Why the 9-Box Grid is still a valuable tool for performance discussions.
The 9-box grid was created in the 1970’s by McKinsey & Company for their client General Electric and is still used today, despite it having been widely critized.
It’s disliked by many as it can feel overly simplistic. Complex human performance, potential, behaviours, motivation and context can feel reduced to a single box. Others are uncomfortable with labels such as “low potential,” which can feel fixed, subjective or demotivating if not handled carefully.
There are also legitimate concerns that the process can reinforce bias if leaders are not using clear evidence, consistent criteria and thoughtful calibration.
And that, for me, is the key distinction.
The 9-box grid is only as good as how it’s presented, used and the quality of the conversation around it.
Used poorly, it can become a blunt labelling exercise, where people are quite literally being put into boxes.
Used well, it creates clarity, structure, alignment. Creates coversation and gives teams a common language in which to describe peformance and what good in that company at that time looks like.
At its core, the 9-box grid maps performance against potential, in their current role in their current company (this is important). It creats a simple 3x3 matrix that helps organisations evaluate talent consistently. But its real value is not in the diagram itself it’s in the conversations it enables.
One of the most immediate benefits is that it forces leadership teams to define what they actually mean by “high performance” and “high potential.”
Without this, these terms are often interpreted subjectively, filtered through individual bias, tenure, personality, confidence, visibility or proximity to the employee.
When a leadership team sits around a 9-box calibration discussion, assumptions get surfaced quickly. One leader’s “solid performer” might be another’s “high potential.” The grid gives the team a structure to make those differences visible and discussable.
It also helps refine what “good” really looks like for the organisation.
To place someone consistently, leaders need to articulate:
What excellent performance looks like in practice.
What behaviours signal future potential.
What values matter when performance is otherwise similar.
What outputs are most important to the business.
This is often where the real value emerges. Organisations begin to see where they may have been over-indexing on output while under-defining behaviours, or where potential is being confused with confidence, ambition or likability.
One of the most useful parts of the process is the collective calibration.
Left to individual managers, performance assessments can vary significantly. A shared 9-box discussion brings different perspectives into the same room. What often emerges is not immediate consensus, but constructive tension and that is valuable.
Leaders are encouraged to justify assessments with evidence, challenge assumptions, and consider broader organisational impact.
Used well, the 9-box grid helps leadership teams:
Create a shared language.
Clarify expectations.
Challenge bias.
Identify strenghts and how these can be used best
Succession plans
Identify development needs.
Align on values, behaviours and outputs.
Make better people decisions.
The point is not to put people in boxes and leave them there.
The point is to create better conversations about performance, potential and growth.
It maybe that an individual isn’t a good fit for a role or business and then it’s best to have that conversation, maybe then the individual can find a role and Company where they are suited and will thrive.
In my experience, across clients of different industries and sizes, the 9-box grid remains a practical and valuable tool. Not because it is perfect, but because it gives leadership teams a structure to align, challenge and make more considered decisions about their people.
