| name | leadership-assessment |
| description | USE THIS SKILL when the user asks about succession planning, leadership pipeline, 9-box talent grid, talent review, leadership development, high-potential identification, 360-degree feedback, leadership competency model, bench strength, flight risk assessment, individual development plans, or leadership team effectiveness. Also trigger for "talent calibration," "succession readiness," "leadership capability," "emerging leaders," "executive assessment," "talent mapping," or any request to assess, develop, or plan for leadership capacity across any level of the organization.
|
Leadership Assessment & Succession Planning
Required Inputs
| Input | Description | Required? |
|---|
| Leadership population | Names, roles, levels, tenure, reporting lines | Yes |
| Performance data | Last 2-3 years of performance ratings and outcomes | Yes |
| Business strategy | Strategic priorities and future capability needs | Yes |
| Organizational structure | Current org chart, critical roles identified | Yes |
| Existing competency model | Current leadership competencies (if any) | Recommended |
| 360 feedback data | Most recent 360 results (if available) | Recommended |
| Engagement data | Leadership engagement scores, team engagement under each leader | Recommended |
| Succession plans | Existing succession documentation | Recommended |
| Attrition data | Historical leadership turnover, exit reasons | Recommended |
| External market intelligence | Competitor leadership moves, talent availability | Recommended |
Execution Steps
1. Leadership Competency Model Framework
Define competencies customized by leadership level:
Core Competencies by Level:
| Competency | Emerging Leaders (G3-G4) | Mid-Level Leaders (G5) | Senior Leaders (G6) | Executive (G7 / C-Suite) |
|---|
| Strategic Thinking | Understands team's role in strategy; connects work to goals | Translates strategy into functional plans; anticipates market shifts | Shapes strategy for business unit; makes trade-offs | Sets enterprise direction; navigates ambiguity; long-term vision |
| Execution Excellence | Delivers results through personal contribution and small team | Drives results across function; manages competing priorities | Delivers P&L or major outcomes; builds systems for scale | Drives enterprise performance; removes systemic barriers |
| People Leadership | Develops direct reports; gives feedback; builds trust | Builds high-performing teams; manages talent pipeline; coaches managers | Shapes culture; develops leaders of leaders; succession planning | Sets organizational tone; leadership brand; board engagement |
| Change Leadership | Adapts to change; helps team through transitions | Leads change initiatives; manages resistance; communicates effectively | Sponsors transformation; aligns organization; builds change capability | Drives enterprise transformation; inspires followership at scale |
| Business Acumen | Understands unit economics and customer impact | Manages budgets; reads financial statements; market awareness | P&L management; competitive strategy; cross-functional impact | Enterprise economics; capital allocation; stakeholder management |
| Collaboration & Influence | Builds relationships across team boundaries; communicates clearly | Influences without authority; breaks down silos; builds networks | Cross-functional leadership; executive presence; board-ready communication | Industry influence; external stakeholder management; coalition building |
| Innovation & Learning | Seeks feedback; experiments with improvements; growth mindset | Creates learning culture; encourages experimentation; applies new ideas | Drives innovation agenda; allocates resources to innovation; disrupts legacy thinking | Shapes innovation strategy; builds organizational learning capability |
Proficiency Scale:
| Rating | Definition | Behavioral Evidence |
|---|
| 1 - Developing | Below expectations for level; needs significant development | Struggles with core responsibilities; requires frequent support |
| 2 - Approaching | Partially meets expectations; targeted development needed | Handles routine situations; struggles with complexity |
| 3 - Meeting | Fully meets expectations for current level | Consistently delivers; handles complexity; reliable |
| 4 - Exceeding | Performs above current level; demonstrates next-level behaviors | Takes on stretch assignments; role model for peers |
| 5 - Exceptional | Consistently demonstrates behaviors 1-2 levels above current role | Operates at next level already; teaches and inspires others |
2. Performance vs. Potential 9-Box Grid
9-Box Framework:
PERFORMANCE
Low (1) Medium (2) High (3)
+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| | | |
High | ENIGMA | HIGH POTENTIAL | STAR |
(3) | High potential | Strong potential | Top talent |
| but not | needs continued | Ready for |
P | delivering yet | performance | significant |
O | Invest & | development | advancement |
T | redirect | Accelerate | Stretch & retain|
E +------------------+------------------+------------------+
N | | | |
T Med | DILEMMA | CORE | HIGH PERFORMER |
I (2) | Moderate | CONTRIBUTOR | Strong performer|
A | potential, | Solid, reliable | moderate |
L | underperforming | backbone of org | potential |
| Coach or | Develop in role | Reward & retain |
| redeploy | & expand scope | selectively |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| | | |
Low | UNDERPERFORMER | EFFECTIVE | WORKHOUSE |
(1) | Wrong role or | Adequate in | High performer |
| wrong person | current role | reached ceiling |
| Manage out or | Maintain or | Recognize & |
| reset | right-size role | retain in role |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+
Calibration Methodology:
| Step | Activity | Participants | Duration |
|---|
| 1. Pre-work | Managers place direct reports on 9-box with evidence | Individual managers | 1-2 weeks before session |
| 2. Calibration session | Cross-calibrate placements with peer managers and skip-level leader | Manager group + facilitator | 3-4 hours per session (10-20 leaders reviewed) |
| 3. Calibration rules | Performance = last 2-3 years results (not just current); Potential = demonstrated ability to grow, not tenure | All participants agree to rules | Set at session start |
| 4. Discussion protocol | Present evidence for placement; others challenge; facilitator ensures consistency; consensus required to move anyone | Facilitator-led | Per individual (5-10 min each) |
| 5. Distribution check | Review overall distribution; challenge if >25% are "Stars" or <5% are "Underperformers" (forced distribution NOT required, but distribution should be questioned) | Skip-level leader | End of session |
Performance Assessment Criteria (separating performance from potential):
| Performance Indicators | Potential Indicators |
|---|
| Achievement of goals and KPIs | Ability: cognitive complexity, learning agility, emotional intelligence |
| Quality and consistency of results | Aspiration: desire for senior roles, willingness to make sacrifices |
| Feedback from stakeholders | Engagement: commitment to the organization, not just the role |
| Reliability and follow-through | Track record of growing into bigger roles successfully |
| Business impact (quantified) | Self-awareness and coachability |
3. Succession Planning Framework
Critical Role Identification:
| Criterion | Weight | Score (1-5) | Weighted Score |
|---|
| Revenue / P&L impact if role is vacant | 25% | | |
| Specialized knowledge or relationships | 20% | | |
| Time to fill externally | 20% | | |
| Strategic importance for future direction | 20% | | |
| Single point of failure (no backup) | 15% | | |
| Criticality Score | 100% | | X.X / 5.0 |
Roles scoring 3.5+ are critical roles requiring active succession planning.
Successor Readiness Assessment:
| Critical Role | Incumbent | Ready Now (0-1 yr) | Ready Soon (1-2 yr) | Ready Future (2-3 yr) | Emergency Successor | Bench Strength |
|---|
| [Role] | [Name] | [Name(s)] | [Name(s)] | [Name(s)] | [Name] | Strong / Adequate / Weak / None |
Bench Strength Rating:
| Rating | Definition | Action Required |
|---|
| Strong | 2+ ready-now successors identified; internal pipeline healthy | Monitor, develop for next level |
| Adequate | 1 ready-now, 1-2 ready-soon; acceptable coverage | Accelerate ready-soon development |
| Weak | Only ready-future candidates; no ready-now | Urgent development + external pipeline |
| None | No internal successors identified | Immediate external search; emergency plan |
Emergency Succession Plan:
| Critical Role | Emergency Successor | Interim Capability | Gaps to Address | Support Required |
|---|
| CEO | [Name + rationale] | [What they can/cannot do immediately] | [Key gaps] | [Board support, external advisors] |
| CFO | | | | |
| [Other critical] | | | | |
4. Leadership Pipeline Analysis
Bench Strength Dashboard:
| Level | Current HC | Projected Vacancies (24mo) | Ready-Now Successors | Ready-Soon (12mo) | Bench Ratio | External Needed |
|---|
| C-Suite (G7) | | | | | X:1 | |
| VP/SVP (G6) | | | | | X:1 | |
| Director (G5) | | | | | X:1 | |
| Manager (G4) | | | | | X:1 | |
Target Bench Ratios: C-Suite: 1.5:1 minimum; VP: 2:1; Director: 2.5:1; Manager: 3:1
Pipeline Flow Analysis:
G4 (Manager) → G5 (Director) → G6 (VP/SVP) → G7 (C-Suite)
[X] leaders [X] leaders [X] leaders [X] leaders
[X] HiPos [X] HiPos [X] HiPos [X] HiPos
[X]% promote rate [X]% promote rate [X]% promote rate --
Avg time: [X] yrs Avg time: [X] yrs Avg time: [X] yrs --
5. 360-Degree Feedback Framework
360 Design Parameters:
| Element | Specification |
|---|
| Competencies assessed | Aligned to leadership competency model (Step 1) |
| Rating scale | 5-point behavioral frequency (Never / Rarely / Sometimes / Often / Always) |
| Rater groups | Self, Manager, Direct Reports, Peers, Cross-functional stakeholders |
| Minimum raters per group | 3 per group (except Manager = 1) for confidentiality |
| Open-ended questions | "What should this leader start doing?" / "Stop doing?" / "Continue doing?" |
| Report format | Competency scores by rater group, gap analysis (self vs. others), top strengths, development areas |
360 Analysis Template:
| Competency | Self Rating | Manager | Direct Reports | Peers | Cross-Functional | Gap (Self vs. Others Avg) |
|---|
| Strategic Thinking | X.X | X.X | X.X | X.X | X.X | +/- X.X |
| Execution Excellence | X.X | X.X | X.X | X.X | X.X | |
| People Leadership | X.X | X.X | X.X | X.X | X.X | |
| Change Leadership | X.X | X.X | X.X | X.X | X.X | |
| Business Acumen | X.X | X.X | X.X | X.X | X.X | |
| Collaboration | X.X | X.X | X.X | X.X | X.X | |
Key Insights to Extract:
- Blind spots: Self-rating significantly higher than others (gap > 0.5)
- Hidden strengths: Self-rating significantly lower than others
- Rater group divergence: Large gap between direct reports and manager (indicates different leader in each context)
- Consistent development areas: Low scores across all rater groups
6. Individual Development Plan (IDP) Template
IDP Structure:
| Section | Content |
|---|
| Leader Profile | Name, role, level, tenure, 9-box position, career aspiration |
| Strengths | Top 3 leadership strengths (from 360, performance, calibration) |
| Development Areas | Top 2-3 development priorities (from 360, calibration, succession gaps) |
| Career Path | Target next role(s), timeline, readiness gaps |
Development Actions (70/20/10 Model):
| Development Area | 70% On-the-Job | 20% Relationships | 10% Formal Learning | Timeline | Success Metric |
|---|
| [Area 1] | Stretch assignment: [specific] | Mentor: [Name], Executive coach | [Program / course] | [Dates] | [Observable outcome] |
| [Area 2] | Cross-functional project: [specific] | Peer learning group, shadow [Leader] | [Workshop] | [Dates] | [Observable outcome] |
| [Area 3] | Acting role or expanded scope: [specific] | Board exposure, external network | [Certification] | [Dates] | [Observable outcome] |
7. High-Potential Identification Criteria
Three-Factor HiPo Assessment:
| Factor | Weight | Assessment Method | Score (1-5) | Evidence Required |
|---|
| Ability | 40% | Cognitive assessments, learning agility tests, 360 results, track record | | Demonstrated growth into increasingly complex roles |
| Aspiration | 30% | Career conversation, willingness to relocate / take risk, stated ambition | | Explicit desire for senior roles; willing to make trade-offs |
| Engagement | 30% | Organizational commitment, discretionary effort, retention signals | | Committed to this organization, not just the career |
HiPo Threshold: Score 3.5+ on ALL three factors. Missing any one factor disqualifies from HiPo designation.
Common HiPo Identification Pitfalls:
| Pitfall | Risk | Mitigation |
|---|
| Confusing performance with potential | High performers may be maxed out at current level | Assess learning agility and growth trajectory, not just current results |
| Recency bias | Most recent performance dominates | Require 2-3 year performance history in calibration |
| Affinity bias | Leaders nominate people like themselves | Diverse calibration panels; challenge demographics of HiPo pool |
| Ignoring aspiration | Assuming everyone wants to advance | Career conversations; respect those who want to grow in place |
| HiPo hoarding | Managers hide talent to keep them | Organizational ownership of talent; cross-functional moves encouraged |
8. Leadership Team Effectiveness Assessment
Team Effectiveness Dimensions:
| Dimension | Assessment Questions | Rating (1-5) | Evidence |
|---|
| Shared purpose | Does the team have a clear, shared mission? | | |
| Trust | Do members demonstrate vulnerability, admit mistakes, ask for help? | | |
| Constructive conflict | Does the team debate ideas vigorously without personal attacks? | | |
| Commitment | Does the team align on decisions, even when they disagree? | | |
| Accountability | Do members hold each other accountable for behaviors and results? | | |
| Results focus | Does the team prioritize collective results over individual/functional goals? | | |
| Decision quality | Does the team make timely decisions with appropriate rigor? | | |
| External orientation | Does the team prioritize customer and market over internal politics? | | |
Scoring: Below 3.0 on any dimension = dysfunction that requires intervention.
9. Flight Risk Assessment
Flight Risk Scoring Model:
| Risk Factor | Weight | Indicators | Score (1-5) |
|---|
| Market demand for skills | 20% | LinkedIn recruiter contacts, industry hiring trends | |
| Compensation competitiveness | 20% | Compa-ratio, recent market movement, below-band | |
| Engagement signals | 20% | Engagement survey scores, manager assessment of discretionary effort | |
| Career development | 15% | Time in role, promotion velocity vs. peers, expressed frustration | |
| Manager relationship | 10% | 1:1 quality, trust level, manager effectiveness score | |
| Life events | 10% | Relocation, family changes, commute burden (known factors) | |
| Organizational changes | 5% | Restructuring, strategy shifts, leadership turnover | |
Flight Risk Rating:
| Score | Rating | Action |
|---|
| 1.0 - 2.0 | Low risk | Standard engagement and development |
| 2.1 - 3.0 | Moderate risk | Proactive retention conversation; address dissatisfiers |
| 3.1 - 4.0 | High risk | Urgent retention intervention; executive sponsor engagement |
| 4.1 - 5.0 | Critical risk | Immediate action required; retention package if warranted; succession activated |
Retention Intervention Toolkit:
| Lever | When to Deploy | Cost |
|---|
| Stay interview (career conversation) | Always -- proactive, not reactive | Time only |
| Retention bonus (one-time, vesting) | Critical talent with competing offer | $$$ |
| Accelerated development (stretch, mentor, program) | HiPo feeling stuck | $$ |
| Compensation adjustment (market correction) | Below-market and likely to get offer | $$ |
| Role redesign (expanded scope, new challenge) | Talent bored in current role | Time |
| Flexibility (remote, schedule, sabbatical) | Work-life friction | Minimal |
10. External Talent Market Mapping
External Pipeline for Critical Gaps:
| Critical Role Gap | Internal Successors Available | External Search Required | Target Companies | Target Profiles | Estimated Timeline | Estimated Cost |
|---|
| [Role] | None / Weak bench | Yes -- retained search | [3-5 companies] | [Title, level, industry] | [X] months | $[X] |
11. Talent Review Meeting Facilitation Guide
Pre-Meeting Preparation (2-3 weeks before):
| Activity | Owner | Deliverable |
|---|
| Distribute 9-box templates with instructions | HR / Talent | Pre-populated templates with performance data |
| Managers complete 9-box placements with evidence | Line managers | Completed grids with justification narratives |
| HR compiles aggregate data | HR / Talent | Summary dashboard, demographic analysis of HiPo pool, bench strength overview |
| Prepare discussion materials for calibration | HR / Talent | Individual profiles for top talent and concerning cases |
Meeting Agenda (3-4 hours per session, 10-20 leaders reviewed):
| Time | Topic | Facilitation Notes |
|---|
| 0:00-0:15 | Ground rules and definitions | Review performance vs. potential criteria; confidentiality; calibration rules |
| 0:15-0:30 | Aggregate 9-box review | Show full grid; discuss distribution; identify outliers for discussion |
| 0:30-2:30 | Individual calibration | 5-10 min per person; manager presents, peers challenge, consensus reached |
| 2:30-3:00 | Succession review | Review critical roles; validate successor readiness; identify gaps |
| 3:00-3:30 | Actions and commitments | Development moves, retention actions, external search needs, follow-up owners |
| 3:30-3:45 | Meta-review | Diversity of HiPo pool, systemic gaps, calibration quality |
Facilitator Ground Rules:
- Evidence-based: every placement requires specific examples
- Challenge bias: ask "would you say the same if the person were [different demographic]?"
- No anchoring: manager presents, then others share independent assessments
- Separate performance from potential: likeability is not a criterion for either
- Document actions with owners and deadlines
12. Leadership Development Program Design
Program Design by Level:
| Element | Emerging Leaders (G3-G4) | Mid-Level Leaders (G5) | Senior Leaders (G6) | Executive (G7) |
|---|
| Duration | 6-9 months | 9-12 months | 12-18 months | Ongoing / cohort-based |
| Cohort size | 20-25 | 15-20 | 10-12 | 6-8 |
| Selection | Manager nomination + HiPo designation | Calibration-identified HiPos | Successor candidates for C-suite | C-suite and board nomination |
| Core content | Self-awareness, team leadership, execution, communication | Strategy, cross-functional leadership, change management, talent development | Enterprise thinking, board readiness, transformation, culture shaping | CEO perspective, governance, M&A, crisis leadership |
| Experiential | Cross-functional project, mentor pairing | Business challenge project with C-suite sponsor | External board observation, stretch assignment, acting role | External board service, industry leadership |
| Assessment | 360, personality, learning agility | 360, leadership simulation, assessment center | Executive assessment, stakeholder feedback | Board assessment, external coach |
| ROI metric | Promotion rate within 24 months | Ready-now successor for next level | Bench strength for C-suite | Executive retention and effectiveness |
Output Template
# Leadership Assessment & Succession Plan: [Organization]
**Date:** [Date]
**Scope:** [X] leaders assessed across [X] levels
**Assessment Methods:** [9-box calibration, 360 feedback, succession review, etc.]
**Facilitated By:** [Name/Team]
---
## 1. Executive Summary
[2-3 paragraphs: overall leadership health, key strengths, critical gaps, bench strength, recommendations]
**Total Leaders Assessed:** [X]
**High Potentials Identified:** [X] ([X]% of population)
**Critical Roles with No Ready-Now Successor:** [X] of [X]
**Overall Bench Strength:** [Strong / Adequate / Weak]
**High Flight-Risk Leaders:** [X]
**Key Recommendation:** [One-line]
---
## 2. Leadership Competency Assessment
### Competency Model
[Competency framework by level per Step 1]
### Aggregate Competency Scores
| Competency | Avg Score (All Leaders) | Strongest Level | Weakest Level | Development Priority |
|-----------|----------------------|----------------|--------------|---------------------|
| | | | | |
---
## 3. 9-Box Talent Grid
### Aggregate Distribution
| Box | Count | % | Action |
|-----|-------|---|--------|
| Star (High/High) | | | Stretch and retain |
| High Potential | | | Accelerate development |
| High Performer | | | Reward and retain |
| Core Contributor | | | Develop in role |
| Enigma | | | Redirect and coach |
| Underperformer | | | Performance manage |
### Key Talent Profiles
[Individual profiles for Stars, HiPos, and concerning cases]
---
## 4. Succession Plan
### Critical Roles and Bench Strength
| Role | Criticality | Ready Now | Ready Soon | Bench Strength | Action |
|------|-----------|-----------|-----------|---------------|--------|
| | | | | | |
### Emergency Succession
[Emergency succession for top 5-10 critical roles]
---
## 5. Pipeline Analysis
[Bench strength dashboard by level, pipeline flow analysis]
---
## 6. Flight Risk Assessment
[High and critical flight-risk leaders with retention interventions]
---
## 7. Development Priorities
### Organization-Wide Development Themes
[Top 3 competency gaps requiring programmatic investment]
### Individual Development Plans (Top Talent)
[IDPs for Stars and High Potentials]
---
## 8. External Talent Needs
[Roles requiring external search due to pipeline gaps]
---
## 9. Leadership Team Effectiveness
[Team effectiveness assessment for senior leadership team]
---
## 10. Recommended Next Steps
1. [Immediate action with owner and deadline]
2. [Second action]
3. [Third action]
Quality Checks
