Abstract: Many succession planning processes struggle with subjective judgments, weak talent differentiation, and inflated assessments of bench strength. This installment introduces the 9-Box 2.0—an evidence-based succession planning approach that combines KSAP/R.A.N.D. screening, Driver and Marker profiles, SORTI designation, and AI-powered development planning. Rather than simply identifying high-potential talent, organizations gain clearer insight into potential for what. The result is a stronger succession process, deeper leadership benches, and development plans that drive action rather than sit on a shelf.
Part 3: 9-Box 2.0 – Evolving Best Practices
In Part 1, we covered the history and the best use of the original 9-box.
In Part 2, we introduced the new tools for driving a better 9-box 2.0.
In Part 3, below, we outline how the new tools can be used for a better Annual Talent Review process, leading to better decisions and more follow-through.
What would talent planning look like using new tools?
- Replacing or augmenting the call on, or estimation of, potential for developing into a top-performing leader. There are always options, but moving from a fully subjective, biased-laced estimate (still common today) to fully relied-upon science is the key:
- The underlying new material for gauging potential can be used to inform and educate managers on the Drivers and Markers to look for when making calls on talent. In this case, the use of the tools would be private to the rater (boss, manager, nominator, etc).
- The new tools (the R.A.N.D. high potential verification assessment) could be used to help the manager make decisions about the talent on the team and the resulting information would be the dominant data, even when other objectively defined and equitably applied screening surveys or valid performance data are incorporated.
- Managers will still be making their cases for their nominations based on direct experience over time, but with hard data to underpin and articulate their evaluations.
- The same screening assessments would be done for all nominated candidates and would be the prime talent/succession planning data. The data set allows for apples-to-apples comparisons of readiness and capabilities. Others will likely challenge some of the nominations based on their own experiences which may prompt the nominating group to agree to move candidates up, down or off the list.
Regardless of which elements are selected, the resulting rank ordering on potential would be placed on the top of the succession planning 9-box. The R.A.N.D. data will anchor that process.
- Who would be surveyed? There are options. Anyone suspected to be top talent and nominated as high-potential is the most likely focal subject. Every viable contributor at the same level in the organization (see use case that follows). HR or TM could suggest any “hidden talent” that managers don’t surface. In the case of an organization with a history of annual talent reviews that produce lists of high potentials, you would survey them all to confirm past judgments.
- What would guide the robust scrubbing discussion? Scrubbing is the talent reconciliation process in which nominating managers and (often) other leaders participate. What gets scrubbed? Any or all of the subjective estimates of potential and placement on the list, the R.A.N.D score, the KSAP Drivers and Markers profile, the 25 Behavioral Practices of high potentials, and talent portfolios. The goal is to engage in a robust, lively, research-supported debate with anyone in the room with knowledge of the candidates in question.
Once a candidate “makes the list”, you have the option of asking the next question that is often left out, “Potential for what?” We have developed the SORTI (Strategic – Operational – Relational – Technical – International) model to help answer this question. You can propose a subjective call on each candidate’s primary SORTI profile, or a unique combination of more than one of these. See Part 2 for more information about SORTI.
- How could you boost follow-up? You could ask TalentTelligent’s AI-powered Career Architect for both developmental suggestions and/or assignments. The main benefit of doing this live during the review is that the manager of the consensus high-potential would quickly see a drafted plan, hopefully endorse the plan, and then feel compelled to execute the plan.
For those of you, like me, who are visual learners, here is what it might look like:
A Use Case: Using KSAP Tools at a Midsize Bank
A Succession Planning Challenge
At a midsized bank in the Midwest, 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, both the CEO and the Board struggled to identify the right successors for the right reasons. 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 new KSAP tools, and she suggested the board and CEO take a look, as the same approach could help given their challenges.
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 loose version of the 9-box, 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 and corrupted its purpose. Without relative candidate ranking, there was little real talent differentiation.
Their leadership development offerings were available, but participation was largely self-nomination, meaning the right people weren’t always being developed. Each division and function operated under a “states’ rights” mentality, running its own programs and claiming ownership of its own talent, keeping them in a single business division. Cross-unit development was rare and largely uncoordinated.
Implementing an Evidence-Based Talent Review Process
The CEO and CHRO agreed to give KSAP a try. Because the HR staff didn’t have the depth of experience needed to facilitate the process effectively, we were 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 HR/talent planning team.
The board’s most pressing concern was the strength of the replacement bench for the C-suite. To address it, we agreed 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. Their culture all but required it.
We used a digital KSAP/R.A.N.D. survey (completed by two bosses) that measures the twelve Drivers/Markers and twenty-five Behavioral Practices of high potentials. The results include percentile scores that estimate everyone’s degree (probability of) of long-term potential and likely success when promoted to more important and complex roles. Each survey item is weighted differently within the scoring algorithm, reflecting its empirically validated relationship to sustained leadership success.
It’s important to note that self-assessment was not used with this initial screening assessment, as individuals are consistently inaccurate in estimating their own long-term potential. The resulting composite profile provides both an overall potential score and an index of rater agreement. Any significant discrepancies between raters were highlighted and resolved during the review discussion.
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 was in attendance and offered remarks reinforcing its importance and value.
Identifying High-Potential Leadership Talent
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 (e.g. Strategic, or Technical) to guide the discussion.
Each of the top seven candidates were displayed and robustly discussed in turn. Of the seven, three were unexpected gems — hidden talent that had not previously been recognized. Following the discussion, one individual from the top seven was moved down the list, and the person ranked ninth was moved up into that group. The CEO was an active participant throughout the scrubbing and calibrating discussions, engaging directly in the evaluation and decision-making process.
Differentiating Potential, Performance, and Readiness
Of the next fifteen, eleven were identified as high PROtentials—solid professionals – the backbone of the bank. Solid, capable performers who made the place run well. Many were deep functional experts and loyal long timers, but not likely to rise to the C-Suite.
Then we turned to the lowest 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 had not had a good history at separating low performers.
Using Data to Improve Succession Decisions
Most of the C-Suite said they liked adding science and data to the process in addition to the subjective estimates of the past process. They added that they benefited from the more robust scrubbing and had more confidence in the process. They reported relief they did not have to rely on only their own views.
They agreed that the next round would include the 184 professionals 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 for this individual and the CEO committed to act on it, including a pay adjustment and expanded scope to strengthen engagement and retention.
Leadership Development and Succession Bench Strength
For the seven top back-up candidates, two coaches were engaged to complete the 360 process by adding self, peers, team members and customers to the survey process, resulting in an Individual development plans. These included recommended development assignments created using our AI-powered Career Architect. The CEO directed HR to ensure that the 11 High PROtentials were all being treated properly. The CEO also reminded the managers that the four that were to be separated be handled with kindness and consideration.
Succession Planning Outcomes and Business Impact
The process and outcomes were later 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 unplanned turnover occur. They recommended beginning 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 a clearer view to its future leadership bench.
What about the 9-Box?
Even the 9-Box is now optional in succession planning if using the new tools. Instead of the 9-Box, it can be the rank-ordered Talent LIST. The 9-Box and especially the rank ordering is not popular with many managers who present at the review. You could be bold and drop the 9-Box, yet there are organizations where managers still want that tool, so it would be easier to add the updated data to improve accuracy and value.
New challenges, AI revolution, old problems – the lack of a strong bench. Familiar process, new tools, better outcomes. Shorter time frames and unending change will drive the need for more digitally agile high potentials.
So, the future of succession planning will not belong to organizations that keep guessing better. It will belong to organizations that decide with better evidence, sharper language, and more disciplined follow-through.
The old 9-Box gave us a starting point for succession planning. 9-Box 2.0 gives us a way to see more clearly — who has potential, potential for what, what evidence supports the call, and what development must happen next.
In a world of shorter timeframes, frequent disruption and relentless change, leadership benches cannot be built on charm, politics, performance (only), primacy, recency or optimistic replacement charts. They need science. They need data. They need debate. And they need leaders willing to act.
Follow-through is the last requirement.
Familiar process. New tools. Better outcomes.
