Talent Mapping

Where everyone in scope stands on two dimensions, skill and willingness, with the evidence for each placement. The two have to be read separately: a person who wants to grow and cannot, and a person who can and does not want to, are two problems that need opposite answers. Reading both shows the difference before a development budget is spent on the wrong half.

Talent Mapping is the picture of who you have; Talent Assessment answers whether one person is ready for a particular seat. Talent Mapping reads skill and willingness across everyone in scope. When the question becomes readiness for a named role, for a promotion or a successor, that is Talent Assessment, which also reads values.

Yes. A chart with one successor per seat is a list of single points of failure, and it does not say whether that person wants the job. Talent Mapping reads willingness as well as skill, and willingness is the half that decides whether the plan survives the first offer the successor receives from somewhere else.

It is marked as such, and it is rarely the only one. Colleagues' feedback sits beside the manager's view, and the manager also sets out the development the person needs. A placement that rests on the manager alone is recorded that way, and where views part, you see the disagreement, not an average.

Every person in scope placed on skill and willingness, with the evidence for the placement, and sorted into groups you can act on: accelerate, grow, resolve. Each person gets a development plan that starts where it pays back first, and you see where colleagues and managers agree about a person and where they do not. One advisor is answerable for the finished map and will take any placement in it apart with you, line by line.