9-box grid: how it works, with a free template
A practical guide to the 9-box grid for HR and people leaders: the performance and potential axes, typical actions for each box, a six-step talent review and a copyable template.
- Written by
- TeamCheck Editorial Team
- Published
- Updated
- Reading time
- 11 min read
- Change language
- العربية
Key takeaways
- The 9-box grid places each person on two axes, current performance and future potential, to guide development, retention and succession decisions.
- Agreeing written definitions for each axis before the review, and calibrating placements across managers, makes the grid fairer and comparable across teams.
- Potential is the weakest axis in most reviews, so support it with structured assessments, multi-rater feedback and the person's own aspirations.
- Treat each placement as a discussion aid that leads to a clear action and a follow-up, not as a permanent label.
The 9-box grid is a talent review tool that places each employee on a three-by-three matrix: current performance on one axis and future potential on the other. The result is nine boxes, each pointing to a different development, retention or succession conversation. It works best as a structured discussion aid in a calibrated talent review, not as a permanent label.
This guide explains the two axes, what each box typically means, how to run a 9-box talent review step by step, how to measure potential with evidence rather than impressions, and where the grid falls short. A copyable 9-box grid template is included.
What is the 9-box grid?
The 9-box grid, sometimes written as the nine-box or the performance-potential matrix, is a simple way to compare people across a team, function or organization during a talent review. Managers and HR place each person in one of nine cells by answering two questions:
- How well is this person performing in their current role? Low, moderate or high.
- How much potential do they have to take on broader or more complex roles? Low, moderate or high.
The grid is popular because it is quick to understand and fits on one page. It gives leaders a shared picture of their talent, helps them see where strength is concentrated and where gaps sit, and links naturally to succession planning and development budgets.
The grid is not an assessment in itself. It summarizes judgments and evidence gathered elsewhere, such as performance reviews, objective results, assessments and feedback. The quality of the grid depends entirely on the quality of what goes into it.
When organizations use it
Common uses include:
- Annual or twice-yearly talent reviews for managers and senior specialists.
- Succession planning, to identify ready-now and ready-later candidates for critical roles.
- Targeting development investment, such as leadership programs, stretch assignments or coaching.
- Retention planning, to spot strong contributors who may be at risk of leaving.
The two axes: performance and potential
The grid separates two things that are easily confused. Performance looks backward and at the present. Potential looks forward.
| Aspect | Performance | Potential |
|---|---|---|
| Question it answers | How well is the person doing the current job? | How well might the person do in a bigger or different role? |
| Time frame | The recent past, usually the last 12 months | The next two to five years |
| Typical evidence | Goal results, performance reviews, quality and output measures, 360 feedback on current behavior | Learning agility, motivation to grow, behavior in new situations, structured assessments of capability and drive |
| Who knows it best | The direct manager, with input from stakeholders | Harder to observe; benefits from several sources and structured assessment |
| Common error | Rating likeability or visibility instead of results | Assuming high performers automatically have high potential |
Defining performance
Use the rating your performance management process already produces, when it is reliable, and convert it into three bands. Agree the bands in advance. For example, "high" might mean consistently exceeds the agreed goals, "moderate" might mean meets them, and "low" might mean falls short of several.
Be cautious about relying on a single manager's rating. Research on the structure of performance ratings by Scullen, Mount and Goff (2000) found that a large share of the variation in ratings reflected the individual rater rather than the performance of the person being rated. Calibration, discussed below, exists to reduce that effect.
Defining potential
Potential is the harder axis. There is no single agreed definition, so each organization needs its own, written down before the review. Silzer and Church (2009) proposed a useful structure: foundational dimensions that are relatively stable (such as cognitive ability and personality), growth dimensions that show whether someone will learn and develop (such as learning orientation and motivation), and career dimensions that are more specific to a type of role (such as leadership or technical skills). They also stress the key question: potential for what? Potential to lead a larger team is not the same as potential to become a senior technical expert.
The CIPD's guidance on succession planning makes a similar point: organizations should be clear and consistent about what potential means for them, link that definition to their strategy and values, and assess it objectively.
The nine boxes and typical actions for each
The labels below are generic descriptions used for this article. Many organizations give the boxes their own names. What matters is that each box leads to a clear and fair action.
A copyable 9-box grid template
Copy this table into your talent review document and add names to each cell. Potential runs from high (top row) to low (bottom row); performance runs from low (left) to high (right).
| Potential ↓ / Performance → | Low performance | Moderate performance | High performance |
|---|---|---|---|
| High potential | Box 7: high potential, low performance | Box 8: high potential, moderate performance | Box 9: high potential, high performance |
| Moderate potential | Box 4: moderate potential, low performance | Box 5: moderate potential, moderate performance | Box 6: moderate potential, high performance |
| Low potential | Box 1: low potential, low performance | Box 2: low potential, moderate performance | Box 3: low potential, high performance |
Box numbering, and even the orientation of the axes, differs between organizations and tools; some place performance on the vertical axis instead. Pick one layout and use it consistently.
Typical meaning and actions by box
| Box | What it often means | Typical actions |
|---|---|---|
| 9: high potential, high performance | Strong results and clear capacity to grow | Stretch roles, succession slates, senior sponsorship, a retention conversation |
| 8: high potential, moderate performance | Capable and growing; may be new to the role | Coaching, clearer goals, a defined next step within a set period |
| 7: high potential, low performance | Possible poor role fit, new in role, or obstacles outside their control | Explore causes first; consider a different role or more support before judging |
| 6: moderate potential, high performance | Excellent in the current role, with some room to grow | Broaden experience, recognize contribution, consider a lateral move |
| 5: moderate potential, moderate performance | Solid, dependable core of the team | Targeted development, regular feedback, keep engaged |
| 4: moderate potential, low performance | Under-delivering, with some capacity | A clear improvement plan with support and review dates |
| 3: low potential, high performance | Deep expert or highly valued specialist in the current role | Recognize and retain; offer expert career paths rather than management |
| 2: low potential, moderate performance | Meets expectations in a stable role | Keep skills current; check motivation and fit |
| 1: low potential, low performance | Not meeting expectations, limited growth signs | A structured performance conversation and, if needed, a decision about the role |
Two boxes deserve special care. Box 3 holds people who are often essential to daily operations. Treating "low potential" as a criticism can push them to leave. In many cases the right message is that their value lies in deepening expertise, not climbing a management ladder. Box 7 often hides people in the wrong role or with a weak manager. Investigate before acting.
How to run a 9-box talent review in 6 steps
A 9-box talent review usually runs once or twice a year, often after the annual performance cycle so that recent ratings are available.
- Agree definitions and scope. Decide which population is in scope, such as all people managers in a division. Write down what low, moderate and high mean on each axis, and what potential means for your organization. Share this with every participating manager before the review.
- Gather evidence. Collect performance ratings and results, recent 360 feedback where available, and any structured assessments of potential. Ask managers to note two or three concrete examples for each person.
- Pre-place people. Each manager places their own team members on the grid before the meeting, with a short written rationale for each placement.
- Hold a calibration meeting. Managers of similar teams meet with HR as a facilitator. They review placements together, challenge each other's evidence and agree final positions. Discuss the boxes at the extremes and anyone a manager is unsure about. Keep to the evidence and the agreed definitions.
- Agree actions. For each person, record one or two actions that follow from the placement: a development step, a succession slot, a retention conversation or a performance plan. Turn development actions into an individual development plan with owners and dates.
- Follow up and communicate. Check progress on actions at an agreed interval. Decide in advance what, if anything, employees will be told about their placement, and train managers to hold those conversations.
Calibration checklist
Use these questions in the calibration meeting to keep the discussion fair:
- Is this placement based on evidence from the full review period, or on one recent event?
- Would we place a colleague with the same evidence in the same box?
- Are we confusing visibility, confidence or tenure with potential?
- Are people in some groups, such as part-time, remote or newer employees, clustering in lower boxes without a clear reason?
- Is potential defined for a specific next role, or are we using a general impression?
- Does the action we agreed fit the box and the person's own career goals?
Measuring potential with evidence, not impressions
Potential is where most 9-box reviews are weakest. Managers usually see how someone performs in their current role, but rarely how they handle the demands of a role they have not yet held. Without structured evidence, potential ratings tend to follow performance ratings, and the grid collapses toward a diagonal line.
You can strengthen the potential axis by combining several sources:
- Structured assessments. Validated psychometric assessments can measure stable characteristics such as personality, cognitive ability and motivation, which map onto the foundational and growth dimensions described by Silzer and Church.
- Multi-rater feedback. A 360-degree feedback process shows how a person's behavior is experienced by peers and direct reports, not only by their manager.
- Behavior in new situations. Evidence from stretch projects, acting roles or cross-functional work is more informative than performance in a familiar role.
- The person's own aspirations. Someone who does not want a bigger role is unlikely to thrive in one. Ask directly.
For a deeper look at how to recognize and support people at the top of the potential axis, see our guide to high-potential employees.
How TeamCheck supports the potential axis
TeamCheck's Psychometric Assessments include a 9-Box Talent Grid in which potential is calculated as the average of the six drivers in the High-Potential (HiPo) assessment: Learning Velocity, Complexity Navigation, Growth Hunger, Calculated Boldness, Execution Discipline and Inner Stability. The grid appears in the Behavioral Profiles and HiPo candidate views, and the report can be downloaded and linked to individual development plans. This gives the potential axis a consistent, assessment-based input alongside your own performance data and manager judgment.
Limitations and common mistakes
Used carelessly, the 9-box can harden into labels that affect careers on thin evidence.
Limitations to keep in mind
- It is only as good as its inputs. If performance ratings are inconsistent and potential is guessed, the grid will look precise while being unreliable.
- Three bands are coarse. People near a boundary can move a box with a small change in rating. Treat boundary placements as provisional.
- It is a snapshot. Potential and performance both change with role, manager, health and circumstances. A placement from last year may no longer be accurate.
- It does not explain itself. The box shows where someone is, not why. The conversation and the evidence behind it matter more than the cell.
Common mistakes
- Letting performance define potential. A high performer in a specialist role is not automatically ready to lead.
- Skipping calibration. Without a shared discussion, each manager uses a different standard and the grid cannot be compared across teams.
- Labeling people. Turning boxes into fixed nicknames, and sharing those labels widely, can damage motivation and trust.
- No actions after the review. If nothing changes for the people in the grid, the review becomes an administrative exercise.
- Ignoring fairness checks. Look for patterns by gender, nationality, work arrangement or tenure that the evidence does not explain.
- Keeping data loosely. Talent review data is personal and sensitive. Limit access, agree retention periods and check the rules that apply where you operate, such as Saudi Arabia's Personal Data Protection Law. This is a general note, not legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
What are the two axes of the 9-box grid?
In the common layout, the horizontal axis is current performance: how well the person is delivering in their present role, usually over the last year. The vertical axis is potential: how likely the person is to succeed in broader or more complex roles in the next few years. Each axis is divided into low, moderate and high, which creates the nine boxes. TeamCheck's 9-Box Talent Grid uses the other orientation: current performance on the vertical axis and potential, the average of the six HiPo driver scores, on the horizontal axis.
How often should you run a 9-box talent review?
Most organizations run a 9-box talent review once a year, often just after the performance cycle. Some review critical roles or leadership populations twice a year. More frequent reviews add little unless something significant changes, such as a restructure, because performance and potential rarely shift meaningfully within a few months.
Should employees be told their 9-box placement?
Practice varies. Some organizations share placements openly, others share only the development actions that follow. If you share placements, train managers to explain the evidence, focus on next steps and avoid labels. Whatever you decide, agree it before the review and apply it consistently, so that employees in different teams are treated the same way.
Is the 9-box grid still useful?
It can be, when it is used as a structured conversation in a calibrated review rather than as a rating system. Its weaknesses, mainly subjective inputs and a vague definition of potential, are real. Defining potential clearly, using structured assessments and multiple sources of evidence, and checking for bias make the grid more reliable and fairer.
How is potential measured in a 9-box?
Potential is usually measured by combining manager judgment with structured evidence. Common sources include psychometric assessments of personality, cognitive ability and motivation, 360-degree feedback, behavior on stretch assignments and the person's own career goals. Defining potential for a specific type of role, such as people leadership or senior specialist work, makes the rating more meaningful.
Summary
The 9-box grid places people on two axes, current performance and future potential, to support fair talent decisions on development, retention and succession. It works when definitions are agreed in advance, placements are calibrated across managers, potential is supported by evidence rather than impressions, and every placement leads to a clear action and a follow-up. Treat it as a discussion aid, not a label, and revisit placements as people and roles change. To add structured, assessment-based evidence to the potential axis, explore TeamCheck's Psychometric Assessments.
References
We cite sources so you can read further. Links open external websites.
- The pearls and perils of identifying potential (Silzer & Church). Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2009. doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01163.x (opens in a new tab)
- Understanding the latent structure of job performance ratings (Scullen, Mount & Goff). Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000. doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.956 (opens in a new tab)
- Succession planning (factsheet). CIPD, 2025. www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/factsheets/succession-planning-factsheet/ (opens in a new tab)
Written by
TeamCheck Editorial Team
TeamCheck is an HR talent intelligence platform. Articles are researched and written by the TeamCheck editorial team.