In the realm of talent management, the 9-box grid has long been the go-to tool for talent mapping, providing a visual representation of the talent landscape based on performance and potential ratings. However, as organisations strive to modernise their approaches, questions arise about the effectiveness of the 9-box grid and whether alternative grid shapes, such as the 5-box or 4-box, offer superior solutions.

I appreciate the desire to modernise the 9-box grid. Like many HR practices, it's important to recognise that our approaches may have become outdated over time. In this case, the 9-box grids birthday cake is showing the big 50. The 9-box grid originated from the work of the McKinsey Consulting group in the 1970s, originally designed to assist GE in prioritising financial investments. HR professionals recognised its value and adapted it for talent management by focusing on Potential and Performance. Half a century later, here we find ourselves contemplating how to breathe new life into this traditional go-to model.

When seeking to refine this framework, it's crucial to question why we would want to reduce the number of boxes. Doing so limits the granularity of the information we use for decision-making regarding development, succession plans, and resource allocation. Less is not always more when it comes to data visualisation.

One driver for this movement is that it may feel "safer" to simplify the data inputs due to concerns about data accuracy. I would counter by saying that rather than reducing the data inputed and in effect the validity of the output, I would recommend leveraging the right talent management software that allows you to easily collect and analyse more data points and display them in any grid shape to suit your talent management objectives. This would provide a more holistic view of your talent and provide a wealth of information to support and develop your staff effectively.

Like any framework, whether it's the 9-box grid or an alternative grid shape, there are advantages and disadvantages to consider.

The key benefits of a 1 or 2-axis grid framework include:

1. Simple and Easy to Use

   : Talent grids are widely used because they are simple yet effective. Whether you opt for a 9-box grid with ratings of high, medium, and low, a 4 box grid with above or below the line ratings, or a 5 box grid with a forced bell curve distribution across one axis, the visual representation makes it easy to assess the talent landscape and identify necessary development actions.

2. Identifying Future Leadership Talent

   : Regardless of the grid formation, you can easily pinpoint high-performance and high-potential employees, often found in the top right quadrants. These individuals represent potential future leaders within your organisation.

3. Allocation of Development Investment

   : Similar to its original use at GE, a grid framework helps determine where to allocate resources, usually in the form of development budgets. Employees with high performance and high-to-medium potential become part of leadership development programs and receive significant investment in their growth.

4. Highlighting Potential for Development Exposure

   : Employees with medium potential can be easily identified for critical role experiences, allowing them to reach their full potential. This may involve job rotations, job shadowing, coaching, mentoring, or leading strategic stretch projects.

5. Boosting Candid Talent Conversations

   : When managers present their potential and performance ratings to peers and senior leaders for calibration, transparent and honest conversations about talent are fostered. This creates a performance-based culture that values candid feedback.

Considering the aforementioned benefits, it's evident why the 9-box grid has withstood the test of time for 50 years. However, it's important to acknowledge that, like any framework, talent mapping with only two axes, or just one in the case of the 5 box grid, has its limitations. The 9-box grid is not exempt from criticism.

Some of the drawbacks include:

1. Resource-Heavy Process Resulting in Static Data

   : The manual process of collecting talent management data every 12-18 months is time-consuming. This approach requires HR to perform roadshows to explain the process, distribute spreadsheets to line managers, and coordinate calibration sessions, resulting in static data that quickly becomes outdated. The exhaustive nature of this process often hinders action on the results.

2. Labelling Employees

   : With a static data collection process, performance improvements or a revived hunger for new experiences are not reflected for another 12-18 months. Labels such as "low performance" or "low potential" can negatively impact how individuals are viewed, treated, and developed. Low-ranking employees may become demotivated as a result.

3. Assessing Potential

   : Assessing performance is typically straightforward, linked to cyclical reviews. However, assessing potential is less common and more subjective, making it prone to unconscious bias and inconsistency in ratings.

4. Transparency

   : Due to the woolliness of potential ratings and the static nature of data collection, companies often withhold full transparency in the assessment process and outcome results. Reducing the number of individuals involved in assessments may seem like a solution, but it raises concerns about rating accuracy, recency bias, and reduced calibration sessions' effectiveness.

5. High Potential and High Performance Don't Equate to Great Line Managers

   : Talent grids, regardless of their size, do not flag individuals who excel as individual contributors but do not desire managerial roles. Taking a holistic approach is crucial to avoid wasting business investments and employees' time developing them for roles that don't align with their interests.

These drawbacks highlight why companies are seeking ways to modernise the 9-box grid or supplement it with additional information, enabling a more comprehensive view of talent to build robust succession and development plans.

So, What Is The "Right" Number of Boxes?

When contemplating the right grid size to visualise your talent, it's essential to reflect on the purpose of your talent mapping exercise and the maturity level you want to achieve in talent management. Relying solely on Performance and Potential ratings, collected every 12-18 months, does not provide a holistic view of your talent to confidently act upon.

The solution lies in combining Performance, Potential, and Values-based behavioural alignment data. Adding a third axis focused on behavioural assessment reveals how well employees embody the traits displayed by exceptional staff and leaders. This provides valuable insights into their consistent strengths and areas for development, ensuring they align with the organisation's values.

Sophisticated talent management software enables quick data collection and seamless switching between different data sets to visualise talent on a 9-box, 4 box, or any custom grid. It also allows you to view the talent landscape through a Performance-Value matrix (performance & culture values/behavioural axes) or, ideally, all three axes on a single talent map.

Tools like Talent Mapper have this functionality and more by enabling assessment against core competencies and behaviours aligned with organisational values and role requirements. These behaviours are then associated with a recommended list of learning actions, making it easy and effortless to build personalised employee development plans. Additionally, optional Employee Self-Assessments enhance data validity, cement transparency and empower employees to take ownership of their development needs.

By leveraging the right Talent Management software, you can overcome the limitations of being restricted to a simple talent map like the 9-box grid. You'll have access to richer data sets, streamlined data collection processes, robust calibration methods, and improved data visualisation. This will help you identify your top talent, create depth in your succession plans and facilitate the creation of personalised employee development plans to embed a growth mindset culture.