Transferable skills — the organization's hidden capital

The promise of a skills-based approach is precisely to widen the search. The OECD notes (opens in a new tab) that prioritizing capabilities over credentials can broaden talent pools and improve access and fit. It also warns of risks involving bias, obsolescence, and weakened standards when the approach is implemented carelessly.

Transfer does not mean duplication

A skill is transferable when its manifestations can create value in more than one context. That does not mean they travel unchanged.

This distinction prevents two opposite mistakes. The first is rejecting someone because they have never held the exact role. The second is assuming that a shared label guarantees equivalent performance.

Transferability lies between the two: there is enough continuity to reduce the distance, but the situations are not identical.

The capital appears in the relationships

A flat inventory shows which skills have been associated with each person. A transferability map needs more: the relationships among capabilities, expectations, and contexts.

At least four variables deserve attention. The first is the manifestation: which decisions, behaviors, or outcomes support the conclusion that the capability exists. The second is the level required in the destination. The third is the change in context: regulation, scale, technology, population served, or time pressure. The fourth is the adaptation required, including specific knowledge, practice, and support.

The value does not come from assigning a universal compatibility percentage. It comes from explaining why a particular experience reduces the effort of transition and where uncertainty remains.

Visibility changes the options

When transferable capabilities become visible, mobility no longer depends solely on historical career paths. A vacancy can open to adjacent roles; a temporary project can provide situated evidence; someone can build evidence before committing to a permanent move.

The OECD describes a common skills language (opens in a new tab) as a foundation for reducing information frictions among occupations, education, and the labor market. Within an organization, such a language serves a similar function as long as its definitions are clear and capabilities are not inferred solely from self-reported profiles.

Evidence matters because poorly constructed visibility can also exclude. People who had opportunities to participate in high-profile projects accumulate signals that are easier to recognize. Someone else may have demonstrated the same capability in less visible work. Mapping internal capital means looking for comparable manifestations rather than rewarding reputation or exposure alone.

A reserve that can also deteriorate

Calling transferable skills capital does not make them permanent property. A capability is no longer available if it cannot be applied under current conditions, if it depended on tools that no longer exist, or if the person no longer wishes to use it. It may also grow when combined with new experience.

The map must therefore preserve the date, context, and evidence. An organization that merely accumulates labels will overestimate its coverage. One that reviews how capabilities were demonstrated and what adaptation they require can distinguish among available capability, plausible potential, and a merely linguistic match.

The map can begin with an upcoming decision: a project that has proved difficult to staff, a transition that currently looks unlikely, or a position that has remained open for months. This provides a test of whether recognizing transferable capabilities changes the available alternatives. If it changes neither who is considered nor which adaptation is offered, the organization is still describing its talent rather than making use of it.