Professional Documents
Culture Documents
If not, maybe you should get a look at the one used in your company. You (and all your
colleagues) have been placed in one of these boxes. Depending on which box you’re in, decisions
about your development and pay and future opportunities are being made behind the scenes.
It’s not a very well-kept secret in most workplaces. And, for something known as a “best
Did you know that most HR and management teams conduct an annual “Talent Review” or
“Succession Management” process? Do you know how you’ve been classified as a part of that
never telling people how they’re viewed by others is patently unfair. These decisions and
The lack of transparency serves no purpose other than protecting those who participate from
As a Director with a Fortune 500 company, I participated in the Talent Review process. My input,
along with just 6 other people in our ivory tower corporate office, determined how people were
The impressions we offered had the power to override facts and figures. And the impact of our
(mostly unfounded) opinions lasted far longer than whatever formed that impression in the first
place.
Here’s an example.
As we reviewed Division VPs across 31 markets, a colleague offered up one of the usual
I asked why, because the numbers from that market just didn’t add up to a stellar performance.
My colleague blamed a natural disaster in the area for the decline in revenue.
So I pressed harder. I pointed out how the share of market had dipped dramatically and that
every competitor in the marketplace was, presumably, reacting to the same natural disaster. This
“Act of God” was not concentrated in any manner that would afflict our company more than
competitors.
It was in that conversation that I first learned that “Talent Review” isn’t a review so much as it is
a license to show favoritism and to subjectively champion a select few. Otherwise, the process
would be one of metrics review and would not require as much human debate. This is my main
Take a look at the tool most companies use (above). This is a 9-Box Model for Talent Review. The
First, a manager assesses current performance. Is it high, medium or low compared to what is
Next, a manager assesses potential and predicts whether the employee’s future potential is high,
medium or low.
With these two decisions made, every employee gets bucketed into one of the nine boxes.
least at the director level). They may have target numbers with caps on how many can reside in
each box. These caps lead to debates as each executive argues to keep his or her favorites at the
top.
People placed in the green boxes enjoy the “halo effect” I described in my earlier example —
● People in these boxes are considered to be the organization’s future bench strength.
● They are more likely to get bigger raises and more recognition as companies work harder to
retain them.
● Most companies allocate a significantly higher percentage of their training and development
● They are viewed as steady or high performers in their current roles, but not considered likely to
● They don’t understand why they aren’t considered for development opportunities and don’t
● They may be on performance plans and may feel they are not given the time or support needed
● They get moved to the back of the line when it comes to recognition, opportunities, and pay
increases.
● Once in a red box, it’s hard to change perception and move into a yellow box. That past
perception lasts a very long time, making it extremely difficult to ever get to green.
Is this fair?
From the company’s point of view, it’s a necessary process. They need some way, they reason, to
identify who to invest in and support. They need some way, they think, to categorize people
This process complete overlooks the fact that circumstances and people change over time. It
It is ridiculous to think that a small group can know the circumstances and the people well
And it is bad management to put so much stock in this process at such a tremendous price to
individuals.
9 Box Designations
At a minimum, employees should be told where they are placed and why.
Are you seen as “hi-po/hi-per” (that’s HR jargon for high potential and high performance, the
Or are you somewhere in between, in the zone I call “po-po” (passed over and pissed off)?
You can ask. You can also ask what it will take to change the box you’re in. But don’t be surprised
if actually moving takes some time. This is annual process and moving you up may mean moving
Similarly, positive perceptions stick when performance and potential wane. Many an
The biggest argument for the 9 box model is that it can be effective when used correctly.
For me, the problem is that I’ve never seen it used “correctly.”
In theory, I suppose it makes sense. In practice, however, I haven’t seen this tool be fairly
administered or all that helpful in building bench strength, retaining key people or engaging
employees.
Since so many organizations use it to determine how they will allocate their leadership
development investments, why is “leadership development” the number one human capital crisis
The word “potential” is where I get hung up… It’s where others find this to be challenging, too.
Making a judgment about someone’s potential is inherently subjective. We’re talking about
something that is latent, not actual, possible… How can anyone absolutely determine another’s
potential? What’s more, doesn’t every single person have some measure of potential?
● Only 41.6% said they weigh innovative and/or unique contributions to the
business.
● Slightly more than one-third said their companies use either or both talent assessments (35.1%)
to take stretch assignments, leadership qualities or other criteria that ought to count for
something…)
In other words, the subjective opinion of one or just a few people matters most (and in more
“Senior executives, managers, directors, and HR and training and development functions need to
be on the same page when it comes to participants’ selection criteria or there’s a risk that senior
leaders will tap only those rising stars that mirror themselves,” — Society for Human Resource
Bringing in more voices who are “on the same page” regarding criteria seems like a reasonable
I’ve been a part of these meetings where managers, senior executives and HR folks talk about
people. The loudest voice — the one others defer to — is usually the person with the most
1. The “high potential” is described favorably by the manager who sees potential in him or her.
The manager gives a glowing review, justifying the high potential status with:
2. Others weigh in with their own anecdotes and impressions about the candidate.
If there are some negative impressions, these may trump the manager’s own assessment
of “high potential.”
Those negative impressions, like the positive ones, are generally based on feelings or
3. A vote is taken, and the “high potential” label is given or not given based on this discussion.
That label (good or bad) sticks and, in future years, few can remember why it was
Although this is an annual process, the carryover of “high potential” status provides a
The list doesn’t change significantly from one year to the next.
When I ask senior executives and others about people who are not on the list, I frequently hear
comments like “he’s been disrespectful to some of us” or “she just doesn’t have enough presence.”
Ummmm, excuse me, but aren’t those the very sorts of things we could coach people to develop
As if this weren’t problematic enough, these subjective “high potential” designations don’t even
The idea is to identify high potentials, provide them with development opportunities and retain
them for future promotion. Turns out, that doesn’t always happen.
“Informal high-potential programs that exist at many companies can be a double-edged sword
that undermines their very purpose,” noted the AMA Enterprise Study report. “They don’t
enhance a company’s ability to retain its high-potentials, and they threaten to alienate those
This matters.
It matters to companies that are wasting exorbitant amounts of time on a process that doesn’t
It matters to people who are tapped (perhaps in ways that elevate them beyond their capabilities
It matters to people who are capped, often unfairly, because the person assessing their potential
Maybe you’ve seen or experienced something more reasonable when it comes to defining and
fairly identifying “high potential.” If so, I’d like to hear about the ways it worked and the positive
impact it had.
If you’d like to know more about the mistakes leaders make when it comes to people
development, start here. If you want to avoid making these kinds of mistakes and build
organizational strength by putting people first, schedule a free consultation with People First
Productivity Solutions.
If you see things differently when it comes to the 9 box model, comment here so we can get all
sides represented in this discussion. I’m particularly interested in hearing from those who
administer this process and feel certain it is objective and effective in developing the capacity of