Skills-Based Organizations: why the Job concept is more necessary than ever

Even though the subject is not new, you are seeing it everywhere right now. We are, of course, talking about the Skills-Based Organization, which promises to revolutionize our balance between work and development. Is it finally a skills approach that works, and above all, does it spell the death knell for business vision?

The false start of competency frameworks

About ten years ago, everyone started and then gradually abandoned the creation of competency frameworks. We know the causes of this failure: the cumbersome approach, its impossibility of maintaining it, the absence of governance, inapplicable use cases... Not to mention the endless debates: what is a skill, a Skill, a knowledge, an attitude, should we differentiate them...

However, the intention was commendable. Identifying skills makes it possible to give visibility to employees on their development, to align training catalogs with real needs, to promote project staffing, Succession plans, mobility, to guide recruitment profiles... In summary: the idea was attractive, but it was expensive and did not bring enough income. Moreover, let us have a moving thought for all these beautiful useless Excel files that left us too soon... And it was also in the mid-2010s that several visionary entrepreneurs launched themselves with the idea of dusting off skills mapping (e.g. 365 Talents). We will come back to this in a future publication, but their promise was precisely to facilitate mapping and maintenance work, while combining a variety of use cases (the best known being the Talent Market Place).

Why talk about Skills-Based Organization (SBO)?

So why this return to favor of the skills-based approach, and what are we talking about? Ideally in a skills-based organization, the concept of Skill or competence is not an ulterior motive at the service of the organization and hierarchy, but on the contrary the heart of this organization. By focusing on the tasks and activities to be carried out (and not the objectives, by the way), it allows greater fluidity since in theory, everyone can “do the job” as long as they have the right skill. Provided, of course, we can identify who can do what, this often results in flatter hierarchies and more agile ways of working. It also makes it possible to deconstruct preconceived ideas about who can do a task, regardless of age, gender or education. By doing so, you broaden your talent base, which is particularly useful in times of shortage. So much happiness, thanks to the SBO. At least in theory.

Maintain a sense of business.

There is, of course, a downside to that. In the pure and perfect vision of the SBO, “skills are the new currency”. This therefore makes the concept of job or profession obsolete, since I am no longer defined by what I am (my title, my label, my profession) but what I do (or rather what I know how to do thanks to my skills). One can therefore easily become a “slasher”, a corporate handyman or woman, a Michel Morin as they say in the South-West. While this vision is well suited to certain very versatile profiles, often very educated and well-qualified, it is in fact sometimes very confusing for the majority of workers.

1. Structural organization. First of all, there is a structural need to maintain the concept of role. Obviously, the role is not a job. Except that jobs are often cut in order to precisely follow... roles. To make a sporting analogy, there are “positions” in rugby that can be occupied by several so-called versatile players. It is common for backs to also be able to play 10, or 2nd lines capable of passing 3rd line when the game or team situation requires it. But you rarely see a 130 kg pillar capable of pushing a Twingo into melee playing on the wing, a position where you have to be able to do the 100m in 11s.. Because they simply do not have the same assortment of physical “skills”, which were developed in conjunction with their job precisely.
2. The identity. For some, the job is cumbersome. But for others, it is identity-based. Depending on the place you give to your work, or your confidence in “starting from scratch”, deleting the job or the title can be experienced as a downgrade and be particularly anxiety-provoking. This was observed a lot during the establishment of matrix organizations, where some positions were emptied of their substance, for example with a management role that was not a management role.
3. The progression. Professional courses are often structured and characterized by a succession of known roles. We know that to become CFO, you must first be a Controller or Finance Business Partner, then take responsibility for a small country or perimeter, before claiming a larger one and then going back to the Corporate to ultimately occupy the coveted position. This trajectory is well known, and therefore reassuring, and provides guidance for anyone who wants to take this path. Deleting jobs is potentially deleting Career Paths.

Strengthen the link between skills and jobs.

So becoming an SBO sucks? Again, let's not rush to burn what we loved (maybe I'm exaggerating a bit). Let's look at it from a different perspective.

• Skills are ingredients.
• The job is the recipe.
• And job families are characterized by their proximity in terms of skills.

In other words, in the cake family, it is obvious that we will find flour almost every time, whether we are talking about cheesecake or the black forest. The skills expected for a given job evolve, and characterize it differently. Moreover, the same job can mean completely different things from one business unit to another. At Renault, not sure that an engine engineer on the Zoé needs the same skills as on Kadjar. Becoming an SBO therefore does not mean abolishing the concept of job, but marrying it harmoniously with that of a profession, while giving a prospective and dynamic vision. This is obviously no easy task, and it requires a real organization to put in place. And in the same way that he has rituals of Succession plan, ofOrg review, talent review rituals, there could be a Jobs and Skills Review. Which might be a sexier name for Strategic Workforce Planning!