www.roffeypark.

com

RESEARCH REPORT

IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING

IN THE TOP RIGHT?
Employee experiences of the Nine Box Grid
Jane Yarnall and Dan Lucy
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: info@roffeypark.com Email: singapore@roffeypark.com

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

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 2

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

Contents
Executive 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

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 3

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

Acknowledgements
The 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.

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 4


Executive Summary
The 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
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
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
5

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
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
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. provide development opportunities for their staff and the
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
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.
6

Implications for practice:
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.
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
■■ Engaging first line and middle managers in ■■ There is a question as to whether there is
the process requires attention. It may be
that different communication and guidance
any value in holding conversations with all
employees outside of the top right quadrant
may be required for different levels of of boxes. The purpose of these conversations
management. Or wider involvement in peer is sometimes not apparent to managers or
review meetings could be used to strengthen those they manage, limiting their value.
manager commitment to the process
■■ Companies may want to track the impact on
■■ It was surprising, given guidance on best engagement with the organisation resulting
practice, to discover that significant numbers from grid conversations. In particular,
of employees hadn’t been told their rating on attention needs to be given to people moving
the grid or simply didn’t know whether they roles or managers, where the box rating could
had been rated or not. Closed systems tend potentially go down from previous years.
to generate anxiety, suspicion, and a sense
■■ The follow up from the rating is crucial and
of being disengaged from the process. HR
companies need be explicit about the “deal”
should given careful consideration to this
for each box at a corporate level and quickly
aspect of the process and be open in its
follow up on promises. This needs to go
communication about why secrecy is needed,
beyond suggesting typical actions for each
if indeed it is.
box.
■■ Careful consideration should be given to
■■ There is a danger that HR becomes so
the use of labels. Whilst these can provide
focussed on the technical aspects of talent
a handy shortcut, there is a danger that
that it loses sight, or is not aware of, the
this removes the focus from a conversation
difficulties that managers face in having
based around detailed criteria. There is also
conversations with employees around the
a risk that labels undermine the fluidity of box
grid and its impact on engagement. For the
ratings and become self-fulfilling prophecies
Nine Box to really succeed, HR needs to
driving how people perceive themselves and
equip managers with the requisite skills and
others.
ability if it is to have their commitment and
■■ The use of quotas also needs careful for it to be seen as supporting managers in
consideration. Whilst this practice has its engaging their staff.
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.
7
 IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?

Introduction 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.

The Nine Box Grid is now a widely used tool for What is the Nine Box Grid?
identifying talent within an organisation, particularly
in large organisations. Despite its widespread use The Nine Box Grid is a tool which has been adopted in many organisations as part of an overall talent strategy.
by the HR community, anecdotally we have heard
HR practitioners express frustration with the nine box The tool is used to assign employees to a box based on two dimensions; their current performance and their future
process. We also know of some quite talented people potential. Typically the horizontal axis has three levels of performance and the vertical axis has three levels of potential.
who have found the experience of being rated, or the Managers make a judgement on where each employee is placed. Organisations often attribute different labels to each
rating itself, demotivating. They have been quite ‘turned box, beyond the obvious “high potential/high performance”. We will explore some of these labels later in the report.
off’ by it. This has prompted us to look a little deeper into
the grid and people’s perceptions of it. This first report Figure 1: The Nine Box Talent Grid
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
High potential High potential High potential
corporate perspective on the grid.
Low performance Medium performance High performance

POTENTIAL
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
Medium potential Medium potential Medium potential
interviews and focus groups with employees from several
Low performance Medium performance High performance
organisations.

In exploring user experiences, we have been prompted

to ask ourselves a number of questions, including:

• What is the impact of using the grid on employee

engagement and motivation?
Low potential Low potential Low potential
• How helpful is the grid in driving and supporting a Low performance Medium performance High performance
culture of development?
• What is the experience of managers using the grid to
rate employees?

PERFORMANCE

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 8

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

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.
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. T
 o 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
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.

Organisations’ differ as to whether the initial box ratings 2. A

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.
 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

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 9

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

Research approach
All 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?’

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 10

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

Research findings - the Engagement with the process

We found that the grid process is failing to engage a high percentage of employees,

ratee perspective
Out 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
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 Employees
All employees
in an HR role outside of
(%)
(%) HR (%)

Felt motivated 39 46 41

High potential 1% 19% 38% Did not change anything 45 34 43

Felt demotivated 13 15 14

Felt confused as wasn’t clear what it 3 5 3

all meant

Base size (n) 151 41 192

Medium potential 2% 14% 22%

Low potential 0% 1% 4%

Low performance Medium performance High performance

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 11


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
POTENTIAL
Focus for development
of future talent
PERFORMANCE
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
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.”
12

“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 High Potential High
Medium Performance Performance (%)
(%)
I feel less positive about my future in 19 12
the organisation
The process didn’t change my 36 27
motivation at work
I felt demotivated 14 3 didn’t lead to any development or promotion.”
Base (n) 36 75
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
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
“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
13

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,
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
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.”
14
 IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?

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.”

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 15


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.
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
“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.”
16

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
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
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.”
17
 IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?

“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.”

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 18


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
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
obtain and use than data about performance.” The difficulties in assessing potential, and distinguishing
it from performance, are perhaps evident from the
“The measure of potential is very subjective, distribution of box ratings of our survey respondents.
because each manager who assesses talent does
it in a slightly different way and we all have our own
Only three survey respondents had been rated as having
some potential when they were also rated as under-
performing.
opinions about people and their capability.”
“It’s hard to assess what ‘potential’ means. For “Whilst we had reasonably structured ways of
some that will be about increasing in seniority assessing and qualifying performance, the potential
and for others it’s about developing either their assessment was more problematic. There is a
correlation between the two, but it is difficult to see
professional specialism or building more lateral
high potential in someone who is not performing
experience. Discussions quite often assume that
highly at the current time. These people were
potential is only about ‘going up the org chart’ which
can be limiting.” harder to assign to boxes than those who are high
performers.”
“Potential for what is a complex issue.”
Interestingly one rater commented on an online
questionnaire which is used in their organisation in order
“I find the grid too rigid - it is hard to distinguish
to determine the box rating. The questionnaire uses an
which strengths and development areas should algorithm to place people in the Nine Box Grid according
carry more/less weight.” to set parameters. This rater believed that in this process
the subjective opinions were missing and were needed
“The view of performance vs. potential is highly to enhance the process.
subjective from the eyes of one manager to the
next.” People are multi-dimensional and do not fit easily into
boxes
“Assessments in many organisations are subjective,
Some people clearly felt uncomfortable putting people
as there is no universally agreed way to assess
into boxes and expressed a view that people are more
potential. High potentials can sometimes be senior
complex than the boxes allow for and are not that easily
people’s pets and protégés rather than real talent.” definable.
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.”
19
 IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?

“The Grid Descriptions are reasonably expansive in Figure 4: Commonly used Labels for each of the nine boxes
their capture; sometimes people exhibit a number of
traits that can fit different boxes.”

“People are multi-dimensional and don’t fit into nine Rough Diamond
Future Star Consistent Star
boxes.” Early Promise
High Potential Star Performer
Puzzle
Growth Employee Future Leader
“Depends how long you have known them and some Potential Gem
Rising Star Star
Enigma
people don’t just fit into one box.” Hot Shot High Potential

POTENTIAL
Hopeful
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 Inconsistent Player

Current Star
Future Achiever Key Player
For many raters, the subjectivity of the rating process Strong Performer
Predicament Solid Contributor
was made more emphatic by the use of labels on the High Impact
Inconsistent Performer Core Performer
boxes. Although the research questionnaire did not Agile High Performer
Dilemma
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. Solid Professional High Professional
Under Performer
Satisfactory Contributor Good Performer
Termination Risk
Effective Employee Trusted Professional
Bad Hire
Solid Performer Professional Subject Expert
Talent Risk
Steady Contributor Top Performer

PERFORMANCE

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 20


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?
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
“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
The motivational implications of rating someone in the
contributor, where over a third of raters in our survey
middle boxes was also a concern to many.
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.”
“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.”
21

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
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
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.”
22
 IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?

“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.”
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
“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.”

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
this may label people unfairly at a point in time.
Ambitious employees seeking quick progression
Some organisations have put in place guidelines to
Individuals who are highly ambitious, but not yet showing
deal with these circumstances, for example in Shire (a
all the characteristics necessary to be rated as high
medical treatment company) the process states that after
potential caused some difficult conversations to take
someone is promoted they are not rated on the grid for
place, in order to re-establish expectations.
the first year of their new post, as it is too early to assess
their potential at that time.
“The more difficult conversations are with early
promise people who are perhaps getting ahead of
Demotivated employees
themselves and think they can move on quicker. Or
Employees who were demotivated, perhaps due to with good performers, who want to be strong and
missing out on promotion, or following a restructure, don’t see what is holding them back. For these two
risked further demotivation from seeing their box rating groups the conversation is much harder to manage
downgraded from where it had previously been. and expectations can be set. You don’t want to

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 23


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.”
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
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.”
24

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.
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
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.”
25

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.
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
“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.
26
 IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?

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.”

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 27


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:
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
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.”
28

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
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
“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.”
29

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 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. “
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
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
30
 IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?

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.”

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 31

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

Concluding Remarks 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
Much has been written about ‘how to do’ talent management. Less, we feel, has treated. What is clear from comments such as this is the concern that managers may
been written about how people experience it, and its impact on their motivation and have about the process, and its possible impact on employees. To reinforce a point made
engagement. How does it feel to be rated a ‘star performer’ and does that substantially above, managers should be developed in a way that enables them to meet the challenge
increase motivation? What does it feel like to be considered a ‘core employee’ and what they face with confidence.
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 None of this is to say that talent management is bad. Rather, it is a call to remember to
questions of interest to us when we set out to explore the topic. focus on the nature of the conversations that take place as much as the technicalities of
the process.
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.

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 32

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

Appendix 1 – List of interviewees

Employees 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

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 33

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

Appendix 2 – Online questionnaire 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
1. What is your gender? Please tick one option only. Understood well
Male Did not understand very well
Female Did not understand at all
Prefer not to say
9. Which, if any, of the box labels and descriptions did you understand less well and
2. What level is your role? Please tick one option only. why? Please give the label(s) of the box(es) and indicate where on the grid they were
Board Director positioned i.e top right, middle bottom row etc
Other Director/Senior Manager 10. Were you clear about what would happen next in terms of development
Middle Manager opportunities for each of the boxes i.e were you able to tell those for whom you gave a
Junior Manager particular rating, what would happen next? Please tick one option only.
Non-manager (i.e you do not have line management responsibility) Yes
3. Do you work in HR? No

Yes 11. Which boxes, if any, were you less clear about what would happen next in terms of
No 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
4. Have you used the Nine Box Grid to assess others? Please tick one option only.
12. Why do you say that?
Yes
No 13. Did you ..? Please tick one option only.
Decide on a box rating which was then kept confidential from staff
5. How easy or difficult was it to assign a box on the grid to individual employees?
Please tick one option only. 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
Very easy Easy
Neither easy nor difficult Difficult 14. How equipped did you feel to have a development conversation around the box
Very difficult ratings? Please tick one option only.
6. Was it more difficult to assign a box on the grid to some individuals compared with Did not have a development conversation with staff on their rating
others? Please tick one option only. Felt equipped to hold a development conversation with staff on their rating
Yes Did not feel equipped to hold a development conversation with staff on their rating
No
15. What, overall, was your experience of rating others using the Nine Box Grid?
7. Why do you say that?
16. What, if anything, would make it easier for you to understand and use the Nine Box
Grid?

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 34


17. Have you been rated using the Nine Box Grid? Please tick one option only.
Yes
No
Don’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
Did not understand at all
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
© Roffey Park Institute 2015
IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?
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
Did not understand at all
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
35
 IS THE NINE BOX GRID ALL ABOUT BEING IN THE TOP RIGHT?

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

© Roffey Park Institute 2015 36

Related Reading 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.

Living in a Matrix Building Resilience: Five Key Innovation, Leadership and Building trusting relationships – the role of anticipation and risk
£10 Capabilities £10 Culture £10 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.

The UK Management Agenda The Singapore Management The Expert as Leader Visit www.roffeypark.com/reports
2015 Free of charge Agenda 2015 Free of charge £35 for further information
 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:

• 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?

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.

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

Roffey Park Institute, Forest Road, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 4TB, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1293 851644 Fax: +44 (0) 1293 851565
email: info@roffeypark.com www.roffeypark.com
Roffey Park Institute Limited is a charity registered with the Charity Commission No. 254591