Reviewing our 2024 internal moves, folks who led even one cross-team project were about twice as likely to be tapped as interim leads in our Workday talent marketplace, and their ramp ran about 30 days faster. It’s made me rethink which signals we surface for succession slates — do you filter on project leadership, or stick to the 9-box to spot growth potential?
their ramp ran about 30 days faster. It’s made me rethink which signals we surface for — same here; in Workday we added a “cross-team lead” tag and gave it a +1 weight in succession filters, and our interim ramps dropped about 4 weeks. Ugh, small caveat: not every project lead scales, so we screen for scope (multi-team, exec stakeholder, budget) to avoid rewarding pure coordination.
Short answer from my side: I’m seeing the same pattern — one concrete thing that helped was writing down the exact handoff and timebox it to 15–20 min. Does that match what you’re running into?
I’d filter on project leadership, but with guardrails: in Workday we auto-flag anyone who’s led 2+ cross-team projects in the last 18 months and use it as a tiebreaker, not a 9-box replacement. That nudged our interim ramps about 30 days faster, but , it over-rewards visible programs, so we pair it with peer nominations from smaller teams. @ryan85 have you tried weighting by stakeholder count instead of a flat +1?
We partnered with @talent-ops to score ‘project leadership’ by scope (budget, headcount touched) and stakeholder breadth, then use it as a multiplier on potential rather than a hard filter. To curb halo effects, we ask for manager attestation and do a post-mortem outcome check 90 days later — anyone else doing something similar? Think of it like seasoning, not the whole dish.
One tweak that’s worked for us: we log ‘project lead’ stints in Workday, but only count those that pass a quick 360 after-action and we time-decay the weight by 50% after 12 months — like milk, the signal expires. It’s helped without drowning out the 9-box, though visibility bias is real; @jameson_lee87, have you tried a lightweight 360 to keep the signal honest?
We started tagging who was the “decision owner” on major initiatives, not just the coordinator, and it’s been a better predictor than 9-box alone. Concrete step: in Workday we add a decision-rights flag with a one-line outcome note and require a named deputy, then run a 2-week acting-lead sprint before they hit the slate. Curious if @nwilson has tried this — feels more fire drill than beauty pageant.
Quick example: with @people-analytics we tag the person who ‘closed the loop’ on cross-team escalations (Slack/Jira) and add a small +1 in Workday potential only if they authored the postmortem with clear tradeoffs, and the bump expires after 9 months. Caveat: it can reward squeaky wheels, so we require manager confirmation before it nudges a succession slate.
Same here on interim picks ramping “30 days faster”, but , counting any project lead drives me nuts. In Workday we added a simple cross-team scope score (functions touched + change magnitude) and only treat leads with scope >=2 as a succession signal; @talent-ops does a quick artifact check (PRD or 30/60/90) to verify it was real leadership. Want the scope rubric?