What is the 9-box grid?

The 9-box grid is a talent management framework used in calibration sessions and succession planning. It places employees in one of nine cells by combining two assessments: current performance and assessed future potential. Each cell implies a different talent strategy — who to accelerate, who to retain differently, and where the organization faces performance management decisions.

Originally developed by McKinsey for GE's succession planning in the 1970s, the 9-box has become standard practice at most large enterprises and is increasingly used by growth-stage companies as they build their first talent review process.

What is in the download?

  • Grid sheet. The color-coded 3×3 matrix with all 9 cells named, described, and color-coded. Cells are linked to the placement sheet so employee names auto-populate in the correct box.
  • Employee placement sheet. Columns: employee name, manager, performance tier (L/M/H), potential tier (L/M/H). Dropdowns for each tier. Grid auto-updates as you fill in placements.
  • Placement criteria definitions. Two-to-three behavioral indicators per cell that help managers calibrate consistently. Includes the definition of "potential" used in this template and common bias traps to watch for.
  • Session facilitation guide. Step-by-step instructions for running a 9-box talent review — pre-work, session structure, how to handle disagreements, and how to translate placements into actions.

How to run a 9-box talent review — step by step

Before the session

  1. Anchor the performance axis to review data. Do not re-score performance in the 9-box session. Use calibrated scores from the just-completed review cycle. This prevents the session from relitigating performance and keeps it focused on potential.
  2. Define "potential" explicitly before placing anyone. The most common 9-box failure is using "potential" as a vague halo. Use this definition: potential = the demonstrated ability and desire to take on significantly broader scope within the next 12–24 months. Indicators: learning velocity (how fast does this person close skill gaps?), initiative (do they act beyond their current scope without prompting?), ambiguity tolerance (do they perform under uncertainty?), and self-awareness.
  3. Pre-place independently. Each manager places their direct reports on the grid before the group session. Share no placements until everyone has submitted. This prevents anchoring on the first voice heard.

During the session

  1. Reveal placements and focus on divergence. Where all managers agree, move quickly. Spend time on disagreements — those are where the insight is.
  2. Require evidence, not impressions. "She seems high potential" is not sufficient. "She initiated and completed a cross-team initiative that was not in her scope" is. The template includes prompting questions to surface behavioral evidence.
  3. Apply bias check. Before finalizing, ask: is there anyone here who shares demographics, communication style, or background with the rating manager? Is there anyone who does excellent work in a low-visibility role? Both groups are systemically under-rated on potential.

After the session

Each placement should produce a specific next step. The template's action guide gives recommended actions per cell. The most common ones:

  • Stars and High Potentials: Schedule a dedicated retention and succession conversation within 2 weeks of the session. These employees typically have external options and will leave if their growth is not acknowledged.
  • Subject Matter Experts (high perf, limited potential): Recognize their contribution publicly and protect their role. Do not pressure them into management or broader scope — this is where expert contributors typically disengage and leave.
  • Enigmas (low perf, high potential): Schedule a conversation to diagnose the disconnect. Often there is an engagement, autonomy, or fit problem that a role change or manager change would resolve.
  • Risk employees (low perf, low potential): Initiate the performance improvement plan process within 30 days. Delay benefits no one.

Criticisms to be aware of

The 9-box grid has significant academic and practitioner criticism. Three concerns are worth taking seriously before using it:

  • Potential is often circular. Without a formal potential assessment, managers infer potential from past performance — which means both axes are measuring the same thing.
  • Affinity bias affects potential ratings. Employees who share background, communication style, or demographics with their managers systematically receive higher potential ratings.
  • Labels become sticky. A "low potential" placement tends to produce fewer development opportunities, which confirms the rating over time regardless of the employee's actual capability.

Use the 9-box as one input into talent decisions, not the sole output. Pair it with structured potential assessments, diverse calibration panels, and explicit de-biasing practices. The template's placement criteria and bias check are designed to partially address these concerns.