Abstract:Organizations still rely on the 9-box grid to identify high potential talent, but today we know far more about what potential actually is and how to measure it. In Part 2, we explore how modern, science-based approaches are transforming talent assessment, from defining potential with greater precision to aligning it with specific leadership paths. With new data-driven tools and frameworks, organizations can move beyond subjective talent reviews and/or poor utilization of the 9-box to make more accurate and confident succession and development decisions.
Catch up by reading Part 1: How the 9-Box Grid Lost Its Way (And What It Was Originally Designed to Fix.
Where the Grid Leaves Off: From Opinion to Emerging Consensus
Today, we are getting closer to consensus on what is a high potential. Academics, practitioners, vendors, consultants and thought leaders are in near agreement, while perhaps using different words and definitions, about the underlying content and talent classifications. That shared understanding is now being translated into modern, evidence-based tools that build on the grid’s foundation while preparing to replace it altogether.
Turning Research Into the Practical Measurement of Potential
There are a growing number of tools being developed. We can only talk in detail about the tool we have developed. We (Robert Eichinger, Roger Pearman , and Mike Lombardo) created a set of paper-and-digital tools to make identifying and developing long-term high potentials more accurate and actionable.
The Markers Behind High Potential
It’s called KSAP — the Knowledge, Skills, and Attributes of Potential. We distilled decades of research on high potential into this model, combining the best available science with our own experience. The result is a framework built around twelve markers and drivers of potential, supported by twenty-five observable behaviors that fuel them. We tested the Potential library within numerous companies that had verified high-potential talent. Our analysis revealed how observable and measurable Potential, at any organizational level, shows up across the Roles, Practices, Assignments, and degrees of behavioral difficulty in performance over the arc of a career. We’ve developed corresponding certification training, assessment, and development tools to support the entire career journey — from emerging talent to legendary leaders.
The Question We Missed: Potential for What?
For roughly forty of the last fifty years, we talked about “potential” as if it were one general thing. It isn’t. We now have tools that define potential for specific leader-level destinations. There are five distinct paths to leadership, each requiring a different mix of capabilities — we call this framework SORTI.
S – Strategic
O – Operational
R – Relationship Management
T – Technical
I – International or Global
Each path demands a different kind of high potential, and therefore, a different kind of development journey. Every destination has its own SORTI success profile, and every emerging high potential can be assessed against their personal SORTI profile.
Using SORTI significantly improves the effectiveness and efficiency of succession planning and leadership development. It’s a science-based advancement, the next generation of what old “replacement charts” were trying to do.
A Better Talent Review in Action: A Midsize Bank Case Study
Let’s review a real use example. In one midsized bank, the board had grown increasingly dissatisfied with the succession planning process. The replacement charts looked good on paper, but in practice they were rarely followed. When senior roles opened up, both the CEO and the board struggled to identify the right successors. Too often, internal replacements failed to outperform their predecessors, and external hires were met with resistance — or worse, rejection.
One board member spoke up. Her company had been using the KSAP tools, and she suggested the board and CEO take a look, maybe the same approach could help here.
The Bank engaged TalentTelligent to brief and educate HR and the C-suite to determine whether there might be a fit. They had been using a version of the grid, but over time it had lost its effectiveness. Absolute placement had crept in, everyone somehow ended up in the upper-right corner, and the numbering system had been adjusted to appear more “logical,” which only diluted its intended purpose. Without a relative ranking of talent, there was little real differentiation.
Their leadership development offerings were available, but participation was largely self-initiated, meaning the right people weren’t being developed. Each division and function operated under a “states’ rights” mentality, running its own programs and claiming ownership of its own talent. Cross-unit development was rare and largely uncoordinated.
The CEO and CHRO agreed to give KSAP a try. Because the HR staff didn’t yet have the depth of experience needed to facilitate the process effectively, TalentTelligent was asked to lead the first round, both to ensure a strong start and to serve as a hands-on training and certification experience for their team.
The board’s most pressing concern was the strength of the replacement bench for the C-suite. To address it, we decided to assess the 46 leaders who reported directly to the C-suite. Politically, we could have focused only on the obvious contenders, but the board insisted on a full, inclusive review. So, we assessed all 46.
TalentTelligent uses a digital KSAP survey that measures the twelve Drivers and twenty-five Behaviors of potential. The results generate percentile scores that estimate each individual’s degree of long-term potential. Each Driver and Behavior is weighted differently within the scoring algorithm, reflecting its empirically validated relationship to sustained leadership success.
Self-assessment is not used with this screening assessment, as individuals are consistently inaccurate in estimating their own long-term potential, and the likelihood for socially desirable candidate response patterns are higher. The resulting composite profile provides both an overall potential score and an index of rater agreement. Any significant discrepancies between raters are highlighted and resolved during the review discussion.
What Changed When Data Entered the Room
All members of the C-suite attended the review together, as this was intended to be a learning run. The session opened with the CEO outlining the goals and objectives, followed by a brief overview of the process delivered by the CHRO. The board member who had originally advocated for the approach then offered remarks reinforcing its importance and value.
We then displayed the rank-ordered list of the 46 individuals assessed. A line was drawn beneath the top seven, those who demonstrated sufficient prospects to develop, learn, and ultimately grow into strong C-suite performers, assuming continued development. Alongside each score, we provided a detailed Driver Profile and SORTI Profile to guide the discussion.
When the Rankings Changed
Each of the top seven candidates was displayed and discussed in turn. Of the seven, three were unexpected, hidden talent that had not previously been recognized. Following the discussion, one individual from the top seven was moved off the list, and the person ranked ninth was moved up into that group. The CEO was an active participant throughout the scrubbing discussions, engaging directly in the evaluation and decision-making process.
Of the next fifteen, eleven were identified as high PROtentials, the backbone of the bank. Solid, capable performers who made the place run. Many were deep functional experts and loyal long-timers, but not likely to rise to the very top.
Then we turned to the bottom ten. Four were designated as “replace soon,” not performing at the required level, and with stronger up-and-comers already in their wake. Each of their managers committed to act within 30 days, in coordination with HR and Legal, since all four were long-term employees. The Bank was not historically good at separating low performers.
All on the C-Suite team said they liked adding science and data to the process which helped counter the subjective estimates of the past process. They added that they benefited from the more robust scrubbing and had more confidence in the process and outcomes.
The entire C-Suite agreed that adding science and data to the process was a significant improvement over the purely subjective assessments of the past. They noted that the more rigorous and objective analysis led to sharper discussions, cleaner decisions, and greater confidence in the overall process.
From One Review to Enterprise Impact
They agreed that the next round would include the 184 leaders reporting to the 46 who, in turn, report to the eight C-Suite roles, with special attention on the three C-Suite positions lacking clear successors. One of those roles surfaced a retention risk: the incumbent was unlikely to stay much longer. A retention plan was drafted, and the CEO committed to act on it, including a pay adjustment and expanded scope to strengthen engagement and retention.
The process and outcomes were presented to the Board, with endorsement from the one member who attended the review. The Board’s concern over succession eased, they were reassured by the data and depth of the process. However, they remained uneasy about the retention risk and the absence of ready backups should turnover occur. They recommended a discreet search through the firm previously used for executive placements.
Net result: a disruptive improvement in the Bank’s readiness to thrive, anchored by a science-based, sharper, data-driven succession plan and clearer confidence in its future leadership bench.
You Can Still Use the Grid – But You Don’t Have To
The traditional 9-box grid served its purpose for more than fifty years. It helped, it guided, and it worked…up to a point. But we can do better. Just as medicine evolves with new treatments and surgical methods grounded in science, talent management must do the same, updating its tools, language, and practices to reflect what we now know works better.
For those who want to do it better, the tools are already here. You can still use the grid if you anchor it in the science—using the surveys to define the three groups of potential. But it’s no longer required. You can safely retire the old grid and move forward with a psychometric measure–the R.A.N.D. Career Profile.
There is, of course, a cost consideration. The old grid is “free,” but the new tools come with a modest price tag. The real question is value. What’s the cost of a bad nomination or of missing or even losing a hidden gem? What’s the benefit of a process that executives like using, one that gives the Board confidence and ensures successors are ready when needed? What’s the upside of modernizing a system your leaders quietly dislike?
The return is simple: more accuracy, better decisions, and a process your top managers will actually trust.
The Grid helped us think inside the box; now science invites us to think and lead beyond it.
