Five of sixteen critical roles have no internal successor. Corvane's bench review, the Unit 8 deliverable in GB542, puts that figure first and dates every candidate's readiness. Searches like "gb 542 unit 8 assignment example", "gb542 unit 8 sample" and "gb542 unit 8 example" land here.
What a finished GB542 Unit 8 succession bench review looks like
Six pages and an appendix of candidate profiles. Headline counts open it: of 16 critical roles, 4 have a successor ready now, 5 have one ready in one to two years, 2 have candidates only three or more years out, and 5 have nobody. The roles with nobody come next, and most are new: the continuous-line operations manager, the IATF quality manager, the director of application engineering, the process safety lead and one plant manager. A section explains how the 48 nominated employees were placed on a nine-box grid, performance on one axis and potential on the other, with potential judged on learning agility, aspiration and ability to lead at the next level. Development actions follow each ready-soon candidate, and external searches are recommended for the five empty roles.
How a GB542 Unit 8 example is structured
Findings come before method, reversing the order most papers use and suiting a leadership audience. The headline counts are expressed three ways: 25 percent of roles with a ready-now successor, 56 percent covered within two years, and 31 percent with nobody. The nine-box method is then described with its weaknesses stated, chiefly that potential ratings drift toward current performance and that a grid can make judgment look like measurement; the calibration session exists to challenge both. Readiness carries a horizon for every candidate, and a candidate counted against more than one role is shown once with the roles listed, so the bench is not inflated. Development actions are specific assignments with dates, such as a six-month rotation into quality. Empty roles receive a separate recommendation, because development cannot fill a role nobody inside is heading toward.
Five roles, nobody ready
Continuous-line operations, automotive quality, application engineering leadership, process safety and one plant lead the review, because their emptiness is its most important finding.
Three percentages, one bench
Twenty-five percent ready now, fifty-six within two years, thirty-one with nobody: the same data stated three ways so that no single figure flatters the result.
The grid and its drift
Nine boxes place 48 nominees by performance and potential. The review explains why potential ratings slide toward performance and how calibration pushes back against that slide.
Counted once
A candidate named for two roles appears once with both listed, which removes the double counting that makes many benches look deeper than they are.
Searches for empty chairs
Where no internal path exists, the review recommends external searches with start dates tied to the strategy's milestones, instead of stretching unready candidates into the roles.
Where marks go in GB542 Unit 8
The least credible bench review fills every critical role with a named successor, which usually means names were entered to fill boxes rather than readiness assessed. Graders in this course treat the roles with nobody as the central finding. A nine-box grid described inaccurately, or treated as a measurement rather than a structured judgment, draws comment; potential is not a second performance rating. Readiness stated without a horizon, or the same candidate counted against three roles, inflates the bench and costs marks. Development actions that are generic, such as leadership training, compare poorly with specific assignments carrying dates. The response to empty roles matters as well, since recommending development for a role nobody is heading toward misreads what development can do.
Get a GB542 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Succession prompts often supply an organization chart or a list of candidates. Attach whatever your Unit 8 scenario provides with the instructions and rubric, and a bench review with every candidate's horizon and every empty role on its first page arrives within 24-48h. The first custom sample is free.
GB542 Unit 8 questions, answered
How should the nine-box grid be described?
As a three-by-three grid placing people by current performance on one axis and assessed potential on the other, each in low, moderate and high bands. Say how potential was judged, since that is the contested part, and mention calibration. Present the grid as a structured discussion tool; treating its boxes as precise measurements is the misreading graders notice.
Is it acceptable to report roles with no successor?
It is expected. A bench with every role covered is rarely believable, and the empty roles are where leadership needs to act. This review lists five such roles first and recommends external searches for them. Reporting the gap plainly shows the kind of analysis the course is looking for, and hiding it tends to cost more than admitting it.
What readiness categories should the review use?
Whatever your organization or prompt defines. Ready now, ready in one to two years and ready in three or more years are common, with a fourth category for roles with no candidate. Define each in the review, because a reader cannot compare benches if ready now means different things to different managers.