A Label Is Not a Skill

Leadership. Critical thinking. Collaboration.

You’ll find some version of these in almost every skills framework, job architecture and skills inventory. We use the words all the time, and most of us would probably say we know what they mean.

But do we?

Take critical thinking. If I asked people across your organization to describe what it looks like when someone is really good at it, would I hear a consistent answer? Could they describe what someone at an early stage of proficiency can do, and how that changes as they become more skilled? Could they point to something a person has actually done that demonstrates the skill?

Those are much harder questions. And they’re where skills start to become genuinely useful.

From labels to useful skills intelligence

I spend a lot of time working with skills, and I’m a big believer in keeping the foundation simple. We can build sophisticated skills frameworks and map hundreds or thousands of skills to roles and work. The real value comes when we help people translate their experiences through work, school and life into the skills they’ve built along the way. What can they really do? How well can they do it? And what evidence helps us see the breadth and depth of those skills?

A skill label is really just shorthand. Give it a clear definition, meaningful levels of proficiency and evidence of how someone has demonstrated it, and it becomes something much more powerful.

Now we can use it.

If I’m told I need to strengthen my strategic thinking, I can see what that means, where I am today and what I need to work on. If I’m a leader looking for someone who can collaborate at a high level, I can see who has demonstrated that skill, at what level and in what context.

Start with the basic questions

For me, useful skills intelligence starts with some pretty basic questions:

What does this skill mean?

What does it look like at different levels of proficiency?

What can this person actually do?

And what evidence do we have?

Then it gets even more interesting.

How recent is that evidence?

And how valuable will that skill continue to be?

Proficiency is only part of the story

Skills aren’t static. We build them through learning and experience, deepen them through use and keep them current through practice. As work changes faster, we also need to pay attention to where we invest our time and energy.

Imagine I have a skill that’s highly developed, current and well evidenced. That’s valuable information. Now add another lens: technology is rapidly changing the work that skill enables, and much of that work may be automated in the next few years.

Suddenly, proficiency is only part of the story.

We can help people see what they’re good at, what’s worth refreshing and where there’s real value in continuing to invest. Some skills will be worth maintaining. Some will be worth deepening. Some will create pathways to adjacent skills that are growing in value. And yes, sometimes the juice simply won’t be worth the squeeze.

That’s a much richer picture of someone’s skills, and a much more useful one.

What will each skill be worth tomorrow?

So, here’s a simple place to start: Take a handful of the skills that matter most in your company, and ask people across the business to describe what each one looks like in action.

How consistent are the answers?

Before a skill can tell us something meaningful about a person, an opportunity or the future, we need to be clear about what that skill actually means.

And then we can get to the really interesting question:

What will each skill be worth tomorrow?