The 9 Box Grid is a talent management tool that categorizes employees based on performance (current output) and potential (future development) into nine categories. Developed by McKinsey in the 1970s, the matrix is primarily used for succession planning and targeted talent development. Despite its widespread use, the method is critically discussed – particularly due to the risk of subjective assessments and unconscious bias.

What is the 9 Box Grid?

The 9 Box Grid (also called 9 Box Matrix or Performance-Potential Matrix) is a strategic tool for systematically assessing employees. It categorizes staff based on two central dimensions: current performance and future potential.

The matrix consists of a 3×3 grid with nine fields. The horizontal axis evaluates performance (low, medium, high), while the vertical axis assesses potential (low, medium, high). Each combination of these two factors results in one of nine categories, each requiring different development measures.

The concept of potential analysis plays a central role here: While performance is relatively objective and measurable through KPIs, goal achievement, and performance reviews, assessing potential presents a greater challenge. Potential encompasses factors such as learning agility, ambition, adaptability, and the ability to take on more complex tasks.

History: From McKinsey to HR

The 9 Box Grid was originally developed in the 1970s by McKinsey & Company – though not for personnel management, but for strategic business planning. General Electric (GE) used the tool under the name "GE-McKinsey Nine-Box Matrix" to evaluate different business units based on market attractiveness and competitive strength and make investment decisions.

HR departments later recognized the matrix's potential for talent management and succession planning. The logic remained the same: Instead of evaluating business units, employees were now analyzed – with the performance axis as a proxy for "competitive strength" and the potential axis as an indicator of "future value creation."

In the 1990s, Jack Welch, then CEO of GE, popularized the model in the HR context. Since then, the 9 Box Grid has become established as a standard tool for talent reviews, succession planning, and strategic talent management in companies worldwide.

How Does the 9 Box Grid Work?

Applying the 9 Box Grid follows several clearly defined steps that require both individual assessments and organization-wide calibration.

The 9 Categories Explained

Each of the nine fields in the matrix represents a specific combination of performance and potential and requires different HR measures:

Upper Right Quadrant – High Performance, High Potential (Stars/Future Leaders):These employees consistently exceed expectations and show clear potential for leadership roles. They are the most important target group for succession planning. Recommended measures: Leadership programs, mentoring, stretch assignments, fast-track career paths.

Upper Middle Quadrant – Moderate Performance, High Potential (High Potentials):Employees with great development potential whose current performance still has room for improvement. Often these are new employees or people in transition phases. Recommended measures: Targeted training, coaching, clear expectation setting.

Middle Right Quadrant – High Performance, Moderate Potential (Key Players/Specialists):Very high-performing experts who excel in their current role but don't necessarily want or should move into leadership. This group is often the backbone of daily operations. Recommended measures: Promote expert career paths, recognize expertise, lateral development opportunities.

Middle Quadrant – Moderate Performance, Moderate Potential (Core Employees):Solid, reliable employees who fulfill their role and have development potential. This group often makes up 60-70% of the workforce. Recommended measures: Continuous training, performance feedback, selective development programs.

Lower Left Quadrant – Low Performance, Low Potential (Underperformers/Risk):Employees who neither meet expectations nor show development potential. Quick action is required here. Recommended measures: Root cause analysis (wrong role? Lack of support?), Performance Improvement Plan, potentially separation.

Lower Right Quadrant – High Performance, Low Potential:High performers whose development potential is limited. They are valuable in their current role but should not be considered for leadership positions. Recommended measures: Show appreciation, retention measures, optimize role.

Left Upper Quadrant – Low Performance, High Potential (Enigma):A paradoxical category: high potential but low performance. Possible causes: wrong role, lack of motivation, personal issues. Recommended measures: Intensive analysis, career conversations, potentially repositioning.

Step-by-Step Guide to Creating a 9 Box Grid

Step 1: Define CriteriaBefore assessment begins, clear, objective criteria for performance and potential must be established. For performance, these can be KPIs, goal achievement rates, or 360° feedback. For potential, suitable indicators include learning speed, taking on additional responsibility, or successful project leadership.

Step 2: Individual AssessmentsManagers initially assess their direct reports independently based on the defined criteria. Each employee is rated on a scale from low to high for both dimensions.

Step 3: Calibration MeetingIn moderated calibration meetings, managers jointly discuss their assessments. This step is crucial for aligning different assessment standards and reducing unconscious bias. Managers must justify their assessments with concrete examples.

Step 4: Placement in the MatrixAfter calibration, all employees are placed into the corresponding fields of the 9 Box Grid. This provides a visual overview of the entire talent landscape of the organization.

Step 5: Derive MeasuresSpecific development measures, retention strategies, or potentially separations are planned for each category. The grid serves as a basis for talent budget allocation and succession planning decisions.

Step 6: Regular UpdatesThe 9 Box Grid should be updated at least annually, preferably semi-annually, to reflect changes in performance and potential.

Advantages of the 9 Box Grid

The 9 Box Grid offers HR professionals several concrete advantages for strategic talent management:

Visual Clarity: The matrix enables capturing the entire talent landscape of an organization at a glance. C-level executives and HR can quickly identify where high potentials are located, where critical gaps exist, and what the distribution of high performers looks like.

Systematic Succession Planning: According to a Deloitte study, 90% of companies using structured talent assessment tools like the 9 Box Grid report improved clarity in succession planning. The grid identifies potential successors for critical roles and enables long-term development planning.

Targeted Resource Allocation: Not all employees require the same investment. The 9 Box Grid helps strategically focus development budgets, coaching resources, and time on those talents where the investment provides the greatest value – typically the high potentials and stars.

Structured Talent Conversations: The grid enforces a systematic dialogue between managers about talent. In calibration meetings, subjective assessments must be objectively justified, which increases the quality of talent decisions.

Transparency About Strengths and Weaknesses: Organizations gain a clear picture of where they have too many underperformers, whether enough high potentials are in the pipeline, or whether certain areas are talent-poor.

Disadvantages and Criticisms

Despite its widespread use, the 9 Box Grid is increasingly under criticism. Modern HR experts point to several fundamental problems.

Bias Issues

The most serious criticism concerns unconscious bias. A Deloitte study shows: 86% of HR professionals admit that bias persists in succession planning processes – even when structured tools like the 9 Box Grid are used.

The potential axis is particularly vulnerable to distortions. Managers tend to rate people as "high potential" who are similar to themselves (similarity bias), who are extroverted and present (charisma bias), or who match stereotypical leadership images (gender/racial bias). The result: White men are disproportionately identified as high potentials, while women and people with migration backgrounds are underrepresented.

Recency bias also plays a role: Managers often assess based on the last few months rather than the entire performance period. A spectacular project success shortly before the talent review can disproportionately influence the assessment.

Oversimplification of Complex Reality

Categorizing people into nine boxes reduces the complexity of human capabilities to a binary grid. An employee can be excellent in technical skills but weak in leadership qualities – yet is categorized wholesale as "high performance, low potential."

Critics like the organization People Measures argue: "9 options aren't even enough to categorize what color car we all drive. How are they supposed to capture the diversity of human talents?" The grid ignores nuances, individual strengths, and the multidimensionality of talent.

Static Snapshot

The 9 Box Grid is a snapshot assessment at a specific point in time. It doesn't reflect how dynamic development paths are in the modern workplace. An employee currently rated as "low potential" can quickly move to a different category through targeted development, a role change, or changed life circumstances.

Moreover, the grid traditionally relies on annual performance reviews – a model from which many companies (e.g., Adobe, Deloitte, Accenture) have moved away in favor of continuous feedback. Creating assessments once a year doesn't fit agile, fast-paced work environments.

Labels Can Demotivate

When employees learn they've been classified as "low potential" or "underperformer," this can have devastating effects on motivation and self-efficacy. Labels are hard to shake: Even if performance improves, the reputation often sticks. This can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies.

How to Avoid Bias in the 9 Box Grid

Although the 9 Box Grid is bias-prone, there are proven strategies to minimize distortions:

Make Calibration Meetings Mandatory: Individual managers should never decide alone. In moderated calibration meetings, assessments must be justified with concrete examples. Other managers can question: "Why is person X high potential? What specific behaviors demonstrate this?"

Define Objective Criteria: Instead of vague terms like "potential," clear, observable criteria should be defined. Example: "Potential for leadership = Has successfully led a cross-functional team + shows active interest in leadership tasks + has demonstrated conflict resolution skills."

Include Multiple Perspectives: 360° feedback from colleagues, direct reports, and other stakeholders reduces dependence on the subjective opinion of a single manager.

Data-Driven Supplementation Through Potential Analyses: To objectify the subjective assessment in the 9 Box Grid, more and more companies are using scientifically validated potential analyses. The digital platform Aivy uses game-based assessments that reduce unconscious bias and provide objective data on capabilities and potential – as a supplement to traditional performance reviews.

Track Diversity Metrics: Analyze the grid by gender, ethnicity, age. If high-potential categories are homogeneous (e.g., 80% men), that's a warning signal for systematic bias.

Regular Unconscious Bias Training: Managers must understand how bias works and how to recognize it – for example, through implicit association tests or bias training.

Frequently Asked Questions About the 9 Box Grid

What is the difference between performance and potential in the 9 Box Grid?

Performance refers to current output in the present job. It's relatively objectively measurable through KPIs, goal achievement rates, project results, or structured performance reviews. Examples: Sales figures, customer satisfaction scores, completed projects.

Potential, on the other hand, describes the ability to take on larger or more complex roles in the future. Potential is harder to measure and often subjective. It encompasses factors such as learning speed, ambition, adaptability, strategic thinking, and leadership qualities.

A concrete example: A software developer can deliver excellent code quality (high performance) but have no interest in team leadership and show no leadership competencies (low potential for leadership roles). Conversely, a new employee may not yet show top performance (moderate performance) but demonstrate high potential through rapid learning, initiative, and leadership qualities (high potential).

Who invented the 9 Box Grid?

The 9 Box Grid was developed in the 1970s by McKinsey & Company – originally for strategic business planning, not for HR. General Electric (GE) commissioned McKinsey to develop a tool for evaluating their over 150 business units. The result was the "GE-McKinsey Nine-Box Matrix," which categorized business units by market attractiveness and competitive strength.

HR departments later recognized that the same logic could be applied to people: The performance axis corresponds to "competitive strength" (current performance), the potential axis to "market attractiveness" (future value). In the 1990s, GE CEO Jack Welch popularized the tool for talent management, after which it became established worldwide in companies.

How often should the 9 Box Grid be updated?

The grid should be updated at least once annually, ideally as part of the annual performance review cycle. However, many companies conduct semi-annual updates to better account for dynamic developments.

Additionally, ad-hoc adjustments make sense for:

• Promotions or role changes
• Spectacular project successes or failures
• Significant behavioral changes (positive or negative)
• Organizational restructurings

Important: The grid is not a static categorization but a dynamic tool. People develop – the grid should reflect this. Once a year is the minimum; in agile, fast-paced organizations, shorter cycles are recommended.

Is the 9 Box Grid still relevant today?

This question is controversially discussed. Opinions range from "proven standard tool" to "hopelessly outdated."

Pro arguments:

• Simple, visual, established
• According to Deloitte, 90% of users report improved clarity in succession planning
• Enforces structured talent conversations

Contra arguments:

• Vulnerable to bias (86% of companies struggle with it)
• Too simplistic for complex talent landscapes
• Doesn't fit continuous feedback cultures
• Labels can demotivate

Modern approaches supplement the grid:

• Skills-based talent management: Focus on specific capabilities rather than blanket "potential" assessment
• AI-supported talent analytics: Algorithms analyze performance data more objectively
• Continuous feedback: Regular check-ins instead of once annually

Conclusion: As a discussion framework, the grid remains valuable but should not be the sole tool for talent decisions. Modern HR combines the 9 Box Grid with objective assessments, skills analyses, and continuous feedback.

How do I avoid bias in the 9 Box Grid?

Calibration meetings are the most important mechanism: Assessments are discussed as a team, not decided by individuals. Managers must justify their assessments with concrete behavioral examples, which reduces subjective "gut feelings."

Define objective criteria: Specify in advance what "high performance" and "high potential" concretely mean. Example: "High potential for leadership = Has led cross-functional team + shows interest in leadership + resolves conflicts constructively." Vague terms invite bias.

Include multiple perspectives: 360° feedback from colleagues, reports, and other stakeholders reduces dependence on a single opinion. If five people independently share the same assessment, it's likely more valid.

Use scientifically validated potential analyses: Game-based assessments or psychometric tests provide objective data on capabilities that can serve as a supplement to subjective assessment.

Track diversity metrics: Regularly analyze whether high-potential categories are diversely populated. Homogeneous distributions (e.g., 80% men as high potentials) are a clear warning signal.

Should I tell employees their placement in the 9 Box Grid?

This question is highly controversial. Many companies keep grid results internal to avoid negative effects.

Arguments against transparency:

• Labels can demotivate ("You're low potential" destroys self-efficacy)
• Self-fulfilling prophecies: Those labeled "underperformer" are treated accordingly
• Risk of perceived injustice and conflicts

Arguments for transparency:

• Employees have a right to development feedback
• Without transparency, the grid seems opaque and unfair
• Open communication can foster motivation ("You're high potential – here are your next steps")

Best practice: Don't communicate the "box" but concrete development goals and measures. Instead of saying "You're in the middle field," say: "Your performance is solid. To qualify for leadership roles, we're working on your conflict resolution skills and delegation abilities."

Focus on future and development, not rigid categorization.

What are High Potentials (HiPos) in the 9 Box Grid?

High Potentials (HiPos) are employees in the upper right quadrant of the grid: They show both high performance (exceed current expectations) and high potential (capability for larger roles).

Typical characteristics of HiPos:

• Consistently exceed their goals and KPIs
• Show high learning speed and adaptability
• Proactively take on additional responsibility
• Demonstrate strategic thinking and problem-solving competence
• Show interest in development and leadership tasks
• Receive positive 360° feedback ratings

Alternative terms: Stars, Future Leaders, Top Talents, A-Players

Recommended measures for HiPos:

• Intensive development investments (leadership programs, executive coaching)
• Mentoring by C-level executives
• Stretch assignments (challenging projects outside comfort zone)
• Fast-track career paths and promotion opportunities
• Retention measures (HiPos are often approached by headhunters)

HiPos are the most important target group for succession planning and often the greatest competitive advantage of an organization.

What software supports the 9 Box Grid?

Many HR software solutions have integrated 9 Box Grid modules that digitize and visualize the process. Well-known examples:

• SAP SuccessFactors: Enterprise solution with comprehensive talent management
• Workday: Cloud-based HR platform with 9 Box Grid functionality
• Personio: DACH-focused HR software with performance management
• HiBob: Modern people management platform

Excel templates are a simple, free solution for smaller teams. Many HR blogs (e.g., AIHR) offer free, downloadable templates.

People analytics tools like Leapsome, Culture Amp, or Effy offer data-driven talent reviews with automated 9 Box Grids based on performance data, 360° feedback, and OKRs.

The choice of tool depends on company size, budget, and existing HR tech stack. For startups and SMEs, Excel solutions often suffice; enterprise organizations benefit from integrated platforms.

Conclusion: Use the 9 Box Grid as a Discussion Framework

Despite justified criticism, the 9 Box Grid remains a widely used tool in talent management. Its greatest strength lies in visual clarity and the ability to enforce structured talent conversations. For succession planning and strategic resource allocation, it offers a proven framework.

At the same time, HR professionals must not ignore the weaknesses: Bias vulnerability, oversimplification of complex realities, and static snapshots are real problems. The grid should never be the only tool for talent decisions.

Best practice: Use the 9 Box Grid as a starting point for discussions, not as final truth. Supplement it with:

• Objective potential analyses (e.g., scientifically validated assessments)
• Continuous feedback instead of once annually
• Skills-based talent management
• Diversity metrics for bias control

The 9 Box Grid is a proven tool – but only as objective as the data it's based on. Companies that want to reduce bias and make data-driven talent decisions increasingly supplement the grid with scientifically validated potential analyses. The digital platform Aivy offers game-based assessments that enable objective, fair evaluations.

Learn more about objective potential analysis with Aivy.

Sources

• Coyne, Kevin. "Enduring Ideas: The GE–McKinsey nine-box matrix." McKinsey & Company, 2008. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/enduring-ideas-the-ge-and-mckinsey-nine-box-matrix
• van der Merwe, Dr. Marna. "9 Box Grid: A Practitioner's Guide." AIHR (Academy to Innovate HR), 2025. https://www.aihr.com/blog/9-box-grid/
• Deloitte. "Structured Talent Assessment Tools Study." 2020-2024. (Key findings: 86% bias issues in succession planning, 90% improved clarity through 9 Box Grid)
• People Measures. "Is It Time To Move On From The 9-Box Grid?" 2025. https://www.peoplemeasures.com.au/insights/is-it-time-to-move-on-from-the-9-box-grid/
• 365Talents. "9‑box grid for skills-based talent management in 2025." 2025. https://365talents.com/en/resources/9-box-grid-for-talent-management-a-guide-for-skills-based-hrs/
• SIGMA Assessment Systems. "The 9-Box Grid: How to Use it and its Limitations." 2024. https://www.sigmaassessmentsystems.com/9-box-grid/