Potential and readiness

Performance is measurable. Potential is usually guessed. This page turns potential into evidence.

Performance: three questions

1. Results. Against target, over at least four quarters where available.
2. Quality. Deal quality, customer retention, forecast reliability. Results bought with discounting or burned accounts score lower.
3. How. Did the person produce results in a way that makes the team stronger or weaker?

Rate low, moderate, or high, with the evidence written down.

Potential: four evidence signals

Do not rate potential on polish, confidence, visibility, tenure, or who the person reminds you of. Rate it on four signals, each with evidence.

Signal	Question	Evidence
Learning speed	How fast does this person turn feedback into changed behavior?	A feedback-and-repeat exercise; how fast they ramped into their last new responsibility; what changed after their last coaching
Aspiration	Do they want the next stage enough to become what it requires?	Their own answer to "Project forward 18 to 24 months: what will be different?" and "What are you doing today to achieve it?"
Operating altitude	Do they already operate partly at the next level?	Where their time goes; whether they solve problems beyond their role; whether peers seek them out
Multiplier evidence	Do people around them get better?	Who they have helped improve, and how; whether knowledge spreads from them or stays with them

Rate potential low, moderate, or high only when at least three of the four signals have evidence.

Never rate someone high potential on performance alone. High performance shows they can win here. Potential requires evidence that they learn faster, operate at greater altitude, actively pursue the development the next level needs, and make the people around them better.

Can they, and will they. Capability and aspiration are separate. A highly capable person who has not chosen the next stage is not a successor for it. Say so plainly, and protect them from a promotion they do not want.

The performance and potential grid

	Low performance	Moderate performance	High performance
High potential	Diagnose: wrong role, wrong manager, or environment? Decide within 90 days	Accelerate: stretch assignment, mentor	Successor candidate: retain, stretch, name for a critical role
Moderate potential	Clear expectations and a dated plan; decide within 60 to 90 days	Develop in role; the backbone of the team	Expand scope; recognize; watch for plateau
Low potential	Act with clarity and dignity; do not let it drift	Value stability; invest proportionately	Trusted expert: use as mentor; do not force into management

The grid is a conversation tool, not a label. Placements change. Recalibrate every quarter, and never let a placement become someone's identity.

High performance, low potential is not an insult. Many of the most valuable people in a company are experts who should never be pushed into management.

Readiness calls

For each named successor and each critical role:

Call	Evidence standard
Ready now	Has performed most of the role's critical outcomes, in a stretch or acting capacity, at acceptable quality
Ready in 12 months	Has the aspiration and learning speed; the gap is closable with a named development plan
Ready in 24 months	Strong signals, larger gap; needs a staged plan with an intermediate role
Not a successor for this role	Missing aspiration, missing a critical capability with no realistic path, or better suited elsewhere

For external candidates, apply the four-dimension standard in succession-plans.md before any ready-now call.

A readiness call without a stretch-assignment test behind it is a guess. Where possible, test the successor in the role first: covering a vacation, leading a project, running a team meeting.