.jpg)
You may have heard this particular expression before: Skills are the new currency.
In the ever-evolving world of work, companies of almost every size and flavor are talking about upskilling, reskilling, future skills and learning agility. But for most employees, one fundamental question remains: “Which skills actually matter to me?”
This is where skill mapping, or more specifically, role-to-skill mapping, comes into play. In this article, we’ll look at some of the key elements of what we call the ‘Komensky process’ when it comes to skill mapping.
When most organizations begin their journey with skills, they often start by building a skills taxonomy- which is basically a long, categorized list of capabilities the organization believes are important. On paper, this looks like progress. You’ve identified 50, 100, or maybe even 500 key skills for the future. That’s good, right?
But here’s the problem: a list of skills doesn’t automatically translate into relevance for your employees. Simply knowing that ‘critical thinking’, ‘data literacy’ and ‘collaboration’ are important doesn’t help someone in a sales, finance, or tech support role understand what to do next.
That’s the gap skill to role mapping helps close.
Think of skill mapping as connecting the dots between the jobs people do and the skills they need to do them well. It means taking your internal job framework- roles, functions, titles- and linking them to relevant sets of skills. Sounds simple, right? In theory, yes. But in practice, it can be incredibly time-consuming. That’s why at Komensky we try and automate parts of the process, but without outsourcing the entire exercise to AI. Let’s take a closer look at what this looks like.
One of the first things we do is combine multiple points of reference: market information (both open source and AI-generated), validation from top-down (managers, HRBPs) and bottom-up (people currently in the role) to get a very nuanced sense of each role. Additionally, this ensures job profiles truly reflect the context of the organization and the role that is being mapped. In our experience, this is the best way to maximize relevancy to all stakeholders involved, while keeping the process efficient.
Next, we gather detailed job descriptions- not just one-liners or vague summaries. The more detailed, the better. Job descriptions that list tasks, responsibilities, or even required competency levels give the system something solid to work with.
But job descriptions are still just the beginning. They often vary widely across departments or regions, even for the same role. For example, a company with 5,000 employees might have over 1,000 unique job descriptions. That’s a maintenance nightmare and a barrier to clarity.
So, we take a step back and ask: Do we really need all these versions of the same job? Often, the answer is no. A more sustainable approach is grouping roles into broader skill profiles- say, junior, mid-level and senior, or by specialization tracks like A, B and C. This allows for more manageable, scalable mapping without losing relevance.
One of the biggest misconceptions we encounter is the belief that skill mapping has to perfectly match existing job descriptions. It doesn’t, and in many cases, it shouldn’t. Job descriptions are often tied to compensation, promotion, or benefits. They’re HR documents built for hiring and salary decisions, not learning and development.
Skill maps, on the other hand, are meant to guide growth and help employees navigate their careers. Trying to align the two too closely from the beginning can lead to delays, political complications, and internal resistance. That’s why we encourage teams to keep the two separate- at least at first.
So, Tip number one: Get the skill map done. Focus on making it practical and useful for learning. You can always revisit the alignment with job descriptions later.
Most organizations are excited about skills at the start. But once they get into the nitty-gritty of actually mapping roles, reviewing thousands of job descriptions, resolving overlaps and getting input from various stakeholders- they hit a wall.
Suddenly, it’s not just about skills anymore. It touches everything from learning strategy to pay grades and internal politics. And that’s when many teams pause. They settle for a skills taxonomy and “see how it works” for a few months before attempting full-on skill mapping. It’s understandable, but also a missed opportunity.
Because here’s the thing: a skill taxonomy might tell you what’s important, but skill mapping tells your employees what’s relevant. Without that connection to roles, it’s easy to get lost. Imagine telling your team, “Here are 50 future skills you should care about,” and expecting them to self-select the right ones. It’s overwhelming and lacks guidance.
So, Tip number two: start small, automate what you can, and separate the process from heavier HR systems like compensation frameworks.
Skill mapping doesn’t have to be perfect from day one. But even a ‘quick and dirty’ version can give your people a clearer view of where they are and where they can grow, without getting bogged down in bureaucracy.
As we hope you’ve seen here, skill mapping is what makes your skills strategy real for your people. It turns abstract ideas into concrete pathways. Yes, it takes time and effort and involves tough conversations. But skipping it or stopping at a list of skills won’t give you the results you need when it comes to growth or capability building. If you’re serious about developing your workforce, don’t just build a taxonomy- build a map.
Which brings us to our final Tip number three:
Start by asking: “Do our employees know which skills are most relevant to their role, and where they should focus next?”
If the answer is no, it’s time to begin your mapping journey.
At Komensky, we’re helping multiple forward-thinking companies solve some of their most urgent upskilling challenges. If any of the above resonates with you or you’d like some support with getting started on this journey, drop us a line at hello@komensky.nl and let’s chat. I promise we're a friendly bunch.
