Skills-First vs. Jobs-First: Is the ‘Shell Game’ Hiding Real Organizational Challenges?

The ongoing debate around organizational structure and talent management often circles back to fundamental questions: Should we prioritize jobs or skills? In a recent UNLEASH workshop facilitated by Ben Eubanks for 365Talents, this very discussion took center stage, revealing a potential pitfall in the popular shift towards a skills-first approach.

One attendee shared a significant challenge: their organization listed 15,000 jobs with nearly 13,000 unique job descriptions. The aspiration was to streamline this by focusing on skills. The proposed solution? Instead of creating new job descriptions for every opening, the company would identify the necessary skills and build a role profile around them. While seemingly innovative, Eubanks likens this to a ‘shell game’ – the underlying issue of defining and managing roles doesn’t disappear; it merely changes its appearance.

The Illusion of Simplification

The core argument against a purely skills-first approach, as presented, is that it might not fundamentally solve the problem of managing a complex organizational structure. Whether labeled a ‘role description,’ a ‘skills mix,’ or the traditional ‘job description,’ the outcome remains the same: a definition of what an employee does. Eubanks suggests that instead of overhauling the system, organizations could simply incorporate skills and competencies as essential components within existing job descriptions.

This situation draws parallels to the challenges faced when attempting to decouple compensation and merit increases from performance evaluations. Often, a ‘shadow rating’ persists to justify compensation decisions, leading organizations in a circle, ultimately returning to a familiar, albeit less transparent, system.

The Allure and Pitfalls of ‘Skills-First’

The current enthusiasm for a skills-first methodology is undeniable. It’s perceived as modern and forward-thinking. However, Eubanks posits that if organizations begin by dissecting their existing jobs and reframing them as ‘hiring for this unique mix of skills,’ they could inadvertently end up with thousands of unique skill bundles – essentially, a new, potentially more complex, set of ‘jobs.’ This micro-level dynamism could exacerbate, rather than alleviate, management challenges.

Furthermore, significant hurdles arise concerning compensation, career pathing, and data management. Most organizations lack the robust data infrastructure to base compensation solely on individual skills. Traditional HR architectures are built around jobs, job families, and similar structures. While skills are crucial, starting the entire process with skills alone presents practical difficulties.

Everyday Realities vs. Theoretical Frameworks

Eubanks uses a relatable analogy: When asked what they do, most people don’t respond with a list of skills like ‘compliance, communications, and change management.’ Instead, they identify their job title or department, such as ‘HR.’ This highlights that most roles, beyond highly specialized technical functions, inherently include broad responsibilities and undefined tasks – the classic ‘other duties as assigned’ element. A purely skill-based profile might oversimplify the multifaceted nature of many jobs.

This trend is compared to outdated research, like the widely cited Intuit prediction before 2020 that 40% of the workforce would be freelancers. Such projections, while attention-grabbing, often don’t align with the practical realities of the labor market and organizational needs.

Eubanks concludes by inviting further discussion, open to being convinced by evidence that demonstrates a practical, scalable way for skills to be the *starting point* for organizational design and talent management, rather than an integrated component.

This article was inspired by a LinkedIn post by Ben Eubanks.