“What gets measured gets improved”, said Peter Drucker.
But at Hrider we would add something else: what is poorly measured worsens what was already working.
In many companies, evaluations still follow a “one-size-fits-all” logic. The same form. The same competencies. The same expected level. And then come the surprises: frustrated talent, confused managers, and decisions based on averages that mean nothing.
Today we discuss a key concept in People Analytics: the competency gap.
Not everyone needs to know the same things (or at the same level)
Imagine we evaluate the competency English.
- Internal administrative role.
- National sales representative.
- International sales executive negotiating across three continents.
Does it make sense to require the same level from all three?
No.
And yet many evaluations do. The result: we either demand too much from those who don’t need it or too little from those who do.
As the saying goes: “To each their own.”
The key concept: required level
The solution is not to stop measuring.
The solution is to measure with context.
At Hrider, we work with a simple but powerful idea: each role has a required level for every competency.
Practical example:
| Role |
Competency |
Required level (0-100) |
| Administrative |
English |
50 |
| National Sales |
English |
70 |
| International Sales |
English |
95 |
Now evaluation makes sense.
What is the competency gap?
The formula is almost insultingly simple:
Competency gap = Measured level – Required level
And here is where analytical clarity begins.
- Negative gap: the person does not reach the desired minimum.
- Zero gap: exactly meets expectations.
- Positive gap: exceeds the required level.
It is basic mathematics applied to people. And when used correctly, it illuminates decisions.
A positive gap of 5 is not the same as a gap of 40.
Who would you promote to international sales? The one with 40.
Is either of them unqualified for their role? No.
Why this transforms talent management
When we do not use required levels:
- We train those who don’t need it.
- We ignore critical shortcomings.
- We penalize overqualified talent.
- We generate frustration and turnover.
When we use competency gaps:
- We prioritize training strategically.
- We detect real risks.
- We uncover hidden talent.
- We design coherent career paths.
Instead of asking “Is this person good at English?”, we ask: “Is this person good enough at English for this specific role?”
That is strategic talent management.
The mistake of generalist tools
Many HR tools allow competency evaluation. Few allow defining required levels per role and automatically calculating the gap.
Without that analytical layer, you only have a list of scores. With it, you have a decision map.
From intuition to actionable data
A CEO does not need to know if someone scores 70 out of 100 in leadership. They need to know if:
- They are below the required level.
- They are at the optimal level.
- They are ready to take on more responsibility.
The difference between measuring and measuring intelligently is the difference between navigating with a compass or with satellite navigation.
And here lies the paradox…
Measuring everyone the same way seems fair. But in reality, it is deeply unfair.