Competency matrix vs. skills matrix
Same grid, different job. A competency matrix sets out the level a role should reach; a skills matrix records what the people on a team can do today. Here is where the two differ, where they are the same thing, and which one your team needs.
The short answer
Both are a grid with abilities on one axis, people or roles on the other and a level in each cell. Many teams use the words interchangeably, and for one team that is fine. The difference shows up at the scale of an organisation:
- A competency matrix is usually part of an HR competency framework. It describes the competencies the organisation values — including behaviours like communication and leadership — and the level each role is expected to reach. It is a statement of what should be.
- A skills matrixbelongs to a team. It lists the concrete skills the team's work needs and rates each person on what they can be seen doing. It is a record of what is.
Side by side
| Aspect | Competency matrix | Skills matrix |
|---|---|---|
| Answers | What level should someone in this role reach? | Who on this team can do what, today? |
| Rows | Competencies from a framework: technical, behavioural, leadership | The concrete skills the team uses, in its own words |
| Columns | Roles or job levels — sometimes people | People |
| A cell holds | The expected level, and often the assessed one beside it | The level the person shows now; blank for a learning goal |
| Owned by | HR or L&D, across the organisation | The team and its lead |
| Updated | With the framework, often yearly; assessed in reviews | Every quarter, or whenever the work changes |
| Used for | Career ladders, promotion, pay bands, hiring profiles | Staffing, cover, cross-training, mentoring, development plans |
Which one do you need?
If you lead a teamand the questions are “who can take this on?”, “who covers when she is away?” and “who could teach him?”, you need a skills matrix. You can build one this week without a framework: the team names the skills, a five-level scale makes the ratings comparable, and a template or a tool holds it.
If you run HR or L&D for a large organisation and need to compare roles, define career ladders or tie levels to pay, you need a competency framework — and the competency matrix that comes with it.
Most organisations end up with both, and they fit together: the framework says what a role needs; each team's skills matrix shows what the team has. The space between the two is the skills gap.
Where competency matrices go wrong
- Too many rows. A framework with two hundred competencies produces a matrix no one reads. A team uses fifteen to twenty-five.
- Levels nobody can observe. “Demonstrates strategic thinking at an advanced level” gets rated differently by every manager. Each level should describe something you could watch a person do.
- Rated once a year, in a review. Ratings tied to pay are rated defensively, and a year is long enough for the map to be wrong. Keep the team's record of what it can do separate from the conversation about promotion.
- Filled in by one person. A manager rating a team from memory produces impressions. Ratings made with the people who have seen the work produce evidence — that is what a Market of Skills session is for.
What Kunska means by a competency matrix
In Kunska the competency matrix is always a team's — the skills-matrix kind. The team names its skills, rates them on one scale, and keeps it current; Kunska shows the gaps across teams and writes development plans from it. It does not hold a role framework or expected levels per role, on purpose: the matrix records what people can do, not what they are graded against.
Frequently asked questions
- Is a competency matrix the same as a skills matrix?
- The grid is the same: people on one axis, abilities on the other, a level in each cell. The difference is what the grid is for. A competency matrix usually belongs to an HR framework and records the level each role is expected to reach, including behaviours such as communication or leadership. A skills matrix records what the people on a team can actually do today. Many teams use the words interchangeably, and for a single team that is fine.
- What is a competency framework?
- A competency framework is an organisation-wide definition of the competencies it values — technical, behavioural and leadership — with a description of each level and the level each role is expected to reach. It is the source a competency matrix is built from, and it is usually owned by HR.
- Do I need a competency framework before I build a skills matrix?
- No. A team can build a useful skills matrix in an hour with the skills it names itself and a five-level scale. A framework helps when you need to compare roles across a large organisation or tie levels to pay and promotion. If one exists, the two fit together: the framework says what a role needs, the team matrix shows what the team has.
- What levels should a competency matrix use?
- Whatever the framework uses, but each level should describe something you can observe. Kunska uses five: 0 None, 1 Beginner (does it with guidance), 2 Competent (does it alone on routine work), 3 Proficient (handles the unusual cases; others rely on them), 4 Expert (sets the standard and teaches it).
- Why does Kunska call it a competency matrix?
- Because both words are used for the same team grid, and people search for both. In Kunska a competency matrix is always a team's: it records what the people on the team can do, rated on one scale, and it is kept current by them.
Start with the team's matrix
Create a team, run one Market of Skills session, and the matrix builds itself from what the team said. Free for teams.