{"id":5545,"date":"2023-02-07T02:00:00","date_gmt":"2023-02-07T07:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:10197\/uncategorized\/can-skills-frameworks-close-the-skills-to-performance-gap"},"modified":"2025-07-18T14:43:30","modified_gmt":"2025-07-18T18:43:30","slug":"can-skills-frameworks-close-the-skills-to-performance-gap","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.learningguild.com\/articles\/can-skills-frameworks-close-the-skills-to-performance-gap","title":{"rendered":"Can Skills Frameworks Close the Skills-to-Performance Gap?"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n\n\n

In \u201cL&D Must Resolve ‘Content Chaos’ to Meet Performance Goals<\/a>,\u201d we identified several challenges L&D departments are currently facing, with the aim of addressing three of those key challenges with action-oriented solutions. In this article, we delve further into competency, capability, and skills frameworks; the attempt to assign the right training and development courses to the right employee; as well as the gaps between these frameworks and actual capability, performance, and business outcomes.<\/p>

Advertise Here<\/a><\/div>\"Earn<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Competency frameworks, capability frameworks, and now skills frameworks entice us with the promise of achieving performance improvement\u2014in part through real and valuable personalization for each employee. These frameworks are a well-intended attempt to provide a structure, through an L&D lens, that enables us to map out an organization so that we can assign the right training and development courses to the right employee and accomplish up- and reskilling, ideally at scale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s a nice idea. Yet in practice, the impact of these frameworks on personalization and performance is somewhat questionable. Combined with navigating the complexity that surrounds their use and questions about how to define what a useful and usable framework is and how and where to apply them, you have a challenge on your hands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Distinguishing competency, capability, and skills<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To help us in the present, let’s start by defining competency, capability, and skills and identifying the differences between them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Competency models<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The CIPD<\/a> defines competencies as \u201cbroader concepts that cover demonstrable performance outputs as well as behavioral inputs. They may relate to a system or set of minimum standards needed to perform effectively at work.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Competency models and frameworks have long been used as tools aimed at assessing talent and identifying performance and development needs. However, they have been much maligned through the challenges they also present\u2014the time and cost to develop, their applicability and usability (or lack of) so far in practice, their lacking flexibility to change, and, as we raised in our previous article, lack of consideration for social and organizational learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An even greater challenge is both agreement on what defines a competency and the definitions of the competencies contained within a particular model. Consider the lack of alignment regarding job descriptions across roles, both within an organization internally and across organizations externally: For example, sales executive, account manager, and customer success manager are titles often used to describe the same job and tasks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, agreement in definitions of roles and competencies is critical in order for an organization to utilize a range of sources, including providers whose definitions vary; in the absence of such consistency, some agreement on conversions from one framework to the next is needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Capability frameworks<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Capability frameworks were developed, in part, to address rapid change, expected more so in the future. Nevertheless, their definitions are often entirely interchangeable with those for competency frameworks. Sadly, this means these frameworks can often be found gathering dust on a virtual shelf, due to lack of regular reviews and updates, poor implementation, a complex language that is not user-centered, and the resulting lack of employee and stakeholder buy-in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Skills frameworks<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Now we are seeing the burgeoning growth of skills frameworks, adding what feels like evermore complexity and confusion. Yet, skills are vital to an organization’s success and performance, and can be directly connected to Human Capital Theory (Becker, 1962<\/a>) and the Resource-Based View of Strategy (Barney, 1991<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In essence, these look at the knowledge, skills, and ability contained in an organization and how they are used to deliver performance\u2014and these are the organization’s key differentiators. As the Great Resignation underscored, human capital can simply walk out of the hybrid door, never to return. Hence, skills measurement, management, and development have become key strategic preoccupations within organizations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How skills and competency frameworks differ<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

How then do skills frameworks differ from competency frameworks? Research by RedThread <\/a>identifies key characteristics of skills and competencies and highlights the confusion experienced by employees and business leaders: \u201cThey don’t care about the differences, they simply want to know what’s expected of them.\u201d In other words, what constitutes performance<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Definitions from the SFIA Foundation<\/a> add more clarity and granularity:<\/p>\n\n\n\n