If you find value in content like this, sign up for my Talent Edge Weekly newsletter.
A common tool for evaluating employee potential—the likelihood of successfully performing in larger, more complex roles—is the 9-box grid, which assesses performance on one axis and potential on the other. Despite its popularity, many find it difficult to use effectively, often struggling to differentiate potential. In this new article, Allan Church and Janine Waclawski explain why the 9-box is inherently flawed for determining potential. They propose an alternative approach that avoids using performance as a determinant of potential. Instead, they suggest that performance should act as a gatekeeper for talent discussions (only including people in the 9-box if their performance is average or better), not as a proxy for future potential, for three reasons: 1) research shows current performance only predicts future performance in similar roles; 2) performance ratings are not objective measures; and 3) performance is not normally distributed, making distinctions like a 3 versus a 4 on a 5-point scale almost meaningless. They outline five steps to improve the 9-box model, including combining internal judgments of potential (designated potential) with an objective, data-driven assessment process (assessed potential). Other practical ideas are discussed that will help organizations reevaluate their approach to assessing potential.
