IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT? · 2016-09-30 · Is the Nine Box Grid all about being in the top right? ... closed doors and of fates being determined without

RESEARCH REPORT

IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEINGIN THE TOP RIGHT?Employee experiences of the Nine Box GridJane Yarnall and Dan Lucy

www.roffeypark.com

About Roffey Park

Roffey Park is an internationally renowned leadership institute based in the UK and Singapore.

We develop people who develop organisations.

With over 65 years’ experience of leadership, organisational development, human resources and coaching, we provide executive education and research to many of the world’s leading companies and organisations.

We offer tailored development programmes, qualifications accredited by the University of Sussex, management consultancy, coaching and training courses. Our research services provide a unique combination of research, consultancy and development expertise for organisations who are investigating ways of improving their effectiveness and intelligence.

Research at Roffey Park

Roffey Park funds its own research programme with the aim of meeting one of its charitable objectives: namely to conduct and publish research in support of the health and welfare of people at work. Our research improves the world of work and organisational performance by sharing knowledge of good practice in people management, leadership and organisational development.

For more information visit www.roffeypark.com or contact:

UK Office Singapore Office

Tel: +44 (0) 1293 851644 Tel: +65 6549 7840

Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Is the Nine Box Grid all about being in the top right?Employee experiences of the Nine Box Grid

Jane Yarnall and Dan Lucy

September 2015

ISBN 978-0-907416-14-2

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 2

IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?



ContentsExecutive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8

Research approach ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Research findings - the ratee perspective ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11

Research findings - the the rater perspective ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................32

Appendix 1 – List of interviewees ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................33

Appendix 2 – Online questionnaire .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................34



AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to acknowledge all those managers and HR professionals who kindly offered us their time to talk about their experience of the Nine Box Grid. In particular, we would like to thank those organisations in the private, public and not-for-profit sector who shared with us how they use the Nine Box. The authors would also like to thank Janice McBrown for proofreading and coordinating media coverage of the research; Carol Hatcher for her proofreading; and Alison Hoare and Debbie Beaney for the design and typesetting of the report.



Executive SummaryThe Nine Box Grid is now a widely used tool for identifying talent within an organisation, particularly in large organisations. The tool is used to assign employees to a box based on two dimensions; their current performance and their future potential. Typically the horizontal axis has three levels of performance and the vertical axis has three levels of potential. Managers make a judgement on where each employee is placed. Organisations often attribute different labels to each box, beyond the obvious “high potential/high performance”. Despite its widespread use by the HR community, anecdotally we have heard HR practitioners express frustration with the Nine Box. We also have heard quite diverse views about people’s experience of using the tool. Much of the research on the grid tends to look from the ‘outside in’ on the process. This research report takes a different view, looking from the ‘inside out’, exploring the experiences of employees using the grid to rate others and/or of being rated on the grid themselves.

Driving our research were a number of questions:

• What is the impact of using the grid on employee engagement and motivation?

• How helpful is the grid in driving and supporting a culture of development?

• What is the experience of managers using the grid to rate employees?

The stated aims of the Nine Box Grid are usually threefold:

1. To provide a more robust assessment of an organisations’ talent and bench strength to aid future

resource planning

2. To aid diagnosis of training and development needs, and provide greater focus to development efforts

3. To aid discussions on careers, help set expectations for development and to motivate and engage talent within the organisation.

This research report offers some interesting insights in relation to each of these stated aims from a line manager and employee perspective rather than a corporate standpoint.

What is the impact of using the grid on employee engagement and motivation?

We started out this research seeking to explore the impact of using the Nine Box Grid on employee engagement and motivation. Our results suggest that from the perspective of the ratee, the grid process is failing to engage a high percentage of employees.

For people rated in the five boxes with low performance or low potential, the experience is unsurprisingly demotivating as well as being seen as confusing and pointless. This begs the question of what organisations are really achieving by insisting on holding such conversations, or even formalising ratings for this group of employees.

Whilst the majority of the high performing, high potential employees are motivated by the experience, this is by no means unanimous, with one-third feeling the process didn’t change anything and one in ten feeling less positive about their future career in the organisation. This was often a result of a lack of follow-on development opportunities.

Perhaps more worrying is the nearly two-fifths of employees with some potential who are ‘switched off’ by the Nine Box, feeling less positive about their career prospects in the organisation and possibly demotivated as a result. Movement from a higher rated box in one year to a lower rated box in the following year was particularly upsetting for employees and without exception reduced their engagement levels.

Even where respondents are more positive about the rating experience, their commentary suggests that any motivational benefits are short-lived, particularly where there is a lack of follow up or developmental action shortly after the rating experience. The motivational benefits were primarily described as being about validating subjective perceptions of performance, giving some people a temporary feel-good factor.

It was surprisingly common to hear that employees had not been informed about their rating or were not aware of whether they had been rated or not (one in three had not been informed, and one in five didn’t know if they had been rated or not). This, unsurprisingly, led to a sense of anxiety about conversations happening behind closed doors and of fates being determined without the opportunity to have one’s say. This clearly had the potential to disengage.

How helpful is the grid in driving and supporting a culture of development?

Our research indicated that the conversation the employee has with their manager is the vital part of the process and the grid is just a vehicle for that conversation to take place. Where managers are seen as having good people skills and engender a culture of feedback in their teams, then the grid process becomes an almost unnecessary prompt to enable this conversation to take place. Where this is not the case, there is little evidence



to suggest that the grid is helpful in driving different conversations to take place without support being put in place to develop the capability of managers to hold effective, and often difficult, conversations.

Despite having nine boxes, the over-arching aim came across in the commentary as deciding on who should be placed in the top right hand box and ensuring that career progression and development opportunities were carefully managed at a cross-organisational level for this group. Where this process was managed well, it was seen by many as benefiting the organisation in enhancing its bench strength. However, beyond this top right box, the focus for development was more frequently left to the immediate manager to determine and there were few examples of managers taking a different approach to their existing style.

What is the experience of managers using the grid to rate others?

Overall, nearly two-thirds (60 per cent) of managers found it easy to assign a box rating to individuals. That said, there was a clear difference between those in and outside the HR community. Whilst roughly one in ten (14 per cent) of HR managers find the rating process difficult, this is dwarfed by the one third of operational mangers feeling the same. Many concerns centre on the difficulties of assessing potential, and in particular concerns about how ‘objective’ such assessments are. It is relatively rare for an individual to be assessed as having high potential without also performing well or very well. One is left wondering how much performance rather than potential is driving assessments. Other concerns seem to stem from a dislike of boxing individuals and giving them a

label. We heard from some how, despite the intention of box ratings being viewed as fluid, labels became self-fulfilling prophecies that stuck. The tendency for rating managers to use labels as shortcuts when discussing individual employees was felt by some to reinforce this.

Managers also expressed concern about the impact on the motivation and engagement of some of their key staff. The middle boxes of the grid were considered to be difficult to differentiate and the associated labels of ‘solid performer’ or ‘core employee’ unlikely to inspire.

Managers also report particular challenges relating to certain types of individual. Principal among these include the highly ambitious who may want to move faster than the manager deems appropriate, the underperformer for whom the grid rating process is often seen as of little value, and those deemed to be thinking of retirement or lacking desire for advancement. Another challenging group is that of the highly effective expert professional, who, if progression on the grid is linked exclusively to leadership potential, is rated as low potential. These individuals may be key to the organisation yet find themselves described as ‘low potential’.

How valuable is the Nine Box Grid for managers?

Manager views of the perceived usefulness of the grid were influenced to a large extent by their position within the organisation and their wider involvement with how the grid is used. Junior managers tended to be more sceptical about the value and fairness of the process. For more senior raters, the value of the grid process was more evident in the conversations they had with

their peers to cross validate box ratings. Here the grid appeared to provide a helpful framework for opening up dialogue about the broader potential of people within Departments and led to some useful discussions about how to find new or different ways of developing and nurturing talent. Where raters were not involved in these debates, they often struggled to think how best to provide development opportunities for their staff and the conversations were, at best, merely providing validation to the employee of their performance and potential.

What can be done to improve the operation of the Nine Box Grid for managers?

There was significant evidence of the process of using the grid improving over time. The involvement of HR Business Partners, robust peer review meetings, and support for managers in holding effective conversations were all associated with a more positive experience. There was a definite trend for suspicion about the process to reduce as the seniority of the rater increased, due to greater involvement in the ongoing talent strategy for their part of the business. Involving more middle and junior managers in the wider process may help reduce suspicion and reassure these managers about both the robustness and value of the Nine Box.

Managers appreciated detailed guidance around the grid and support from HR Business Partners in interpreting that guidance. Having a clear strategy behind the use of the grid, and available follow-on development opportunities was also key. Corporate support in accessing development options outside of the manager’s sphere of influence was highly valued.



Our research highlights a fundamental question of whether the corporate value of identifying bench strength and focusing development resources is worth the potential disengagement of talent caused by implementing the Nine Box Grid. However, if we make the assumption here that it is, then what have our findings suggested that HR should consider when implementing the Nine Box? We have made a number of suggestions here to fine-tune the process.

■ Raters clearly appreciate guidance around how to use the Nine Box Grid. That said, HR may need to consider whether they are focussing too much effort on fine-tuning the guidance at the expense of supporting raters with the different types of conversations they may face. Particular emphasis needs to be given to employees with high ambition and expectations for progression and how to keep this group engaged if they are not yet at the top right. Managers need support and skills practice in how best to hold the conversation for employees at different stages of their employment cycle and careful consideration may need to be given to whether there is a need to hold conversations with all employees rated outside of the top right quadrant of boxes. HR need to go beyond supporting the rating and give greater emphasis to supporting the skills required for the conversation to be effective.

■ Engaging first line and middle managers in the process requires attention. It may be that different communication and guidance may be required for different levels of management. Or wider involvement in peer review meetings could be used to strengthen manager commitment to the process

■ It was surprising, given guidance on best practice, to discover that significant numbers of employees hadn’t been told their rating on the grid or simply didn’t know whether they had been rated or not. Closed systems tend to generate anxiety, suspicion, and a sense of being disengaged from the process. HR should given careful consideration to this aspect of the process and be open in its communication about why secrecy is needed, if indeed it is.

■ Careful consideration should be given to the use of labels. Whilst these can provide a handy shortcut, there is a danger that this removes the focus from a conversation based around detailed criteria. There is also a risk that labels undermine the fluidity of box ratings and become self-fulfilling prophecies driving how people perceive themselves and others.

■ The use of quotas also needs careful consideration. Whilst this practice has its logic, encouraging managers to make hard rather than soft choices about who is really potential, the downside is that decisions on where people are placed can be viewed as less objective, a result of horse-trading rather than an assessment against set criteria.

■ There is a question as to whether there is any value in holding conversations with all employees outside of the top right quadrant of boxes. The purpose of these conversations is sometimes not apparent to managers or those they manage, limiting their value.

■ Companies may want to track the impact on engagement with the organisation resulting from grid conversations. In particular, attention needs to be given to people moving roles or managers, where the box rating could potentially go down from previous years.

■ The follow up from the rating is crucial and companies need be explicit about the “deal” for each box at a corporate level and quickly follow up on promises. This needs to go beyond suggesting typical actions for each box.

■ There is a danger that HR becomes so focussed on the technical aspects of talent that it loses sight, or is not aware of, the difficulties that managers face in having conversations with employees around the grid and its impact on engagement. For the Nine Box to really succeed, HR needs to equip managers with the requisite skills and ability if it is to have their commitment and for it to be seen as supporting managers in engaging their staff.

Implications for practice:



IntroductionThe Nine Box Grid is now a widely used tool for identifying talent within an organisation, particularly in large organisations. Despite its widespread use by the HR community, anecdotally we have heard HR practitioners express frustration with the nine box process. We also know of some quite talented people who have found the experience of being rated, or the rating itself, demotivating. They have been quite ‘turned off’ by it. This has prompted us to look a little deeper into the grid and people’s perceptions of it. This first report of two investigates manager and employee perceptions and experiences. The second report in this series will look from the “outside in” at the process and take a more corporate perspective on the grid.

Much of the research we have found tends to look ‘from the outside in’ on the process. Our research takes a different angle, looking from the ‘inside out’ – what does it feel like and what are the motivational consequences of rating or being rated on the grid. Our research has involved a survey of 700 employees and in-depth interviews and focus groups with employees from several organisations.

In exploring user experiences, we have been prompted to ask ourselves a number of questions, including:




Our research has thrown up some interesting insights. Firstly, a little about the Nine Box Grid, its origins, stated purposes and how it is frequently used within organisations.

What is the Nine Box Grid?

The Nine Box Grid is a tool which has been adopted in many organisations as part of an overall talent strategy.

The tool is used to assign employees to a box based on two dimensions; their current performance and their future potential. Typically the horizontal axis has three levels of performance and the vertical axis has three levels of potential. Managers make a judgement on where each employee is placed. Organisations often attribute different labels to each box, beyond the obvious “high potential/high performance”. We will explore some of these labels later in the report.

Figure 1: The Nine Box Talent Grid

PERFORMANCE

POTENTIAL

High potentialLow performance

High potentialMedium performance

High potentialHigh performance

Medium potentialHigh performance

Low potentialHigh performance

Medium potentialMedium performance

Low potentialMedium performance

Medium potentialLow performance

Low potentialLow performance



How does the Nine Box Grid process operate?

Organisations operating the Nine Box Grid process will typically have guidelines on the assessment process and how to determine performance and potential. Whilst performance criteria are reasonably similar across organisations, measures of potential vary considerably. In some organisations it is simply about readiness for progression, whereas in other organisations there are particular criteria that need to be met.

Having understood the criteria, the Nine Box Grid process involves a manager filling in the grid for their own team and then either feeding this information up the management chain, or attending a peer review meeting to calibrate the ratings. The purpose of the peer review meeting is for mangers to collectively review current performance and future potential of a specific segment of their workforce. By bringing together multiple perspectives the intention is to provide a robust assessment of talent. The output from the peer validation meetings then feed into a higher level analysis of bench strength in the organisation. The HR Business Partner is often seen to have a pivotal role in facilitating peer review meetings and clarifying the criteria for assessment, as well as ensuring that blind spots and biases are questioned.

Organisations’ differ as to whether the initial box ratings are arrived at in consultation with employees or are kept secret. Where the ratings are open, the joint discussion can have the additional benefit in framing employee expectations and opening up debate about future development opportunities. In some organisations the ratings are fed back to employees after the peer reviews, as standardisation of rankings takes place, allowing only a certain percentage of the workforce to be assigned to particular boxes.

What is the purpose of using the Nine Box Grid?

The Nine Box Grid became popular for a number of reasons. Historically, in succession planning meetings, mangers often relied on gut-feel to assess future potential, drawing on opinion that appeared relevant to the people present but with limited reference to objective criteria of what potential looked like or what resource was needed to best suit their organisation’s future. Often these opinions were biased by an employee’s performance in their current job and an analysis of the forthcoming departmental needs. Such processes were also criticised for not taking account of the employee’s perspective on their future career.

The stated aims of the Nine Box Grid are usually threefold:

1. To provide a more robust assessment of an organisations talent and bench strength

• Reviewing the performance and potential of staff

• Comparing the bench strength to future requirements

• Feeding objective data into future resource planning

2. A diagnostic tool to focus on more tailored training and development outcomes

• Encouraging the establishment of more creative development opportunities such as assignments, projects or mentoring

• Establishing a group of high potentials as candidates for future leadership programmes

• Focussing the investment of limited resources for development

3. A tool to aid discussions on careers and help set expectations for development

• To motivate and engage talent within the organisation

• To provide tailored development plans for employees

• To encourage managers to look at cross functional development opportunities

Some organisations also have an additional purpose of using the grid to differentiate reward.

In recent years the Nine Box Grid has come under scrutiny as people have begun to question just how objective the rating of potential really is. Criticisms have been levelled at the tool over how potential is measured. Criteria often focus on readiness for promotion and behavioural characteristics and can ignore business critical expertise that might be required to progress, or rapidly changing needs in the external environment (Hirsh, 2012). Where box ratings are assigned without employee involvement, there is also a question of whether it is just a tick box exercise that lets managers off the hook from having meaningful conversations about employee development and careers.



Research approachAll too often research into talent processes are analysed through the frame of people looking “from the outside in” on the process. This research goes beyond a simple exploration of the pros and cons of using the Nine Box Grid by getting inside the perspective of people who are actually using the tool. We have used an “inside out” approach to look at the views of people experiencing the Nine Box Grid process.

The research explores:

The Ratee Perspective:

• How are employees experiencing being rated on the grid?

• What happens in the conversation with their managers when they use the Nine Box Grid and what impact does this have on them?

• Does the impact vary depending on the box rating and if so how?

• What benefits does it have for employees?

The Rater Perspective:

• How are managers themselves experiencing the process of rating an employee on the grid and having conversations around it?

• What is the perceived value to managers?

• How effective are peer reviews in the eyes of the participants?

• What challenges does the Nine Box Grid process throw up for managers?

To do this, we carried out one focus group in a public sector organisation and fourteen in-depth interviews with a cross section of managers and employees from a diverse spread of organisations (see Appendix 1). We also conducted an on-line survey to obtain quantitative data (see Appendix 2). The survey included eight open-ended questions asking respondents to elaborate on answers and to offer opportunities for further comment on the grid. Open-ended questions included: ‘What, overall, was your experience of rating others using the Nine Box Grid?’; ‘What, if anything, would make it easier for you to understand and use the Nine Box Grid?’; ‘What, overall, was your experience of being rated on the Nine Box Grid?’



Research findings - the

ratee perspectiveOut of the 703 survey respondents, 329 (57%) employees had been rated using the talent grid. Of those, 213 (65%) had been informed of their rating and most (85%) had taken part in a conversation with their manager as part of the process.

Where the box marking was known, the spread across the nine boxes from our sample was distributed as shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: Distribution of box ratings amongst survey sample

Engagement with the process

We found that the grid process is failing to engage a high percentage of employees, even those with high potential. Table 1 shows that less than half of (41 %) all employees rated using the grid felt positively motivated as a result of their rating. A similar proportion (39%) felt more positive about their future in their organisation. This is surprising given the distribution of box ratings amongst our respondents (Figure 2).Only 8% of our respondents were rated as low performing, or low potential. The rest of our respondents were all placed in the top right-hand squares of the grid, indicating that they had been rated as having at least medium potential and performance. Those placed in the top-right hand square are more often than not considered to be ‘future talent’ and are valuable assets to organisations. (See Figure 3).

Table 1: How did the rating you received affect your motivation at work?

Employees in an HR role

(%)

Employees outside of

HR (%)

All employees (%)

Felt motivated 39 46 41

Did not change anything 45 34 43

Felt demotivated 13 15 14

Felt confused as wasn’t clear what it all meant

3 5 3

Base size (n) 151 41 192

High potential

Medium potential

19%

14%

Medium performance

1%Low potential

1%

2%

0%

Low performance

38%

22%

4%

High performance



The process had a negative impact on virtually everyone rated outside of the future talent boxes.

Given the distribution of ratings across the talent grid, it was thought likely that the research would find people rated as having low potential or low performance as less positive about the process. People in these five boxes are unlikely to be the focus for investment in future organisational talent and any action plans stemming from the discussion are likely to have a more remedial focus. The exception to this is potentially the high performers who have no desire to progress and are happy to develop others using their expertise. However, the results were quite striking.

Figure 3: The talent focus

Only one person in the survey had been rated as high potential, low performance and they were very confused by what that meant and were no clearer following the conversation they had with their manager. The group rated as low performance/medium potential were also all demotivated by the experience and one was seeking to leave the organisation as soon as possible as a result of the rating.

More worrying for organisations wishing to retain expertise, those employees in the high performance/low potential box also had a negative impression, with only one respondent rating the process as effective. Even for that individual the process was described as “unexciting, as I am as far up the ladder as I want to go”.

Movement between boxes following a change of role was particularly demotivating

Some of the in-depth interviews held with employees provided further insights into the experience of being rated in these five boxes. For many, the box rating followed a change in role or even a promotion.

Company guidelines varied as to how people being promoted or coming in new to a role should initially be rated on the talent grid. There were several examples of people becoming deeply demotivated after moving from a high to a low rating following a promotion.

“….I was demoralised and looked around at jobs outside the organisation. I totally lost my engagement with my job. There were examples of people getting opportunities because they were star performers on the grid and it made me question why I was taking so much flack in such a challenging job if I wasn’t appreciated. The whole thing did not seem very transparent – I thought, well, OK, but how do I get to be in that box if I’m not getting opportunities to develop? I felt you needed to fly a flag saying “look at me!”, “look at me!” and I thought, is that what I’ve really got to do…just blow my own trumpet?”

“Last year I had a very brief discussion related to my position on the grid. I had only been doing the job for six months and I was told I was doing well, so I would be placed in the middle as it was not realistic to be at the top right so soon. I was given the impression that if I carried on the way I was going then there was a chance I could be there this year. I felt the conversation was not what it should have been and it had no impact on my performance or motivation. I am expecting this year that I will move one box up or more likely, one to the right. If there isn’t any movement then it would be very demotivating and I would be looking for some very direct feedback as to why this wasn’t the case.”

PERFORMANCE

POTENTIAL

Focus for development of future talent



“I was rated as under-performing on the grid. I had a new job and a difficult supplier who was not performing and new expectations about what my role was about. My boss sort of talked me into putting myself there and then agreed with me. They justified it as a position at this point in time. I felt scarred and am still reeling from it six months on. To be honest I felt distressed – and still feel distressed. It had a massive impact on my confidence. I have never been rated that low in my life and don’t see myself that way. In hindsight I would have had a stronger conversation. I was given no development actions to get me out of there (the box) – he will say we are having coaching sessions, but they are more like lectures or bullying to me. I need to have a similar conversation with one of my team, but it should be less of a shock for them as they are already being performance managed. I can’t see that putting “X marks the spot” in under-performing will be a valuable conversation for them either though.”

Many of the people in the future talent boxes are also disengaged by the process

Table 2 shows the impact of the grid rating on the motivation of employees rated as high potential.

Nearly two-thirds (63%) of all high potential employees assessed felt the process did not change their motivation at work. Nearly one in five (17%) actually felt less motivated as a result of their rating. Of the 75 people rated in the top right of the grid as high performance high potential, one in ten (12%) felt less positive about their career in the organisation. The same was true for one in five (19%) of those employees rated as having high potential but not quite making the top right-hand box.

Table 2 Impact of grid rating on high potential employees

High Potential Medium Performance

(%)

High Potential High Performance (%)

I feel less positive about my future in the organisation

19 12

The process didn’t change my motivation at work

36 27

I felt demotivated 14 3

Base (n) 36 75

So why is it that a process aimed at engaging and developing talent is not having a positive impact, even when people are placed in the future talent boxes? Three main reasons for this came through in the commentary:

Lack of follow-up opportunities

Being rated as high potential set expectations that development actions would follow and often there were no particular actions arising from the rating.

“A sense of unfulfilled expectation was left hanging after the exercise. I felt ‘so what’, and the high potentials I know often had a high expectation of development or promotion that simply wasn’t managed or fulfilled.”

“I understood where I was positioned and why but could see no clear link to future opportunities within the organisation.”

“I was told my box rating by my supervisor but was told to keep this a secret. I felt de-motivated that I was ranked a high performer but conversations about what challenges and opportunities I can aim for next, was not forthcoming.”

“Left me with a so what feeling. Lack of clear next steps plan.”

“To some extent it raised expectations that it failed to address - I’d rather have had a general development conversation that really unpicked my contribution to the team.”

Lack of confidence in the criteria or way in which potential is assessed

Where people did not like the way the box rating decision was arrived at or questioned its meaning, they did not value the process. This could be because the criteria were:

• not seen as valid or helpful in supporting career development

• not seen as being fairly applied

• viewed as irrelevant to promotion decisions

“At the end of the day everyone ended up in a box according to their popularity with the Senior Managers - I didn’t think it is an objective process at all and it certainly didn’t lead to any development or promotion.”

“It was nice to know that in a discussion I was viewed favourably. However, no real development has been identified for me, nor any support to achieve promotion. In



fact, despite proven experience in a higher graded post, the criteria for allowing promotion has changed and I no longer fit with that criteria. I remain in Top Right Box and now I understand that my career aspirations are in question, because I am unwilling to change my life to meet the new criteria. I no longer believe in the nine box system as a credible tool for developing and bringing through high performers.”

“I know that others NOT ranked as high in performance or potential were promoted shortly after and this made me distrust the ranking as I was not clear why they were promoted.”

“The majority of us were in the middle box (med potential high performance) so it felt like a tick box exercise versus a meaningful activity.”

“The conversation focussed on the need for me to do something different to prove that I could work with change. I moved into an IT leadership role for a time as a result. However it felt like I was doing it because of a view of development determined by a construction of a nine box model that said agility was essential, rather than by looking at where my career was going or where I could best add value to the organisation.”

“It didn’t do me any harm, but it was not a great career planning exercise.”

This lack of confidence was particularly evident where a quota system was in place within the organisation to force a particular distribution of rankings across the nine boxes. In this situation people felt that ultimately the process was not about judging them against the criteria, but about horse trading to ensure the distribution of ratings was consistent across teams.

“The management team has the task of getting a forced distribution which for them is the object of the exercise.”

“I have mixed feelings about the Nine Box Grid, especially where limits are put in place to allocate a restricted number of employees in each box. For myself I am confident of my own capabilities, self aware and happy to manage my own career. I also prefer to receive feedback from a number of sources rather than one manager (including external people I work with) because I find it fairer.”

“The first experience was painful and confusing – it felt arbitrary and it subsequently became clear that my line manager had used the system to suit personal biases rather than fairly. My second experience of the system was better and seemed fairer,

but I remain sceptical since it is clear that ranking is a result of trading since there are limits on numbers that can be put in each box, particularly the upper ones, rather than on the merits of the individual alone.”

“I feel the allocation into a particular box is subjective. In my organisation senior managers (of which I am one) are allowed to have a certain number of staff allocated to each box. This leads to being told you are ‘high/middle/low’ which, of course, defeats the object.”

Desire to be in top right-hand box

Despite being rated as high potentials, nearly one in five (19 per cent) of these employees were demotivated as a result. This was particularly striking in those rated as high potential/medium performers, where failing to be placed in the top right box carried with it the implicit message for some that career options in the organisation would be more limited than they had perhaps hoped.

“I would have been extremely demotivated if I had been told I was a solid contributor or strong performer as that would have meant my career was limited within the company and would have been counter to my personal drive and ambition.”

“We have different ratings for the Nine Box Grid and I was rated as a strong performer (middle top box) which initially I was pleased with. However, although I have clearly expressed my desire to develop and progress into a more senior role, there are no opportunities for this. I have also completed my MSc recently however there is no recognition of this and very little by way of learning, development or career progression. All this has been focussed on the less than 1% who were classed as our high performers (ie top right box). Whilst I don’t disagree that you should be developing your future leaders, this shouldn’t be the only emphasis. More should be done to develop and support those who have potential in order to keep them motivated- otherwise it may be perceived that there is no incentive to maintain current performance levels.”

“The nine box model rating last year made me realise that I am not going to achieve anything more and I made the decision to look for a new opportunity outside the organisation, which was the best decision I could have ever made.”



It is clear from our data that either the lack of development options available or the fact of not being placed in the top-right hand box of the grid can lead to valuable employees reconsidering their future career in their organisation.

Benefits to employees

We found that the benefit to employees of being rated highly on the grid is primarily validation of performance and any motivational benefit is short lived.

The motivational benefit for High Potentials who rate the process as effective is often short-lived.

For people rated in the top right box, where employers are seeking to engage and motivate their top talent, the benefits are also often described as short lived, especially if development or progression opportunities do not follow. This extract from an interview with a Senior Manager in an Insurance company illustrates this point:

“I was rated as top right, which was clearly a boost to my ego and quite motivational as it was a kind of validation of my performance. Yet at the same time it made me feel very impatient to know when I would move on. The general instruction for people in this box is that you should keep them in mind for when things come up, and I am now having an MBA funded, which I am pleased about. However, there is a frustration that it takes time for an opportunity to come up and it is difficult to manage expectations. In flatter structures, like we have got, it is harder to see how you can progress and I get rather impatient when I’ve had the carrot dangled in front of me.”

“Overall I have not had a bad experience of being on the receiving end of the talent grid process, but I have always been seen as a good performer. However the initial ego boost it gives you is quite short lived if the expectations are not met with any development actions or moves.”



Validation is the main benefit for people if a conversation takes place

People frequently described the process of being assigned a box on the talent grid as particularly beneficial in terms of validating their own opinions and suspicions about how their manager viewed them. The conversation that took place alongside the rating was often described as not telling the individual anything they didn’t already know, but still being seen as helpful in that it provided an opportunity to hear things about themselves in a different way to conversations focussed on business results.

“The box conversation does have value for me as it provides an opportunity to validate that my behaviours are the right ones and is a way of acknowledging the progress I have made.”

“I had a change of boss mid-way through last year and it was helpful in knowing what he thinks of me.”

“It did not come as a surprise to me and I think most people know where they are on the grid. However the confirmation was important for me.”

“People have preconceived ideas about people and this tool can help to shift that. Prompting a conversation about careers and raising awareness that it is more than just what you do, but another dimension around how you do it is important – if you don’t ask, you don’t know.”

There was a sense that the conversation stimulated thought and encouraged people to think more broadly about their own development; bouncing ideas around about what might be possible or useful. The quote below illustrates how a nine box conversation led to an employee realising that they needed to focus their development on stakeholder engagement.

“My boss relayed a conversation with the Executive team about the comments they made when deciding on a rating for me. This was really useful for me in terms of thinking about how best to manage my stakeholders on the Exec.”

Many thought the process was a fair and an accurate reflection of where they saw themselves. Indeed, 91 per cent of our survey respondents felt their rating was either fair or very fair. Where people were aware of the validation process taking place they were more likely to rate the process as fair. This is perhaps part of the reason why operational line managers were less likely to regard their own rating as fair. 75 per cent of operational line managers felt their rating was fair or very fair compared with 93 per cent of those in HR roles. Whilst the vast majority, then, regarded their rating as fair, it is worth noting that one in four (25 per cent) of operational line managers felt that their rating was unfair or very unfair.

The nature of the conversation

The quality of the conversation is critical

Overall, 45 per cent of our survey respondents felt that they had been engaged in an effective development conversation based on their rating on the grid. 15 per cent felt it to be ineffective, whilst 9 per cent did not have a development conversation. The remainder, 31 per cent, felt that the conversation with their manager was neither effective nor ineffective.

This extract from an interview with a Head of an operational department in a Government Agency captures the impact of a good quality conversation.

“I had a nice experience and was rated as a strong performer over an hour long lunch discussion. I had set up a new team and although we had talked a lot about the job and the team, this was the first opportunity we had to get to know each other and really talk about what we thought. It was a much more personal conversation.

We talked about aspiration and what would happen if my aspirations were not fulfilled. We talked about where the service was and what realistic opportunities there were and we looked at development steps. I am quite realistic and it gave me recognition of what I’d hoped for. There was also a clear set of next steps for me – with wider exposure; involvement in Government agendas and I have now moved onto a project board outside of my day job. I think I am positioning myself well.

It validated my performance so I also feel I should now be listened to. It gave me the green light to carry on saying and behaving the way I do. It was reassuring.”



Conversations with senior managers tend to be more brief

The research revealed that the quality of the conversation people have with their manager on the talent box rating varies considerably. Often this was down to the strength of the relationship between the employee and their manager, but there was also a definite trend for the length and depth of the conversation to decrease as the rating manager became more senior. This trend only varied when the senior manager was known to be a good developer of others.

“I had a very brief conversation over the telephone with my manager. Basically he said that as I was new to the post and had made a good start he was putting me in the “future achiever” box. To be honest I felt quite disappointed as the first six months in the job had been very challenging and difficult and I’d had quite a nightmare time. It seemed rather an important thing to discuss on the phone. I am quite ambitious and it would have been nice to have a face to face conversation that was more developmental. I am hoping for a better conversation next time.”

“I am not overly confident that I will be dealt with as professionally as I am doing the grid for my own staff. I rarely see my manager and have had no feedback from them over the last six months to speak of, so I don’t know what information they are going to base their judgement on.”

For some people, the brevity of the conversation with senior managers was not perceived as an issue. This was mainly the case when people were not striving to progress or develop further in the company.

“I had the briefest of conversations – I was just asked if I wanted to progress to the next level and

I said no, as that would mean a move to London which I don’t want. I don’t know what box I ended up in, but that doesn’t bother me as I was more interested in my performance rating.”

“I was rated 3 months ago as a solid or strong performer – I’m not sure where I was eventually put, but that was what was said in the brief discussion I had. I was sent an email with the grid attachment by my boss, and asked to rate myself. I think I’m a safe pair of hands and I’m not aiming to move into any different roles before I retire, so the solid or strong performer rating suits me. I don’t really mind that it was a short discussion and with no development actions as there was not much to debate.”

In companies where a box conversation is mandatory, a question was raised as to whether it made sense to have this conversation for people approaching retirement.

Conversations often raised suspicion and concerns about how the grid ratings might be used corporately

Even where quality conversations are taking place, the need to communicate openly about how the grid ratings will be used at a corporate level appears to be critical to alleviate suspicions.

For organisations where the tool has been more recently introduced, the corporate actions come into greater question as any practices have not been established. This comment from an employee in a company which introduced the Nine Box Grid one year ago, typifies this:

“I had a good conversation and my boss and myself initiated some development actions, but then the results seem to go into a black hole. Nothing happened. I am not clear how the organisation intends to develop and manage its

staff from a central perspective. There should be more corporate responsibility as well as local and individual – or at least some recognition of what is being done. I have asked several times “where does this go now from a corporate perspective?” There is an expectation that there will be some central action and silence is not it! I don’t know what it looks like. However this doesn’t devalue the process – if it is just a conversational tool then that’s fine, but I sense it is more than that and I don’t know what.”

The impact of closed rating systems

Closed rating systems can disengage talent

More than one-third of our survey respondents who had been rated on the grid said that they had not been informed of their rating. Roughly one in five (18 %) did not know whether they had been rated on the grid or not. Where employees were not involved in discussions about their potential, there was a sense that this was both disengaging and of concern as it risked ignoring the employees’ own views on how they would like their career to progress or what aspirations or constraints they have concerning their progression. There was a sense in many cases that employees were aware that the process was taking place and training and development opportunities that arise could be down to the discussions taking place behind closed doors.

“I would prefer it if the process was more explicit and open. Then you would have the ability to influence your rating and also to see if it’s what you want. It may be that you don’t want to move out of a chosen career path, or don’t want to progress at a particular time. An individual’s motivation and interests should be taken into consideration.”



“I was rated on the grid by my boss but (he/she) has not informed me of my rating. I had zero feedback so the experience was very disengaging. Being someone who is very much focused on people development I find this rather frustrating, but the HR policy is that the information is shared at the manager’s discretion. My boss is not focused on development and doesn’t really have the soft skills needed to make it a productive conversation. He sees is as a box ticking exercise.”

“If you don’t have the conversation but know you have been rated, then you are disengaged from the process and are not part of it….it is just happening to you.”

“I found out my rating by another contact. As this was not a transparent process I decided not to argue. I simply delivered on what I promised and when I left they tried to keep me but too late, I found a role where transparency was important.”

“Felt very behind closed doors and I never felt very sure where I have been put on it. Certainly didn’t actively drive any development conversations.”

In closed processes, the relationship the employee has with their manager was critical in how the process was perceived. In some organisations, the level of feedback is high and the developmental discussions take place as part of a performance appraisal process. In these cases, being unaware of the box rating appears to be less important, although there was still a perception that an open system would be advantageous in terms of establishing clear behavioural role models and getting some wider feedback on potential.

“We do have an annual performance review where we can discuss our development more generally. If I felt I was not getting the support I needed from this then I would want to explore my rating further, but this has not been the case. However, there is a personal desire to know where you sit and how you are viewed and it would also be useful to have transparency so that I could make comparisons against my peers. There is a danger that I am viewing another leader as a role model and emulating their behaviours and they are not rated as a star performer.”

“Here the talent grid process is carried out behind closed doors. I don’t know what is going on or what’s being looked at. The Directors work with their top team to rate everyone and validate that in peer groups. People rated in the top right go through a further validation process at Exec level. Whether you hear anything back from that process is ad-hoc. I found out purely because of the good relationship I have with my manager. They chose to talk it through with me during my annual appraisal. However, my previous two managers did not make any mention of it.”



Research findings - the

the rater perspective

Ease of use

Overall, 60 per cent of managers found the Nine Box Grid easy to use when rating others. Managers in an HR-related role were more likely to find the grid easy to use, compared with those in an operational role (60 per cent compared with 47 per cent). Raters who found the process straightforward typically referenced the comprehensive provision of guidance available on how to operate the process and the criteria which should be used. However, 32 per cent of raters in operational line management positions found the grid either “difficult” of “very difficult” to use. The reasons given for this fell into a number of categories. These are explored below:

Assessing Potential was problematic

One of the main difficulties experienced by raters was making an assessment of potential. This was often felt to be too subjective and based on personal perspective, and sometimes favouritism, rather than evidence. It was felt that it was sometimes difficult to obtain evidence, particularly if an individual had not had the opportunity to demonstrate potential through access to various opportunities or the rater did not know the ratee so well. A further issue was that of ‘potential for what’. Employees were felt to have potential for different things, and a narrow conception of potential as upwards movement through the management hierarchy was felt to be possibly limiting.

“I found it difficult to assess potential in an objective and measurable way.”

“Data about potential is so much more difficult to

obtain and use than data about performance.”

“The measure of potential is very subjective, because each manager who assesses talent does it in a slightly different way and we all have our own opinions about people and their capability.”

“It’s hard to assess what ‘potential’ means. For some that will be about increasing in seniority and for others it’s about developing either their professional specialism or building more lateral experience. Discussions quite often assume that potential is only about ‘going up the org chart’ which can be limiting.”

“Potential for what is a complex issue.”

“I find the grid too rigid - it is hard to distinguish which strengths and development areas should carry more/less weight.”

“The view of performance vs. potential is highly subjective from the eyes of one manager to the next.”

“Assessments in many organisations are subjective, as there is no universally agreed way to assess potential. High potentials can sometimes be senior people’s pets and protégés rather than real talent.”

For others the difficulty was related to lack of comparative data to determine potential:

“It’s hard to overlay the context of where they are in their development i.e. when newly promoted talent are compared to their now generally more experienced peers their relative position could look strange, timelines have never really been well defined regarding potential too when I have done it.”

The difficulties in assessing potential, and distinguishing it from performance, are perhaps evident from the distribution of box ratings of our survey respondents. Only three survey respondents had been rated as having some potential when they were also rated as under-performing.

“Whilst we had reasonably structured ways of assessing and qualifying performance, the potential assessment was more problematic. There is a correlation between the two, but it is difficult to see high potential in someone who is not performing highly at the current time. These people were harder to assign to boxes than those who are high performers.”

Interestingly one rater commented on an online questionnaire which is used in their organisation in order to determine the box rating. The questionnaire uses an algorithm to place people in the Nine Box Grid according to set parameters. This rater believed that in this process the subjective opinions were missing and were needed to enhance the process.

People are multi-dimensional and do not fit easily into boxes

Some people clearly felt uncomfortable putting people into boxes and expressed a view that people are more complex than the boxes allow for and are not that easily definable.



“The Grid Descriptions are reasonably expansive in their capture; sometimes people exhibit a number of traits that can fit different boxes.”

“People are multi-dimensional and don’t fit into nine boxes.”

“Depends how long you have known them and some people don’t just fit into one box.”

There was also a view that people could be spikey in performance, and it was difficult to know how to treat this.

The issue of labels

For many raters, the subjectivity of the rating process was made more emphatic by the use of labels on the boxes. Although the research questionnaire did not explicitly question the labels given to each of the boxes by organisations, many of the comments made reference to the impact that giving the boxes labels had on the process. Figure 4 illustrates the most common labels used to describe each of the nine boxes.

Figure 4: Commonly used Labels for each of the nine boxes

PERFORMANCE

POTENTIAL

Rough DiamondEarly Promise

PuzzlePotential Gem

EnigmaHopeful

Future StarHigh Potential

Growth EmployeeRising StarHot Shot

Consistent StarStar PerformerFuture Leader

StarHigh Potential

Current StarStrong Performer

High ImpactAgile High Performer

Key PlayerSolid ContributorCore Performer

Inconsistent PlayerFuture Achiever

PredicamentInconsistent Performer

Dilemma

Under PerformerTermination Risk

Bad HireTalent Risk

Solid ProfessionalSatisfactory Contributor

E�ective EmployeeSolid Performer

Steady Contributor

High ProfessionalGood Performer

Trusted ProfessionalProfessional Subject Expert

Top Performer



For many managers, adding a label to each of the boxes got in the way of objective assessment:

“The descriptors are counter productive, as they encourage line managers to use talk about the descriptor rather than focus on robust and objective assessment criteria.”

“Confusion is caused by giving the boxes labels, which are emotive.”

“I find the labels make an already somewhat flaky tool considerably worse.”

Labels were also felt by some to become self-fulfilling prophecies, driving how people behaved towards a particular employee and undermining to some extent the idea of fluid box markings. In essence, a concern that labels ‘stick’.

“The 9 box tries to simplify the relatively complex relationship between current and future performance / potential. If used too simplistically the behaviour of “the organisation” to the individual changes and can become a self-fulfilling prophecy e.g. I am a low performer and irrespective of my potential if I am treated as a low performer I am likely to become like one until I find another organisation. I have seen this happen on numerous occasions.”

It was interesting to note in our own research how commonly comments made by raters drew on the labels of the boxes as a short-hand for their concerns. It was common for raters to question the distinction between two boxes by way of the labels rather than the criteria behind them. For example, what is the difference between a solid contributor and a strong performer? Or a current star and future leader?

“We have quite meaty debates about the cluster of the boxes with future stars, current stars and future leaders, where it is quite hard to differentiate.”

The middle boxes were hard to differentiate and the actions were less defined

Some boxes proved trickier than others to differentiate, particularly between strong performer and solid contributor, where over a third of raters in our survey expressed a difficulty.

“The definitions are quite hard to comprehend in the middle boxes. For example when it says you may see “some, but not all” of the behaviours…that could apply to all three of my reportees!”

“The very best and very worst are easy - but the majority of employees sit somewhere in the middle and it’s much more difficult to allocate them to a box on the grid.”

“The more in the ‘pack’ a member of staff is the harder it is to differentiate.”

Assuming performance is distributed across a bell curve in an organisation, the middle box is likely to contain the majority of employees and was described by some as a “catch all” when it was difficult to decide where to put someone.

“The middle box has a very wide performance score and does not differentiate people well.”

“When we are struggling to find where to put someone we end up putting them in the middle.”

“Most people are rated in the middle box (solid contributors) and although that could be right,

sometimes I think it is just laziness. It is easy and safe to rate someone in the middle and use the excuse that you don’t quite know yet or it is too early to tell (we have a lot of job mobility and change). However, we do have corporate knowledge of those individuals and we could be a bit braver in our decision making.”

The motivational implications of rating someone in the middle boxes was also a concern to many.

“This group (solid contributors) also feel rather under-invested in and have a nagging feeling that they are not quite valued as much as some others, which can be disengaging for them. People respond to this in different ways depending on their own perspective. For some people it will be OK as they will also think that they have plateaued, but if they have a different opinion it can be trickier. My experience has been to encourage people to be less concerned about where they are put and be realistic in thinking that the middle box is OK. But some people have an unhealthy fixation on where they have been placed on the grid. They know where they are and it matters to them. Leaders tag people with the box titles and it is not culturally helpful at times.”

“Certain boxes were harder to decide between – strong performer v high potential and also solid v satisfactory performance. Being rated as a “solid contributor” is also not going to light anyone’s fire.”

“Most people will be on one box, however everyone is disappointed they’re not in the top right.”



Concerns about managers taking the easy route/ not applying criteria consistently

“I’m a little suspicious that those that are rated as star performers really were those with the high potential and performance and that the manager is not just going for the easy life in putting them there.”

“I have a slight sense of frustration that other departments are perhaps not applying the criteria for the boxes as rigorously. Sometimes when I see someone in another department being promoted off the back of it (a top right rating on the matrix), I look at them and think “how did that happen?”. “Whilst there are guidelines for the boxes, these are open to interpretation and may not be being applied consistently.”

Concerns about the objectivity of Peer reviews

Peer review meetings are typically held in organisations to cross validate the data from the talent grids. Some of the difficulties highlighted by raters were more concerned with this process, than the initial box rating.

“It is entirely subjective and ends in a ‘bun fight’ with the most vocal managers defending the positioning of ‘their’ staff. (Particularly when used in the forced ranking system we use).”

“Gaining concensus can be challenging in teams that are not that close knit and if you don’t have further information to support the definition within the 9 boxes.”

“Some individuals are “spikey” in their performance, and may have some great strengths in some areas, but some development areas that impact on how they are perceived by others, which can

disproportionately impact on where they end up in the grid when moderation meetings take place.”

“It depends on your knowledge of the individual – where they work and how closely you are able to observe that person in day to day working.”

Concerns about the implications of quotas and forced rankings on objectivity

Concerns were raised by some of our interviewees about the objectivity of ratings where quotas were in place.

“There are limits on the number of staff that can be put in the ‘upper’ boxes so there is an element of ‘trading’ across our Directorate for which staff go where.”

“I was also under considerable pressure to distribute people in a certain way.”

“Aligning on criteria to fit each role description when working across roles is difficult. When being asked to level across departments hard to evaluate objectively common criteria. We were also set thresholds of how many star performers you are allowed as this has budget impacts on remuneration.”

Some employees are more difficult to rate than others

In addition to some of the general concerns raised by raters, it was also apparent that they experienced particular challenges when rating or discussing a rating with specific groups of employees. 75 per cent of our survey respondents felt that it was more difficult to assign a box on the grid to some individuals compared with others.

Underperformers

The under performer box, although it is clearly defined, contained people who were already being actively performance managed and it was not felt that the grid conversation added anything or was needed.

“I rated one person as bottom left (under performer) who needed to be exited out of the company and I was already doing that, so the tool didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know.”

However, there was still a sense that these discussions could potentially still have some value.

“One of my reports is a clear underperformer and easy to assign to a box. I am already performance managing them, so this didn’t create anything new. However, I do anticipate that when I speak to him about his grid position I will get more insight into his aspirations.”

People lacking in aspiration

This group contained people who were either unclear of their own aspirations or showed no desire to move on, perhaps because they had been in the same role for a long time. In particular, people close to retirement were mentioned, where the value of holding conversations was questioned by quite a few reporting managers.

“It’s difficult to assess potential when some of the team are unclear about their aspirations.”

“More difficult to use with older, long serving members of the team where staff don’t necessarily have major career ambitions.”



“People nearing retirement who don’t have aspirations or a need for development, but do still meet the criteria for potential.”

Like poor performers, some raters still felt there could be some value to holding the conversation.

“There will be people who don’t have aspirations and they should be allowed to just have a brief conversation – I still think it’s worth having one. They may not see the potential in themselves.”

‘Another person on my team works in the South West and has no desire to move, which limits her opportunities for progression. Through the conversation I had with her, she moved quite significantly towards saying that if the right opportunity came up she would be prepared to move. She is very capable and the discussion freed her up, so we had a constructive conversation around her ability; what she can offer; and encouragement to consider wider opportunities. I believe it was quite a motivating conversation and has moved her a long way from 12 months ago.”

In organisations where the box rating was decided on without the employee, there was a concern that the box did not necessarily represent the aspirations of the individual (e.g. being rated as a star performer when they had no desire to progress beyond the role they were in).

People experiencing personal challenges

There was recognition amongst some managers that employees experiencing difficulties outside of work could be difficult to rate due to inconsistent performance.

“Sometimes there are high potential people who have had a lot going on outside of work that makes a difference and lack of consistency means the lines

are blurred.”

Newly promoted or New to team

With these individuals the rater has little knowledge of them and if they are starting out on a new job they are unlikely to be performing at the highest level. There was also a great deal of confusion and variation over how potential should be rated. In organisations where potential was linked to readiness for the next move, this meant that a person recently rated as high potential and top right on the grid could suddenly be close to the bottom left and rated as having low potential and low performance.

“It’s challenging to estimate potential, when a person is recently promoted to a higher level role.”

“Some individuals might not have had an opportunity to display their potential through no fault of their own.”

There was a view that more emphasis needs to be placed on conveying the fluidity of the rating and stressing that it is not a box for life. People recognised that it usually needed to be an annual process, but felt this may label people unfairly at a point in time.

Some organisations have put in place guidelines to deal with these circumstances, for example in Shire (a medical treatment company) the process states that after someone is promoted they are not rated on the grid for the first year of their new post, as it is too early to assess their potential at that time.

Demotivated employees

Employees who were demotivated, perhaps due to missing out on promotion, or following a restructure, risked further demotivation from seeing their box rating downgraded from where it had previously been.

“The reportee I had most difficulty with could have been a “solid contributor” or a “strong performer”. They had been seen as being a “star performer” and had been taking over parts of my role and gone for promotion which they just missed out on. I had a real quandary and couldn’t really get my head around the difference and what made the boxes significantly different. This was made harder as their performance had recently dipped due to being a bit demotivated from not getting promotion. I ended up with “solid performer”, but anticipate that they will be disappointed with this.”

“I would be amazed if anyone is put in the grid in a place that they can’t see for themselves if they are honest about it. Sometimes the difficulty is trying to illicit honest opinions from people about things like mobility. They perhaps hold back on saying what they really mean so as not to box themselves. Usually the position on the grid is an inevitable outcome of the conversation you are having. The exception to this is when people move boxes over time and don’t see it coming, e.g. when their performance is declining.”

Ambitious employees seeking quick progression

Individuals who are highly ambitious, but not yet showing all the characteristics necessary to be rated as high potential caused some difficult conversations to take place, in order to re-establish expectations.

“The more difficult conversations are with early promise people who are perhaps getting ahead of themselves and think they can move on quicker. Or with good performers, who want to be strong and don’t see what is holding them back. For these two groups the conversation is much harder to manage and expectations can be set. You don’t want to



demotivate or disappoint these people, so getting it right is important.”

“I worry that it becomes really important to people where they are as it dictates the extent to which they are invested in for their development. As a consequence, influencing subjective opinions becomes almost more important for some people than their performance. Of course this varies according to ambition, but if you are ambitious you want recognition, and the matrix can be unhelpful in forcing a view that drives stakeholder management over performance. I do see some of that.”

Technical experts

Some managers expressed concern about the motivational impact of rating highly expert professionals as ‘low potential’ where they did not either have the desire or the perceived ability to be classified as ‘talent’, particularly where the idea of ‘talent’ was linked to leadership potential.

“We have a lot of technical experts and many of them don’t want to change job role. This happened with one of my 3 (reportees). Marking them as low potential seems a bit unfair in some ways, although it is right if you think about it. I wonder if it might be demotivating though.”

Ambitious employees seeking quick progression can be challenging to rate.

Extract from Interview with Group Leader in the Civil Service:

“This was my first year of using the grid and I spoke to my HR Business Partner about how it worked and what sort of conversations to have. Before having the conversations I was asked to rate them myself, as the senior team wanted an idea of where people would be placed. I felt I had a good idea from previous conversations I had had with them, but I sat down with a peer leader to discuss my thoughts. I was quite reassured by this as we had similar views.

The person I found most difficult was someone who is very aspirational and keen to move on, but has had a couple of disappointments. This person was highly regarded in the past and when I came into the role as their manager he was described to me as having high potential. However, my experience of him was that it was all a little superficial and when you looked more closely at his behaviour there were quite a lot of areas in need of development. He came to us as well thought of and on his way up, but we both queried that. He really needs to get his house in order. I rated him as a “future achiever”, but was advised by my HRBP (HR Business Partner) that this category was more for people who were new to a role, so wasn’t appropriate for him as he was not new. However, I decided to stick with this category as I felt the intermediate performance standard, but with potential for the next level up fitted him best. The conversation has not been held yet and will be a difficult and demotivating one for him. It is the behavioural aspect that was not previously taken into consideration.”



What helps raters with using the grid?

Raters felt supported by both guidance material and HRBPs.

Organisations appeared to be providing vast amounts of guidance material, which was usually available on-line. Generally this was seen as helpful, but not always fully explored and understood.

“There is massive support on the web and it is very comprehensive, but I am not sure that people even know it’s available, or that it is really read.”

HR Business Partners were frequently mentioned as critical in guiding the rating process. Many had made use of HR Business Partners to support them in understanding how to differentiate between boxes and get a greater understanding of the tool. This was almost universally seen to be of value and managers were very complimentary.

“The HR business partner plays a useful role in picking out common themes across the organisation – eg. If there is a common training need emerging”.

“I really struggled with which box to choose and I initiated a conversation with my HR Business Partner to talk it through. We had a hefty discussion about one of my team and talked through what each of the boxes meant…it was very useful.”

Rater ability improves with time and the right support

In organisations where the Talent Grid process had been in place for longer, there was a noticeable difference in the responses of the raters. With more established processes, the managers often expressed a view that their ability to rate and have meaningful conversations had grown considerably over time. This is illustrated in the extract from an interview with a Business Manager from an Industrial Services Company.

Ability to hold meanginful conversations is helped with time and the right support.

Extract from an interview with a Business Manager from an Industrial Services Company.

“I sit down with the individual at appraisal time and talk about why I feel they are where they are on the matrix. I watch them throughout the year to see how they interact, what aspects of the role suit them and so on and discuss with them if what they are doing is really what they want to do, or whether they could have more value doing something different. I am open for persuasion about where they are placed.

The danger is that if we pigeon hole people from our own views, then we shut off potential areas of improvement, just because we haven’t noticed something. We want to switch people on not off. Diversity is a strength and we need to support people’s ambition where we can and boost their engagement.

My confidence and ability to have meaningful conversations of this nature has developed over the years. When I first had responsibility it was not something that came naturally and I find I now get much more out of people. I had some facilitation training at Roffey Park which was really good for difficult conversations. I find I ask more questions and if someone disagrees with a box rating then I no longer feel compelled to given them a justification. I sometimes feel that the way our business uses the 9 Box isn’t the best for the individuals, as we give feedback regardless of where the individual is placed on the grid.

It is a valuable tool as long as it is used in conjunction with other processes for developing people and shaping a team. You don’t want all your team to be rising stars…it’s about different things for different people as they are all at different points on their development journey. It can help to support a career path judgement call and also work as a development tool to increase the human capital bench strength.

When we identify a development need we look for a tailored approach to acting on this, rather than just sending them on a training course. Online approaches don’t work well in my opinion either as in order to influence people to develop themselves you need to listen and engage face to face.

I find the process really rewarding and people engagement is vitally important to me. We don’t have a percentage based requirement for each box on the grid. It is about shaping and developing people to be the best they can.”



This improvement over time was also the case for peer review meetings, where the ability to present a relevant case to support a box rating for one of your team, as well as the challenge you were able to provide to others on their ratings, becomes more refined.

“The annual meetings of the leadership team are facilitated by an HR Business Partner and typically last around 3-4 hours and cover 20 individuals. At the meeting each leader presents their own perspective on which box each of their team sits in and what skills and behaviours they are displaying to justify their opinion. This view can then be questioned and challenged by your peers. Having operated together for some time now, we are all familiar with the process and it has become a robust way of ensuring consistency and commonality across the group. We have a new challenge in that my peer group have undergone considerable change of late and there will be four new colleagues at the next talent grid meeting. I think it will take some time to re-establish the open level of challenge and understanding of top talent with a new peer group. It has taken us 4-5 years to get a robust picture of top talent.”

For companies where the whole Nine Box Grid process is new, raters were often finding themselves pressured to make rushed judgements without fully exploring the behaviours and guidelines.

“I was not consulted about the grid, rather just told it was happening and the ratings for my team were done with a quick telephone conversation with my manager to decide, where he asked me my view on each person and I had to do some quick thinking – 1-2 mins each.”

“I didn’t feel particularly confident deciding on the ratings – there was a lot to take in to have a valid conversation, particularly around the engagement side. Preparing for the conversation is hard.”

Peer debates provide both rigour and value

Many of the senior managers carrying out talent box ratings described an additional role in moderating talent box ratings for different teams in some kind of peer review meeting. Where this was the case, box raters often commented on the rigour of this process and the beneficial nature of these conversations. There was a strong view that ratings were challenged effectively in these meetings and that the output was fair and valuable to the business.

“The majority of the challenge from peers is around people rated in the top right boxes, but there is also a lot of discussion on the bottom left individuals. The approach taken is to discuss development opportunities and support for this group, perhaps moving them into an interim role with a different manager to see if that gives them an opportunity to shine. There are some useful discussions on the characters we want to have in our teams; on team values and team behaviours.”

“The validation meetings with peers were more helpful than the guidance material in clarifying your thinking.”

“The company has criteria (5% from memory) as to how many individuals are allowed to be rated on the top right of the grid. Consequently, at the review meetings the majority of the challenge occurs for people rated there. As we are now more familiar with the challenge around the criteria we are seeing a tendency to down-rate our people and are receiving more of a challenge to question why we are not positioning them higher. It is also possible for small teams to justify a greater percentage in the top box if the department as a whole meets the criteria.”

The message about looking beyond job performance to people’s future potential and the behaviours this demands appeared to be well understood and had led to some different style conversations taking place in the organisation. There were many examples of peers challenging each other over this.

However, interestingly when talking about their concerns about the talent grid process, these same managers often questioned consistency across the organisation. There was sometimes a suspicion that they were a management team that were choosing to rate people rigorously, whilst other departments might not have such a tough process.



An Example of a Nine Box Grid process – extract from an interview with a Customer Engagement Manager, Insurance company

“We use a nine box model for understanding talent and talent potential and they provide focussed development for the top three corner right hand boxes. Rating on the grid takes place for everyone from second level leaders upwards and is also optional below that level. In my area I choose to do first line leaders as well to give a better understanding of who is coming through.

The approach has shifted over time here in terms of what the axes represent. Initially we plotted performance against a measure of potential linked to agility and the conversations that sat alongside the box rating were focused primarily on that. For example, you might hear someone saying “you are good at what you do but it is quite niche”. So experts were encouraged to broaden their experiences and generalists were encouraged to get more depth. The definitions of the axes makes a big difference. There are now much broader definitions of potential and the assessment guidelines now ask how many promotional steps has this person got in them in the next 2-3 years? There are comprehensive definitions to go with each box, but despite that, the detail is not terribly well understood by most people.

The box ratings take place every six months, or as often as seems right to do. The rating is first carried out by a cross section of leaders who talk about their own people and contribute their own view to others. The level of challenge at peer review meetings works pretty well. At any one time about 70-80% are effectively or exceptionally performing, but there are no set percentages. In reality, managers are usually quite cautious with their ratings, although looking across divisions we may sometimes be inconsistent in our application. The HR team act as a moderator, but we could get a more cross-functional view when we are plotting people to help with consistency.

Following the rating we then have a conversation with the individual. I tell them where I see them and why I see them in that box and then I typically ask how they feel about that and whether or not I have correctly understood their motivation and ambition. I would be worried if I hadn’t understood someone properly as individuals also fill out a personal profile which includes things like their mobility preferences; so we have taken account of their views already at this stage.

For people rated in the top 3 boxes, their development is given greater weighting and investments. Some of this is generic, such as everyone participating in a structured 360 degree feedback process and having opportunities such as breakfasting with the board. Other aspects are more bespoke, such as mentoring or sponsorship. This group also go on a named list for jobs that arise, so there is more movement. People in the other boxes, with the exception of the bottom left (who are normally on a capability process) have their normal personal development objectives and get a standard level of support for this.”



Success is underpinned by a clear strategy and corporate drive to support cross company development

There was a strong view that successful use of the grid depended on there being a clear strategy behind its implementation and supporting processes in place. Where this was not in place, particularly in terms of development opportunities, the grid was seen as of less value:

“The biggest issue is what is next? Is it just a tick box exercise or will it become something that has more of a cultural shift in how opportunities for development are made available? Ideally if there is someone in the top 3 boxes then they should have a chance at things like temporary promotions – but it seems that recent temp positions were filled from within sections rather than casting the net wider. I am not sure it will make any difference to how we are managing people.”

“We are setting an expectation that we will do something about their development. There is a risk that doing it annually it could become a tick box exercise and it needs to be seen as a useful tool.”

Many organisations had strategies to develop the people rated as having high potential, but the follow on actions for the middle boxes were a lot less clear as this extract from a Director in a global business illustrates:

Success is underpinned by clear follow-on actions.

Extract from an interview with a Director in a global business

“The process has been in the company for about 3 years now and I think the process has been driven by the parent company in America and there do not appear to be many systems or processes to support development from it in the UK. I didn’t find it difficult to assign my team to boxes, but there was a sense of “so what?” It is not clear what the actions are for people in each box, although there are guidelines as to who should go where.

I placed my team on the grid and then had a discussion with my line manager and justified my decision. I found that quite straightforward as the boxes were well defined and I was familiar with the tool from my previous role in a different organisation. Once we’d discussed my ratings, my manager then took it on to peer review and did not change anything as far as I was aware.

It is perhaps too easy to put people in the middle box (solid contributors) as there seem to be quite a few people that fit this description, but it is hard to see what you can do next for those individuals or what wider support is there. Even with the top right box, it just seemed to be a case of keeping your eye open for opportunities to stretch them, which you would be doing as a manager in any case.”



There was a commonly held view that the process would not be successful unless there were development opportunities beyond the individual’s team. Whilst there were some nice examples of managers providing stretch development for their team and encouraging new potential to develop, there were also concerns that they could not develop people’s potential alone.

“Overall I can see the potential value of it, but it needs initiatives and support on next steps for people. It did make me think about the wider opportunities I had for people, e.g. being a project lead. You can do things in your own area, but many are too small to create opportunities for development so you need a wider support – internally and externally in the wider civil service”.

The perceived value of the grid approach

The Nine Box Grid was generally valued by raters where there was: a clear strategy behind its use, support was in place to support managers in understanding how to use it and hold effective development conversations; and there were clear follow-on development options available. The value of the grid was less clear where it was seen by managers as more of an HR planning tool and didn’t help support career development conversations. There were also clear differences between different levels of management as to the perceived value of the grid.

First line managers more suspicious of the process

At a first line management level it is unlikely that the team leader will be involved in validation meetings to ensure consistency of nine box ratings. This lack of involvement in the wider process often meant that people rating their teams felt more disconnected with the overarching aims of the talent strategy and were more likely to raise concerns about fairness and an absence of follow up development. Overall, they conveyed a greater suspicion of the process and more of a concern that the process would not have any value, for either the employees being rated, or the organisation as a whole.

“I received a brief email asking me to rate my team on the grid as part of the mid-year reviews. I already talk to them about their aspirations and this did not add much to the existing process. All my reportees are similar in that they are solid performers who won’t set the world on fire”.

It was more common for team leaders to be unaware of what happened beyond the rating exercise

“There have been times when I’ve questioned the value of doing it and that would certainly be the case if there was less support from HR or from the my line manager concerning development outcomes. The process has to drive behavioural change and the development of people. We need to come out of it knowing what we need to do more of or do differently.”

Despite this, the majority of raters thought that the conversation in connection with the grid had value. People talked about the need to help re-adjust people’s perceptions of their potential; discuss behaviours without being hampered by the appraisal process and explore different kinds of developmental opportunities.

“In my view the talent grid will help to bring a wider conversation alongside the appraisal. We are quite task oriented and this helps managers to think beyond the task and look at some of the behavioural aspects underpinning their performance”.

The Value to senior managers is more evident

Regardless of their personal experience, the majority of senior managers conveyed a strong opinion that the talent grid process was worthwhile and benefited the talent pipeline for their organisation.

“It is a very important and useful process in identifying the strategic resources for the company and ensuring alignment. The company promotes people within role as a result of their rating and so it is essential that they are consistent in identifying the skills and competencies that warrant that”.

“I think if you are honest with yourself you know where you sit on the grid, but there is a great value in being told as it leads to a meaningful conversation about what development is needed. It could be a life changing conversation. If people think they are stuck in a box then it will have no value, but if they can see it as a stepping stone for development then it has.”



Having the process in place appears to have prompted managers to think more strategically about the development of people in their organistion, as illustrated in the extract below.

Grid seen as less useful where it is viewed as an HR rather than a management tool

In some organisations the way in which the talent grid was introduced into the organisation has an impact on the perceived value. Where the aim appeared to be biased towards succession planning and a focus on high potentials alone, the process was viewed as less relevant to managers.

“The process was driven by the HR Business Partner and it was very much seen as a strategic tool for them, rather than anything that had value to me as a manager.”

“The introduction of a talent management grid has been painful and time-consuming for staff and managers alike. HR insists that it is a management tool, whereas all the literature etc indicate that it is more an HR staff planning tool, so it is not clear that we are using it correctly – and it could be damaging the organisation, affecting morale etc.”

“In my organisation the only real purpose of the grid seems to be to assist with succession planning. I believe the downsides far outweigh the benefits. In my experience it makes staff angry and is de-motivating. Managers feel awkward about doing the exercise and they don’t believe in it either.”

“Leadership development is more to be seen as a journey everyone can take, how far down the road you go can be different for different people. But better to present talent management in this way than focus on a small group of so-called ‘hi-po’s’. It’s divisive, elitist, and disenfranchises the majority.”

Views on whether the Grid helps drive and support meaningful career conversations are mixed

The raters were evenly split between whether the rating was arrived at through conversation with the individual; by deciding the rating first and then discussing it with the employee or whether the rating was decided on by the manager and kept confidential. Given the rhetoric in the literature on the benefits of the conversation over the tool, it was quite surprising that such a high percentage of organisations continue to keep the data confidential from the employee. This approach clearly means that managers do not have the opportunity to realign employee perceptions of potential, although discussions on performance and development typically continue to take place within the appraisal framework

Grid can help managers think about long term pipeline of leaders

Extract from an interview with a senior manager in a pharmaceutical company on how the grad can help managers think about long-term pipeline leaders.

“Everyone in our organisation is rated on the talent grid and the grid is combined with their succession planning processes. It was first introduced about 2009 and there were lots of questions at the start about what it meant for people and how it would work. The principles adopted were that everyone has talent and everyone should be developed regardless of their position on the grid. However, “special attention” is given to people in what we call boxes 4,7,9 and 8 (this equates to all the top rated performers and the middle performers with high potential). In Holland these people become part of a programme called “Talent by design” and are given exposure to different experiences, allocated mentors and can obtain support such as coaching and different training programmes.

Talent review meetings are held twice yearly and there is comprehensive information on the web to help support managers in deciding on appropriate ratings. The process in the organisation is becoming more sophisticated and there is a technical platform being put in place to formalise development plans for higher positions. There are also expectations set of what percentage of people are likely to fall within each box.

Assessing people is only difficult if there are new people in your team, or people you do not know very well because of the nature of their job. The descriptions of the different boxes are easily understandable, although potential is trickier to get right than performance. The tool works very well. In the past people were never very clear about performance and the discussions were very variable depending on the manager you had and their own biases on people and leadership qualities. Not many managers were brave enough to say what they really thought and have a real conversation. The talent grid has led to managers taking less of a short term view to keep their staff happy and more of a long term perspective about what is good for the leadership and talent pipeline. “



Where a conversation did take place, there was a sense from some raters that this could help drive quality career and development conversations, although there were also those where this wasn’t the case. There was also a sense that the grid helped formalise the process of holding development conversations:

“Felt very behind closed doors and I never felt very sure where I have been put on it. Certainly didn’t actively drive any development conversations.”

“At least three of mine (reports) are now thinking they have the potential to progress. I said that even if there are not any opportunities at the moment, I can help them to get in the best position possible for when something does come up. It is encouraging to see them stepping up. I’d like to think I was doing this anyway, but the grid discussion does formalise that.”



Concluding RemarksMuch has been written about ‘how to do’ talent management. Less, we feel, has been written about how people experience it, and its impact on their motivation and engagement. How does it feel to be rated a ‘star performer’ and does that substantially increase motivation? What does it feel like to be considered a ‘core employee’ and what impact does that have? As a manager, how does the experience of rating employees feel, how useful is the process and how might the experience be improved? These were all questions of interest to us when we set out to explore the topic.

What is striking from this research is the potential conflict between two organisational imperatives – namely, the identification of future talent and the engagement and motivation of staff essential to a high performing organisation. Many of those identified as future talent do not appear to be motivated by being rated using the nine box grid, in fact some appear demotivated. This is in many cases a reflection of raised expectations left unfulfilled. Where employees are motivated by their rating, this seems often to be short-lived, their rating simply validating their own beliefs.

A strong theme emerging from much of the commentary was the need to be placed in the top right box, to be identified as a ‘star performer’. It seems that there are many employees performing well in their jobs who see failure to land in this category as evidence that their career options within the organisation are limited. There is a risk, then, that a process designed to identify high potentials can alienate the ‘core’, the bulk of well performing employees who help make the organisation work. Any process of selection is likely to lead to success for some and disappointment for others, but the message here is that managers and HR need to be alive to the impact of such processes. Managers need to be equipped with the capability and skills to hold effective development conversations with employees at different stages in their careers. If HR focusses too much on the technicalities of guidance and process, it may lose sight of the crucial role played by suitably skilled managers.

What is also made evident from our work is the difficult challenge faced by managers in rating employees. Many expressed a dislike of ‘boxing’ individuals. Many also disliked labels and the tendency they may have to be picked up and used in conversation, potentially creating self-fulfilling prophecies influencing the way individuals are seen and treated. What is clear from comments such as this is the concern that managers may have about the process, and its possible impact on employees. To reinforce a point made above, managers should be developed in a way that enables them to meet the challenge they face with confidence.

None of this is to say that talent management is bad. Rather, it is a call to remember to focus on the nature of the conversations that take place as much as the technicalities of the process.



Appendix 1 – List of intervieweesEmployees from the following organisations took part in our study:

Insolvency Service

Unum

Harsco

Aviva

Shire

Highways Agency

GSK

Medicover

South West Water

Archant

DWP

Yell

Tesco

Network Rail

National Trust

University of Southampton

MacMillan Cancer Support



Appendix 2 – Online questionnaire1. What is your gender? Please tick one option only.

MaleFemalePrefer not to say

2. What level is your role? Please tick one option only.

Board Director

Other Director/Senior Manager

Middle Manager

Junior Manager

Non-manager (i.e you do not have line management responsibility)

3. Do you work in HR?

Yes No

4. Have you used the Nine Box Grid to assess others? Please tick one option only.

Yes

No

5. How easy or difficult was it to assign a box on the grid to individual employees? Please tick one option only.

Very easy EasyNeither easy nor difficult DifficultVery difficult

6. Was it more difficult to assign a box on the grid to some individuals compared with others? Please tick one option only.

Yes

No

7. Why do you say that?

8. How well did you understand the difference between the labels and descriptions for each of the nine boxes? Please tick one option only.

Understood very well

Understood well

Did not understand very well

Did not understand at all

9. Which, if any, of the box labels and descriptions did you understand less well and why? Please give the label(s) of the box(es) and indicate where on the grid they were positioned i.e top right, middle bottom row etc

10. Were you clear about what would happen next in terms of development opportunities for each of the boxes i.e were you able to tell those for whom you gave a particular rating, what would happen next? Please tick one option only.

Yes

No

11. Which boxes, if any, were you less clear about what would happen next in terms of development actions for the individual employee? Please give the label(s) of the box(es) and where on the grid it/they were positioned i.e top right, middle bottom row

12. Why do you say that?

13. Did you ..? Please tick one option only.

Decide on a box rating which was then kept confidential from staff

Agree a box rating through a conversation with individual members of staff

Decide on a box rating and tell the member of staff their rating

14. How equipped did you feel to have a development conversation around the box ratings? Please tick one option only.

Did not have a development conversation with staff on their rating

Felt equipped to hold a development conversation with staff on their rating

Did not feel equipped to hold a development conversation with staff on their rating

15. What, overall, was your experience of rating others using the Nine Box Grid?

16. What, if anything, would make it easier for you to understand and use the Nine Box Grid?



17. Have you been rated using the Nine Box Grid? Please tick one option only.

Yes NoDon’t know

18. Were you informed by your manager which box you had been assigned to? Please tick one option only.

Yes

No

19. Which box were you assigned to? Please tick one option only.

Top row, right hand side (high potential, high performance)

Top row, middle column (high potential, medium performance)

Top row, left hand side (high potential, low performance)

Middle row, right hand side (medium potential, high performance)

Middle row, middle column (medium potential, medium performance)

Middle row, left hand side (medium potential, low performance)

Bottom row, right hand side (low potential, high performance)

Bottom row, middle column (low potential, medium performance)

Bottom row, left hand side (low potential, low performance)

Prefer not to say

20. How well did you understand what being assigned to that box meant i.e did you know what would happen next as a result in terms of development opportunities? Please tick one option only.

Understood well

Understood to some extent


21. How effective, would you say, was any development conversation you had with your manager about your placing on the Grid? Please tick one option only.

Effective

Neither effective nor ineffective

Ineffective

Did not have a development conversation

22. Did you discuss your rating with peers? Please tick one option only.

Yes

No

23. Which box were you assigned to? Please tick one option only.

Top row, right hand side (high potential, high performance)

Top row, middle column (high potential, medium performance)

Top row, left hand side (high potential, low performance)

Middle row, right hand side (medium potential, high performance)

Middle row, middle column (medium potential, medium performance)

Middle row, left hand side (medium potential, low performance)

Bottom row, right hand side (low potential, high performance)

Bottom row, middle column (low potential, medium performance)

Bottom row, left hand side (low potential, low performance) Prefer not to say

24. How well did you understand what being assigned to that box meant i.e did you know what would happen next as a result in terms of development opportunities? Please tick one option only.

Understood well

Understood to some extent


25. How effective, would you say, was any development conversation you had with your manager about your placing on the Grid? Please tick one option only.

Effective

Neither effective nor ineffective Ineffective

Did not have a development conversation

26. Did you discuss your rating with peers? Please tick one option only.

Yes

No

27. How did the rating you received affect your motivation at work? Please tick one option only.

Did not change anything

Felt demotivated

Felt motivated

Felt confused as wasn’t clear what it all meant



28. How did the rating affect your performance at work? Please tick one option only.

My performance at work improved

My performance at work declined

My performance at work stayed the same

29. How did it impact your view of your long-term career more generally? Please tick one option only.

Didn’t change anything

Made me feel more positive about my future career

Made me feel less positive about my future career

30. How did it impact your view of your long-term career in your organisation? Please tick one option only.

Didn’t change anything

Made me feel more positive about my future in the organisation

Made me feel less positive about my future in the organisation

31. What added value does the Nine Box bring to your organisation? Please tick all that apply.

Helps us to focus our investment in development

Helps us succession plan

Helps us differentiate reward

Creates a space for development discussions to take place

Other (please specify)

32. How effectively is the Nine Box used in your organisation? Please tick one box only.

Very effectively

Effectively Ineffectively

Related Reading

Living in a Matrix £10

The Expert as Leader£35

Building Resilience: Five Key Capabilities £10

The UK Management Agenda 2015 Free of charge

The Singapore Management Agenda 2015 Free of charge

Innovation, Leadership and Culture £10

Forthcoming research

UK Management Agenda

Roffey Park’s annual barometer of manager views and opinions on working life. This year the survey covers questions such as: How are organisations responding to political and economic challenges in their environment? What are the main people challenges they face? How well equipped are their leadership populations to meet the strategic objectives of their organisation? What, if any, are the gaps? How do leaders describe the culture of their organisation? Is it supportive of taking risks and innovating?

An employee perspective on organisational trust during change

This research is focused on case studies in three organisations experiencing transformational change. The report explores employee perceptions of the change, and how judgments are formed about the trustworthiness of the organisation they work for and key individuals within it.

Building trusting relationships – the role of anticipation and risk

Does trust just happen to us? What can we do to build trust? Do we trust, and do we feel trusted by, the system(s) we are part of? This research is based around three in-depth conversations and is informed by recent and not-so-recent thinking on complexity and emergence in organisational life.

The lived experience of trust – people’s stories of trust in the workplace

This research explores individuals’ in-depth experiences of a key relationship at work, and in particular how trust grows, develops or is broken. The report takes a longitudinal perspective exploring change over time.

Compassionate leadership

What makes for compassionate leadership? What gets in the way of it? How compassionate are leaders in the UK? This research will explore these questions and form the underpinning of a psychometric online tool to assess and help develop compassion in the UK’s leaders.

Visit www.roffeypark.com/reports for further information

ISBN 978-0-907416-14-2 Published September 2015

Roffey Park Institute, Forest Road, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 4TB, United KingdomTel: +44 (0) 1293 851644 Fax: +44 (0) 1293 851565email: [email protected] www.roffeypark.com

Roffey Park Institute Limited is a charity registered with the Charity Commission No. 254591

The Nine Box Grid is now a widely used tool for identifying talent within an organisation, particularly in large organisations. Despite its widespread use by the HR community, anecdotally we have heard HR practitioners express frustration with the Nine Box. We also have heard quite diverse views about people’s experience of using the tool. Much of the research on the grid tends to look from the ‘outside in’ on the process. This research report takes a different view, looking from the ‘inside out’, exploring the experiences of employees using the grid to rate others and/or being rated on the grid themselves.

In this research report we explore a number of questions:




Based on in-depth interviews and an online survey of 700 employees, this research explores employee experiences of the Nine Box Grid, its impact on motivation and performance, and identifies some implications for practice.

Documents

IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT? · 2016-09-30 · Is the Nine Box Grid all about being in the top right? ... closed doors and of fates being determined without