Is the Nine-Box Dead?

As with other aging management fads, the Nine-Box seems to be losing steam in many organizations where it was previously used. Let's look at why that is, to help us understand it limitations and how we might refine its use to extend its shelf life.

What is the Nine-Box?

First, for the un-initiated, bear with me as I summarize what the Nine Box is and how it was originally intended to be used.

The Nine-Box is a talent management tool used by HR and business leaders to gauge the status and needs of a group of employees. It is intended to be used as part of an annual talent review process, either as a stand-alone exercise or as part of a performance appraisal process, succession planning, or leadership development initiative. In a talent review meeting—often a lengthy event attended by the relevant business leaders and facilitated by HR—team leaders one-by-one talk about their direct reports and gain feedback from the other leaders in the room. At their best, these conversations can be game-changers.

The Nine-Box is a nine-celled grid (as shown above) that enables leaders to plot their employees on a performance trend axis (how well have they historically been performing against their goals?) and a potential axis (to what extent do they demonstrate readiness to take on bigger or broader responsibilities?). This gives the whole leadership team a common point of reference for discussing talent, which helps to make the discussion more meaningful. 

Based on an employee’s placement on that Nine-Box, the leadership team may come to some conclusions. For example, a low-performing, low-potential employee may be put on a performance improvement plan, while a high-performing, high-potential employee may be given additional responsibilities and/or development opportunities. It is not always so obvious what, if anything, to do with the 80% or so of the employees who fall somewhere in between those extremes.

When used effectively, the Nine-Box and the broader talent review process lead to robust conversations, where manager biases can be checked, managers can be held accountable through peer pressure and transparency for actively engaging in talent management, and professional development gets taken seriously as a business priority…at least for a few weeks (a skeptic might add).

For example, when we helped a healthcare organization pilot talent reviews with their nursing leadership, stakeholders observed significant improvements in manager accountability, team performance, and employee engagement.

I suggest that these results had less to do with the Nine-Box itself and more to do with the leadership team finally talking about things like performance, potential, and development, making real business commitments, engaging in development conversations with employees, and taking action. Still, the Nine-Box helped as both a conceptual framework and as a catalyst for the discussions.

What Killing the Nine-Box?

In recent years, the Nine-Box and the broader talent review process have come under heavy criticism. Here are the top ailments:

#1. The process can be time-consuming for already-stretched managers.

We estimate that each manager needs to commit 25-30 hours—including the time spent learning the process, assessing their people, meeting as a leadership team, then having follow-on 1:1 conversations with their people, and tracking progress.  

#2. The Nine-Box can seem complicated for leaders who lack exposure to management education.

The differences among the nine cells in the Nine-Box are not always clear and easy for managers to understand, nor is it immediately obvious what to do with employees once they've been placed on the Nine-Box, so there is a learning curve. Much time and energy can be wasted on discussions of whether an employee is a B1 or a B2 or A3, for example, without it necessarily adding value. Some would argue that navigating this learning curve is valuable as a leadership development exercise in its own right.

#3. Confidentiality can be compromised, which can do more damage than it's worth.

Though “Vegas Rules” are supposed to be in effect, things said about employees in the talent review meeting too often leak out, which can damage relationships and hurt team morale. It also undermines the trust that managers have in the process and in each other. Distrust prompts managers to hold their punches and to be less than honest in their Nine-Box placements and discussions, which allows unconscious bias to thrive unchecked. Leaks and lack of candor can undermine the process and leave managers feeling that it was a waste of time, or worse.

Also, some managers feel uncomfortable with the sneakiness of holding discussions about employees without those employees in the room…it runs counter to the transparency that many organizations say they value. For some, it just doesn't feel right.

#4. The Nine-Box placements can lead to inequity.

Categorizing employees in terms of low and high potential often creates a two-tiered system as it relates to professional and leadership development. High potentials get juicy assignments, visibility, mentors, and top-shelf development programs, while everyone else gets something more pedestrian, or nothing at all. While the Nine-Box exercise often helps leaders focus on and address the needs of the upper and lower 10%, it leaves little in the tank for the 80% of employees who are some shade of “valued contributor.”

There are ways to address many of these concerns around complexity, time, confidentiality, and inequity in how we choose to implement the Nine-Box. For example, the Three Kingdoms approach streamlines the process and simplifies the Nine-Box into three groupings, each corresponding to a set of specific considerations and conversations that managers can use to take action quickly and provide development opportunities for all of their employees, not just a few high potentials. If you're curious to learn more, check out this video:

#5. The workplace is evolving too quickly for talent reviews to have an impact.

The most damning criticism seems to be that conducting talent reviews is a waste of time in a business environment where employees and managers are rapidly turning over, spending no more than 2-3 years in a role. How can a manager assess their employee’s historical performance and future potential if they have had minimal opportunity to observe employees in their roles? Even assuming they can do that, what difference would any talent review outcome make if either the manager or the employee will soon be moving on to a new role or organization? Neither party has a long-term stake in improving the employee’s performance or helping that employee grow. 

Indeed, low unemployment and high turnover do make talent management and talent development more challenging, but we would argue that they have never been more important. In this war for talent, acquiring and retaining top employees is critical to business growth, and professional development is a key to fostering employee satisfaction and engagement. In other words, if they’re not learning, they’re leaving. So it is better for leaders to help their employees grow, by whatever means, than ignore this need and lose key people to competitors who will make the investment. 

So, while my team and I disagree that the Nine-Box and talent reviews are a waste of time, we do agree that the process needs to take into account the changing workforce realities wrought by the current talent shortage. In future posts, I will share some alternative approaches that we are helping organizations adopt, which do not typically require a Nine-Box or talent review, at least not in the traditional sense. So while the Nine-Box may be dead or dying in many organizations, the need for talent management and development is still going strong.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Please share your perspective on the Nine-Box, talent reviews, talent management, and talent development.

Gus Prestera, PhD, MBA

Organizational Effectiveness Consultant, Coach, and Educator