Call Us +1 224-415-2491

Category: Talent Review

  • Will Your First 9-Box Calibration Meeting Succeed or Fail?

    Will Your First 9-Box Calibration Meeting Succeed or Fail?

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    What HR Leaders Must Get Right When the CEO or Board Asks You to Lead a 9-Box Talent Calibration Meeting

    If the CEO or Board has asked you to run your organization’s first 9-Box talent calibration meeting in 2026, this is not a routine HR exercise.

    It is a credibility test. It is a defining opportunity.

    Leaders will decide, often subconsciously, whether:

    • This process improves enterprise decision-making or wastes time
    • HR brings rigor or simply facilitates conversation
    • Talent decisions will be evidence-based or political

    Make no mistake: the organization is watching you.

    Why This Matters More Than Most HR Leaders Realize

    A first-time 9-Box calibration is not just about talent visibility. It is about enterprise risk.

    When organizations fail to calibrate talent effectively, the consequences are both predictable and costly:

    • Regretted turnover increases as high-ability talent disengages or exits when decisions feel political or opaque
    • Strategy execution weakens when leaders without the capacity or aspiration to operate at scale are placed into roles that exceed them
    • Revenue and operational risk rise as leadership gaps create delays, inconsistency, and rework
    • Compensation and development dollars are misallocated, producing little return
    • Trust in leadership erodes, accelerating cultural decline and disengagement

    These costs rarely appear on an HR dashboard, but they show up clearly in business results.

    The ROI Of Getting Your First 9-Box Talent Calibration Right

    When run with discipline, a first 9-Box calibration does something few HR processes can: it increases the organization’s ability to execute strategy through people.

    Specifically, it:

    • Improves the quality of succession decisions for critical roles
    • Focuses investment on talent that can actually scale
    • Forces shared ownership of enterprise talent, not siloed advocacy
    • Establishes HR as a strategic advisor to the CEO and Board

    The grid itself is not the value. The quality of the decisions it enables is.

    First, Anchor the Purpose of Your 9-Box Talent Calibration Meeting

    A 9-Box calibration meeting exists to support future-facing decisions, not to validate the past.

    Its purpose is to:

    • Create a shared view of performance and potential
    • Differentiate where the organization should invest – compensation and training investments
    • Identify succession and readiness risks
    • Improve leadership judgment about talent over time

    It is not:

    • A performance review discussion
    • A compensation conversation
    • A forum for leader advocacy

    If this distinction is not explicit, the meeting will drift. It’s your job to anchor it.

    Defining Potential Using a Gartner-Aligned Framework

    In first-ever calibrations, performance is usually easier to align on. Potential is where things get fuzzy.

    To create consistency and defensibility, potential should be clearly defined as the intersection of Engagement, Ability, and Aspiration.

    All three matter. Missing one changes the decision.

    Aspiration (It’s Non-Negotiable)

    Aspiration reflects whether an individual genuinely wants expanded responsibility, leadership accountability, and the tradeoffs that come with it. Not everyone wants to make the sacrifices required to move-up in the organization.

    If a leader does not want to:

    • Take on broader scope
    • Accept required mobility
    • Absorb increased pressure, visibility, or complexity

    Then nothing else matters, regardless of performance or capability.

    Observable signals include:

    • Willingness to accept stretch or disruptive assignments
    • Realistic understanding of what the next level requires
    • Openness to feedback tied to future readiness

    Aspiration answers the question: Does this person actually want the next level at this point in time?

    Someone with strong ability but without aspiration cannot, by definition, be assessed as high potential because they don’t want to rise in the organization.

    Ability

    Ability refers to the demonstrated capacity to perform at higher levels of complexity over time.

    This includes:

    • Judgment in ambiguous situations
    • Pattern recognition and systems thinking
    • Learning speed and adaptability
    • Cognitive ability, including the capacity to process complexity, integrate information, and make sound decisions as scope increases

    Research consistently shows that intelligence and cognitive capability matter more as roles become larger and less structured. At senior levels, the work is not procedural. It is conceptual.

    Ability answers the question: Can this person successfully handle work of greater scale, ambiguity, and consequence?

    Strong past performance alone is not sufficient.

    Engagement

    Engagement reflects the level of sustained energy, commitment, and discretionary effort an individual brings to their work.

    Look for:

    • Ownership beyond formal role boundaries
    • Persistence through challenge and change
    • Emotional commitment to organizational goals

    Engagement answers the question: Will this person continue to invest their best effort here?

    If the individual does not demonstrate strong engagement in the work of the organization, it may signal flight risk.

    What Potential is Not

    In first-time 9-Box discussions, leaders often confuse potential with the comfort of what they know.

    Potential is not:

    • A reward for loyalty or tenure
    • Executive presence alone
    • Confidence or visibility
    • What a manager hopes will be true

    Clear definitions allow HR to challenge placements with evidence rather than opinion.

    Challenging wrong placements is your job. If the individual does not have the potential to successfully perform in higher levels of the organization, you must present the facts to facilitate the correct placement within the 9-Box. Solicit examples from other leaders who know the individual. Remember: decisions about strategic investments will be made based on the final outcome of the discussion.

    How To Structure the 9-Box Talent Calibration Meeting

    Before The Meeting

    • Require leaders to submit proposed placements and evidence; postpone meetings if leaders fail to provide placements and evidence.
    • Reinforce definitions of performance and potential; you may have to do this many times.
    • Set expectations: preparation is mandatory; stop the calibration and call-out any leader who is “winging it.”
    • Train HR Business Partners on the purpose and process of talent calibration. Help them excel in their role.
    • Unless your process is mature, design it so the focus of it is on defined critical positions. Including all positions in the talent review may sound like a good idea but it can backfire when it comes time to execute post-meeting actions. Better to execute the most important actions well, than many actions poorly.

    During The Meeting

    • Calibrate similar roles together to ensure standards are applied consistently.
    • Start with the middle of the grid to establish definitions.
    • Ask for evidence, not opinion or advocacy. You may need to request this many times.
    • Document rationale for movement, not just final placement.
    • Exhibit courage, standing up to senior leaders as required.
    • Summarize the agreed-upon decisions and action plans.

    After The Meeting

    • Distribute action plans and ensure follow-through. Share agreed-upon development, retention, and compensation actions with the relevant leaders. Include timelines, owners, and measurable outcomes.
    • Align with high-potential talent individually. Meet with high-potential employees to communicate investment and expectations, not the box label. Clarify what growth opportunities or mobility may be required.
    • Identify and mitigate pipeline risks. Highlight gaps in readiness for critical roles. Determine where successors are missing or underprepared and plan targeted interventions (development, mentoring, rotational experiences).
    • Partner with Talent Acquisition strategically. Address talent gaps the organization cannot develop internally and ensure TA understands critical roles, required competencies, and timing.
    • Prepare and communicate executive summary for CEO/Board. Summarize key insights: talent differentiation, succession readiness, pipeline risks, and investment priorities. Highlight strategic implications (e.g., risks to execution, upcoming critical role gaps).

    Common Pitfalls to Manage

    • Title and tenure bias. From year to year, 9-Box placements can, and should, change.
    • Guarding of talent. Ensure leaders understand the importance of sharing talent across the enterprise.
    • Over-labeling high potential. If everyone is high-po, nobody is high-po. Your process has failed.
    • Under-labeling low performance / no potential. Unless you have been fastidiously managing poor performers throughout the year, you should see placements here. It’s your role to make sure the difficult conversations happen.
    • “Blockers” are acceptable. Remind leaders that allowing average performers with little to no potential to remain in leadership roles is expensive and, over time, will be the cause of turnover of high potential team members who are capable of performing in those roles at an even higher level.

    Close With Action, Not Alignment

    A 9-Box without follow-through is a waste of time. By the end of the meeting, you should have:

    • Clear investment priorities by box
    • Succession implications for critical roles
    • Identified readiness and risk-of-loss concerns
    • Directionally aligned development expectations
    • Action plans with defined ownership and timelines

    If the outcome is simply “great discussion,” the effort has not been successful.

    Final Thought on Running Your First 9-Box Talent Calibration Meeting

    Your first 9-Box calibration meeting sets a precedent.

    Leaders will remember whether HR led with clarity, challenged with confidence, and anchored decisions in evidence.

    Design it accordingly. Lead it accordingly.

    Subscribe to my LinkedIn newsletter.

  • Will Your Organization’s Talent Review Fail?

    Will Your Organization’s Talent Review Fail?

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    And What High-Performance Organizations Do Differently for Talent Reviews

    After facilitating more than 100 talent reviews across industries, I have seen a pattern that leaders rarely recognize. Organizations meticulously maintain their physical assets, yet neglect their human assets.

    In manufacturing, machines are inspected daily for safety, calibration, and production output.

    In telecommunications, towers are checked constantly for compliance, signal quality, and operational integrity.

    But when it comes to talent, the only asset capable of creativity, judgment, and innovation, talent assessment becomes an after-thought.

    This oversight is not because leaders do not care. It is because most organizations have never built a disciplined, repeatable system for evaluating and developing their people. And the consequences are some of the costliest problems in business.

    Below are the issues I see most often in broken talent review processes, and they represent the highest financial and organizational impact.

    The Most Common and Most Costly Breakdowns in Talent Reviews

    1. The Wrong People Are Rated “Top Talent”

    High performers are often identified based on popularity, visibility, or personal affinity rather than measurable contributions or leadership behaviors. This leads to misallocated development dollars, stalled innovation, and top performers leaving because they feel unseen.

    Impact: Millions in hidden losses from disengagement, misaligned promotions, and failed succession bets.

    2. Leadership Potential Is Mislabeled

    Many organizations confuse high performance with leadership readiness. As a result, they accelerate people into roles they are not equipped to handle, while overlooking those who actually demonstrate strategic thinking, emotional intelligence, and team leadership capacity.

    Impact: Failed promotions, team instability, and burnout created by leaders who were never prepared to lead.

    3. Talent Data Is Anecdotal, Not Evidence-Based

    Without clear criteria and structured evaluation, talent reviews devolve into a series of stories, opinions, and selective memories. This results in inconsistent ratings, inequitable decisions, and a leadership bench that is built on bias rather than reality.

    Impact: Weak succession pipelines and increased legal and reputational risk.

    4. No Real Follow-Through After the Meeting

    Organizations spend hours debating talent but do not convert insights into action.

    No development plans. No accountability. No leadership conversations. No tracking.

    The result is a process that “feels good” but creates no measurable change.

    Impact: Zero ROI on talent investments and persistent leadership gaps.

    5. Burnout and Flight Risk Go Undetected

    Without structured diagnostics, leaders fail to see early warning signs of burnout, misalignment, and attrition risk.

    By the time someone quits, the organization is already facing productivity loss, replacement costs, and operational disruption.

    Impact: Costly turnover that could have been prevented months earlier with simple, systematic monitoring.

    The Resounding Truth: Human Assets Are Undermanaged

    Across every industry I have worked in, one truth stands out.

    Companies rigorously protect the assets that sit on their balance sheets but they do not rigorously protect the assets that create their future.

    Physical assets deteriorate without maintenance.

    Human assets deteriorate without development, clarity, and leadership.

    Organizations lose their best people not because talent reviews are missing. They lose them because talent reviews lack structure, discipline, and follow-through.

    What High-Performance Organizations Do Instead

    They treat talent as a core operating system:

    • Clear, evidence-based criteria
    • Calibrated evaluations
    • Strength-based talent placement
    • Succession pipelines that reflect reality
    • Leadership accountability for development
    • Annual and quarterly check-ins
    • Diagnostics that surface risk before it becomes crisis

    This is not “HR work.” This is business continuity work.

    The organizations that get this right outperform their peers in retention, innovation, engagement, and speed of execution.

    If you are concerned about leadership gaps, flight risk, or legal exposure tied to biased talent decisions, let’s talk. A brief call can show you exactly where your risk sits, and how to eliminate it.

    Subscribe to my weekly newsletter.

  • The Costly and Hidden Risk in Your Succession Plan

    The Costly and Hidden Risk in Your Succession Plan

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    I worked with a mid-sized company preparing for its talent review and succession planning meetings. HRBPs struggled to pull accurate data and managers arrived unprepared. During the session, leaders essentially guessed who was “at risk” of leaving. They added a few names to a spreadsheet, tagged them based on gut feel, and listed vague follow-ups like “connect soon” or “keep an eye out.”

    Six months later, two top contributors (one in senior engineering and one in product strategy) resigned. Both had been labeled “low risk.” Neither had a retention plan. Their departures stalled projects, upset customers, and forced the company into costly external searches because successors weren’t ready. Morale dipped. Momentum slowed.

    That experience stayed with me. When risk and impact assessments remain soft, unstructured, and unmeasured, high performers slip through the cracks. The organization pays for it every time.

    Why Risk-of-Loss and Impact-of-Loss Assessments Fail

    • They rely on gut feel.
      Leaders default to impressions (“She seems happy.” “He’s performing well.”) instead of real indicators like time since last promotion, pay-range position, or mobility history.
    • Impact scoring is inconsistent or inflated.
      Without a shared method, “impact” becomes storytelling. Leaders either exaggerate (“If she leaves, everything collapses”) or minimize (“We can hire someone else”). In reality, neither is accurate.
    • Retention plans (when they exist) don’t get executed.
      Competing pressures and lack of accountability mean most plans fade into the background.
    • Replacing top talent is expensive, even conservatively.
      Replacing an employee typically costs 50 to 150 percent of their salary. (G&A Partners). Senior specialists and executives can reach 200 percent or more. (HR Morning). These figures don’t include losses in knowledge, customer trust, productivity, or team morale. Those impacts compound quietly and significantly.

    A Better Way: Data-Driven Risk, Structured Impact, and Real Execution

    Here is the blueprint I use. It replaces guesswork with clarity, structure, and follow-through.

    1. Build a Composite Risk-of-Loss Score

    • Integrate multiple signals, including:
      • HRIS data (tenure, time since promotion, compensation percentile, mobility history)
      • Burnout and work-environment diagnostics (Areas of Work Life Survey (AWS), Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), engagement surveys)
      • Event triggers (manager changes, promotion windows, declined stretch roles)
      • Qualitative sentiment (manager feedback, pulse-text themes, documented concerns)

    This creates a rolling probability of risk based on real indicators, not impressions.

    2. Implement a Standard Impact-of-Loss Model

    • Define consistent criteria for every role:
      • Recruiting and replacement cost
      • Vacancy days and ramp-up time
      • Strategic significance (clients, product continuity, institutional knowledge)
      • Ripple effects on teams, culture, and project flow

    A shared model eliminates emotional scoring and allows leaders to compare impact in a meaningful way.

    3. Turn Risk and Impact into Action

    • Prioritize talent using a simple risk-by-impact matrix
    • Build individualized retention plans with clear owners, actions, and deadlines
    • Track completion and follow-through, not just planning activity

    4. Pulse Early and Often

    • Burnout and disengagement usually build quietly. Quarterly pulses that incorporate AWS or MBI indicators surface issues long before resignation letters appear.

    5. Use Analytics and AI as Supporting Signals

    • Research shows that fine-tuned language models can outperform traditional attrition-prediction methods when analyzing engagement comments and written feedback (arXiv). Treat these insights as early-warning flags, then validate through conversations, stay interviews, and coaching.

    What This Means for Organizations for Succession Planning

    • Churn is costing you more than you think.
      Even a $120K high performer can cost $120K to $240K or more to replace, before counting lost momentum. (Read more here.)
    • Risk is often hiding in plain sight.
      High performers rarely raise their hands until they have one foot out the door.
    • Without structure, retention becomes reactive.
      Most organizations don’t take action until after a resignation. By then, it’s too late.

    If you want a retention strategy that truly protects your top talent, you need signal, structure, accountability, and execution discipline in your succession planning.

    I’ve created a Retention Diagnostic Checklist that your HRBP or leadership team can use immediately. It’s practical, comprehensive, and designed to reveal blind spots quickly. Contact me if you’d like a copy.