Thanks Kristie! 

Our process has been manual in the past as well - typical 9 box, succession planning for leadership and key roles (Ready 3+ years, 1-3 years, Ready Now, Emergency Fill), with a list of high potentials and proposed development plans. We are kicking off our process to determine how we convert this into an online process through Cornerstone. Will reach out to you as we get started. 

Late to the game on this discussion, but we are getting ready to implement our new online succession module and rethink about how we facilitate the process/discussion. Would love to hear any insights you gained! 

In the past, I've used a 6 box and a 9 box. Depending upon the organization and our bandwidth, we took a hands-on approach to have calibration discussions/coaching sessions with leaders as they were working through their evaluations. We haven't used an assessment in the past, although have considered how we can explore using our new Competency Model as a basis to help drive discussion on potential. 

Let me know if you are up for a call! 

With so many changes going on I'm behind in my preparation for 2025 on our Talent Reviews so I have a few questions for your all:

- Do you still do a 9 box or have you pivoted to another type of talent review

- How have you best mitigated leader bias? I've found even with trying to do ratings, the leaders will rate people against each other vs. the expectations of their role.  For example on one team, all the entry level people tend to get rated low, the mid level people in mid level ratings, and our senior level positions get rated in growth boxes because as expected the people with more experience are delivering more than the others on the team.

- I was reading this article about pairing the 9 box up with an external assessment.  Do any of you do that? https://www.ihrimedia.com/2024/09/humpty-dumpty-and-the-9-box-five-steps-to-putting-it-back-together-again-using-the-science-of-leadership-potential/?

- Also, probably the age old question in talent development how can we best help leaders to see or understand the difference between someone who is really good at their job and someone who could be good at being a leader?

I think I'm going to go find and re-listen to the GCATD podcast episode on this process because it had a lot of good tips, but I'm open to any and all tips or suggestions you have because I feel like this is an ever evolving and improving process.