leaders and organisations, walking away from the 9‑box right now simply isn’t an option.
So rather than adding to the noise about why the 9‑box is rubbish, let’s get practical:
How do you live with the 9‑box if you’re stuck with it, and how do you make it fit for the modern workforce?
This means making it more inclusive, useful and more aligned to performance, careers and strategy.
Before we get there, let’s be honest about why so many people have fallen out of love with it completely.
Why Does the 9‑Box Feel So Out of Place in Modern Organisations?
The original intention behind the 9‑box was sound. McKinsey & Company created the strategic tool for General Electric back in the 1970s. The purpose was to create a simple, visual way to talk about performance and future potential. But let that sink in… the 1970s were 50 years ago. Organisations at that time were still not widely using email and the internet wasn’t widely used until the mid‑1990s. So, it’s safe to say that the world of work is now unrecognisable from what it was back then, and the way in which the tool is commonly used today creates more problems than it solves.
Why doesn’t the 9‑box work for a modern organisation?
1. The 9‑box grid represents a dated perspective of talent
If we think back to talent management, succession planning and careers when the 9‑box was designed, it was much more of a linear world. People would have long linear careers, which resulted in predictable pipelines and long‑term roles. But that world has changed.
Today’s organisations are:
- More fluid and project‑based
- Less hierarchical
- Built around skills, not job titles
- Shaped by hybrid working and rapid change
- Full of agile, flexible careers, often with more movement
The 9‑box grid hasn’t evolved at the same pace.
2. “High potential” and “low potential” labels are damaging
Few labels create as much unintended harm as high‑potential (HiPo) and LoPo – does anyone enjoy being called “low potential”? One area where organisations often don’t put enough emphasis when using the 9‑box is: potential for what?
It is assumed by many managers that potential means the capacity for growth and advancement — but what does that actually mean in their organisational context? Using labels like HiPo and LoPo, once applied, tends to stick with those individuals. They travel faster than intended and shape opportunities (often unfairly) available to those individuals.
Those labelled as “high potential” get access, stretch and sponsorship. Those who don’t are quietly deprioritised, even if their performance is strong or their circumstances are temporary. No wonder people look for opportunities outside of their organisation if labelled as a “LoPo”.
3. Bias thrives inside the 9‑box grid
Despite best intentions, the 9‑box grid can be highly vulnerable to bias. In a modern hybrid working world there are a number of considerations that need to be addressed in order to ensure bias doesn’t impact the data. Bias that can affect the grid includes:
- Proximity bias. In hybrid settings, those who operate similarly to their manager (for example in the office when they are) may get better ratings due to them being “seen” to be doing more.
- Recency bias. Recent events can impact the decision‑making process. If a high‑performing, high‑potential employee has a blip just before assessment, this can heavily impact their rating — and vice versa.
- Like‑me bias. Employees that reflect their managers can receive more positive assessments because the manager sees themselves in them.
- Performance bias. Just because someone is high performing doesn’t mean they necessarily have high potential. We see this a lot where high performers are promoted to managers, and they aren’t ready or necessarily wanting to be a manager, but that was the only step up the pay grade.
And so many more… without strong calibration and evidence, individuals are often placed based on perception, not data.
4. The 9‑box is static in a dynamic world
Performance and potential are not fixed traits. Yet many organisations treat the 9‑box as an annual truth, a snapshot frozen in time, even though:
- Roles change
- People grow, plateau or even decline
- Preferences shift
- Life happens
A single moment in time becomes a long‑lasting judgement which is outdated as soon as you leave the room.
5. The 9‑box can create a false sense of certainty
A neat grid gives the illusion of simplicity and clarity. Placing someone in “Future Leader” or “Solid Contributor” doesn’t explain why they’re there, whether they want to be there or not, what needs to change or be achieved, or even how the organisation will or should invest in them.
6. The 9‑box is rarely linked to strategy
Too often, potential is assessed in the abstract. As mentioned previously, organisations rarely assess potential for what, and that is usually due to the approach being an annual box‑tick rather than being linked to the organisational and people strategies. For example:
If an employee has been identified as a future leader…
- Does this link to the current or future operating models?
- What potential have they shown that will ensure the organisation achieves its goals?
- Is there a pivotal shift on the horizon that this person has experienced before and can lead others through?
Without this critical link, succession plans look impressive but fail in practice, whilst also impacting your strategic growth and success.
7. The promotion trap
The top‑right box becomes synonymous with promotion, regardless of readiness, desire or role availability. This fuels:
- Over‑promotion
- Role mis‑matches
- Increasing job complexity
- Disengagement when promotions don’t materialise
So yes, there are plenty of reasons why the 9‑box deserves its bad reputation. But what if you can’t remove it?
What It Actually Feels Like to Be Inside the 9‑Box Grid
This is the bit that often gets forgotten. Talent reviews are typically a leadership conversation. But they’re fundamentally about people who are sitting at their desks, completely unaware of how they’re being discussed.
Think about the experience from an employee’s perspective…
The “High Potential” employee
They’re given stretch assignments, senior visibility and sponsorship, but often with no explanation of why. They may feel pressure to “live up to” a label they don’t know they have, or be confused when expectations suddenly shift. Without clarity and awareness it can feel as much like a performance improvement process as a stretch opportunity.
The “Solid Contributor”
Often the backbone of the organisation. Reliable, skilled, experienced. And yet frequently overlooked for development investment because they’re “already performing” where you need them to be. The message they receive (unintentionally) is: you’re fine where you are, we are getting what we want from you, so you do not need anything from us. Disengagement waiting to happen.
The person labelled “low potential”
They may be navigating a difficult period, new to the role, or simply not visible enough to the people making decisions. The box shapes their opportunities long after the circumstances that led to the placement have changed. It’s like being dealt a bad card which you can’t seem to get rid of.
So, if you’re going to use the 9‑box, you have an obligation to think carefully about how its outputs translate into real human experience. Talent reviews cannot be a back‑room exercise divorced from meaningful and outcome‑focused development conversations.
How to Make the 9‑Box Work Better
If the grid isn’t going anywhere, the opportunity for HR is to shift how it’s used, not just how it’s drawn. Here are our top tips to ensure the 9‑box works as well as it can.
1. Change the mindset around the conversation
You need to get managers and leaders to stop treating the rating as a verdict, and get them to start treating it as a conversation and a journey. The biggest mistake organisations make across succession planning, not just the 9‑box, is seeing the rating as an outcome.
Instead, use it as a starting point for a richer discussion. Explore deeper into why someone is rated in that way currently, and what evidence we can explore to back where they are currently placed. Where would we (and they) like to see this rating shifting in the future, and how can we help them to achieve it? Are we making any assumptions? What context might we be missing?
The value is not in the box, it’s in the dialogue and conversation that it drives.
2. Redefine performance and potential properly
Vague definitions create inconsistency in placements. Without clear assessment criteria and definitions you leave managers and leaders to assume, including their own biases. I’m sure we’ve all seen the “high‑performing jerks” get placed on succession plans just because they are hitting their objectives or KPIs. But is that really great performance?
We recommend that if you haven’t already, strengthen the grid by:
- Defining performance and anchoring it to your performance management framework (not gut feel). This could also mean alignment to competency and behaviour frameworks, values and culture.
- Defining what potential really means for your organisation. Is it just for movement to other roles? Or could it mean so much more? Start to build the definition in observable terms (learning agility, breadth, aspiration, complexity handling) so that it’s not just based on a manager’s gut, but can be evidenced and explained in calibration, or even noticed by others. Crucially, potential should be strategy‑specific, not generic.
3. Separate potential from promotability
Not everyone with potential wants, or should have, a bigger role right now. Without your proper definition and the crucial context, you will inherently look at everyone with potential in the same way. But people will need different things and be at different stages in their journey. So make it explicit:
- Potential does not mean immediate promotion or even promotion at all.
- Career pathways can be squiggly, lateral, linear, deepening, specialist and so much more (having a great careers approach can really help here… check out our career planning whitepaper if yours could use some TLC).
Getting this right reduces frustration and misaligned expectations.
4. Build in movement, not permanence
A healthy 9‑box shows movement over time. Some of the best ones we’ve seen even show individual journeys and movement over time, showcasing the non‑static nature of talent. Not everyone has the resource and capability to do this, so if you’re just starting, look to introduce:
- Regular reviews, not annual labelling — embed it into regular conversations and train your managers; they are the ones who will make this thrive or fail.
- Clear communication and expectations that ratings can, and should, change over time.
This reinforces growth rather than judgement.
5. Calibrate with evidence, not opinion
Strong calibration is non‑negotiable. Without it, it’s a recipe for problems from engagement to culture and expensive recruitment costs with turnover going through the roof. When introducing calibration, ask managers and leaders to come armed with diverse evidence. We like to think as a minimum any calibration meeting should include a review of:
- Performance data
- Behavioural evidence
- Values alignment
- Career aspirations and conversations already held
HR’s role is to challenge, not just facilitate.
6. Link the grid directly to development and careers
A 9‑box without action becomes a tick‑box exercise and, in total honesty, a waste of time. Every rating should lead to:
- A clear and achievable development focus
- A link to a relevant career pathway
- Targeted investment (not just for the top‑right box) — we like to call it the “development deal”, ensuring there is a clear commitment from both sides
This is where the grid becomes genuinely useful and engaging for those using it.
7. Be transparent (without being reckless)
You don’t need to show everyone the grid. In fact, showing people the grid can create more questions than clarity and drive the conversation down a completely different path. But people do need clarity on:
- The process itself
- Their responsibility
- How talent decisions are made
- What development looks like for them
- What they can influence and how they can do that
Lack of clarity breeds mistrust. Thoughtful transparency and open communication builds trust and confidence.
8. Use data to increase objectivity
One of the biggest weaknesses of the 9‑box is its reliance on subjective assessment. Often the assessment is made by the individual’s line manager in isolation. Where possible, bring additional insight and data into the process. We think these are great sources of richer and more meaningful data:
- 360° feedback or multi‑rater input to counter single‑manager bias
- Skills assessment data to anchor the capability dimension
- Engagement and retention risk indicators to flag flight risk before it happens
- Historical placement data to track movement (or lack of it) over time
You’re unlikely to make the 9‑box fully objective — human judgement will always be part of it. But data should inform the conversation, and be used to explore deeper, not just decorate it.
Use This Period to Build the Case for Something Better
If you’re using the 9‑box right now while privately knowing it’s not fit for purpose, don’t just survive it – use it strategically. Every talent review cycle is an opportunity to gather evidence for change. Use it to showcase:
- What the grid doesn’t capture. Skills, readiness, engagement, flight risk. Build a parallel picture that starts to tell a richer story and the need for that information.
- Document the limitations in real time. Where does the grid fail? Where does calibration break down? Where do placements get challenged? Where was a regrettable loss, and how could you have a better process to potentially address their concerns? This is your business case material.
- Pilot alternative approaches. Some teams or business units may be open to experimenting with different models, skills‑based frameworks, talent marketplaces, readiness assessments. Seek out those leaders and managers who are struggling with it and pilot something new with them. Small wins build credibility and momentum.
- Connect the outputs to business outcomes. Build your own data story: are HiPos actually progressing? Are succession plans being activated? Is there retention uplift for those invested in? If the data doesn’t support the 9‑box’s effectiveness, use it in your business case.
The question to keep asking: “Is this tool helping us make better decisions about our people and our business? And if not, what would?”
If you can’t answer that question with a yes, you already have the basis of your case for change.
The Real Opportunity With the 9-Box Grid
The reality is this: the 9‑box won’t disappear overnight. We get that the tool has been used for half a century and is sticky. The leaders in organisations today were most likely identified by it and therefore, in their eyes, it is a great identifier of top talent. But HR leaders can decide whether it becomes something greater. Remember, without clear focus it can easily become a blunt instrument that labels and limits.
But when done right, it has the potential to be a disciplined framework that drives better conversations, fairer decisions and stronger succession data. Used well, it can become a bridge, linking performance, potential, careers and future capability in a more joined‑up way.
The goal isn’t to defend the 9‑box. It’s to outgrow it responsibly, while making the best possible use of the tools you have today.
Think it’s time to refresh your approach to the 9‑box grid? Let’s Talk Talent’s team of consultants are here to help.
