Most performance conversations devolve into opinions about personality because no one has named what "good at this job" actually looks like as observable behavior. The manager says the person needs to communicate better. The person says they do communicate. There is no way to close that gap, because no one has written down what communicating well means at their level. A competency library closes that gap.
Take the classic "she is too aggressive" comment. With a library in place, that becomes a Sometimes rating on the Feedback competency, anchored to a specific behavior: "feedback is harsh or personal" and "creates fear rather than growth." The conversation shifts from a verdict on her personality to a named pattern of behavior with a development path.
This article is about that library. What a competency is. Why I organize them into tiers instead of per-role matrices. How the scoring scale works. How the library becomes the competencies on every person's scorecard, every quarter, across the company.
To build your library, run the Competencies Builder prompt (a guided AI conversation that asks you questions and produces the document). It interviews you about your tiers, proposes anchor language tuned to your industry and stage, and produces a customized Markdown library you can save and feed into the Scorecard Builder. The proposals are scoped against the starter library and any Values or KFFM you paste, and you see and approve every change. The prompt does not require a finished Functional Organization Chart. If you have one, paste it; if not, three yes/no tier questions get the same scoping done in under a minute.
Competencies Builder Tools
Adapt the starter library to your company with a guided AI prompt. 30-90 min.
What goes wrong without a library
Three failure modes show up in companies that try to coach without a competency library.
First, every development conversation is about personality. "She is too aggressive." "He is not assertive enough." "They are hard to work with." None of this is observable or actionable. The feedback lands as criticism rather than guidance, and the person has no way to respond except to defend or deflect.
Second, promotion becomes about tenure instead of capability. Without a library, there is no way to say "this person has grown into the next tier." You just know they have been around a while and they seem ready. Sometimes they are. Often they are not. By the time you find out, the team is already underperforming and the person is already over-titled.
Third, the A-Player Team Assessment becomes gut feel. Without competency ratings to anchor the performance axis, leaders are placing people on the scatter plot based on impressions. The calibration meeting turns into a debate about who likes whom, not a data-driven conversation about who is contributing.
All three of these failure modes disappear when the library is in place and the ratings are done.
What a competency actually is
A competency is a named pattern of behavior that shows up consistently, intermittently, or not at all. It is not a task. It is not a technical skill. It is not a piece of knowledge.
"Knows Python" is not a competency. It is a technical skill that shows up on the job requirements, not on a behavioral scorecard. "Writes a monthly report" is not a competency either. It is a task on a job description.
"Communicates clearly in two iterations or fewer" is a competency. "Delegates outcomes, not tasks" is a competency. "Anticipates problems before they occur" is a competency.
The distinction matters because tasks and technical skills change with the role. Behavioral competencies travel. The person who delegates outcomes well in marketing delegates outcomes well in sales. The person who sees around corners as a department head will see around corners as an executive. The company is investing in a person, not just in a task list.
Why tiered, not per-role
Most companies that try to define competencies start by writing a skill matrix for every role. Marketing has one. Sales has one. Product has one. Every new role needs its own matrix. Every matrix drifts from the others. Every time a role changes, the matrix gets re-litigated. Within a year the library is a tangle of overlapping documents that no one trusts.
The tiered approach avoids all of that. Four tiers cover every seat in the company: individual contributor, people manager, department head, executive. Each tier inherits everything from the tier below and adds the competencies that level of responsibility demands.
An individual contributor seat uses only the base tier. A people manager seat uses the base tier plus the people manager tier. A department head seat uses base plus people manager plus department head. An executive seat uses all four. Sixteen competencies total, covering every seat from new hire to CEO.
The seat's position on the Function Organization Chart tells you which tier applies. You do not have to decide per role. The org chart has already decided for you. If you do not have an FOC yet, the prompt scopes tiers from three yes/no questions instead.
The four tiers
Each tier reflects a different kind of responsibility, and the competencies within it reflect what that level of responsibility actually requires.
Individual contributor. The base tier. Seven competencies focused on the fundamentals every employee needs regardless of where they sit: business acumen, prioritization, learning, communication, resourcefulness, adaptability, and analytical thinking. These are the traits that make someone a capable contributor in any role in the company. An executive who does not score Always on these has a problem more fundamental than their leadership skills.
People manager. The tier that applies to anyone with direct reports. Four additional competencies specific to leading people: empowering others, giving feedback, building teams, and managing a budget. These do not replace the individual contributor competencies; they sit on top of them. A manager who cannot prioritize or communicate is a bad individual contributor first and a bad manager second.
Department head. The tier for someone running a whole function, like marketing, sales, product, or engineering. Three additional competencies: vision and strategy, seeing around corners, and composure under pressure. At this level the person is no longer managing individuals. They are managing a whole system of work, and the competencies reflect the step up in scope.
Executive. The tier for the CEO and any leader whose seat spans multiple functions. Two additional competencies: enterprise financial management and solving problems that matter. At this level the person is responsible for the company as a whole, across functions, across time horizons.
The inheritance is the point. An executive is held accountable for every competency below their tier as well as the two at the top. That is why the CEO's scorecard has sixteen competencies on it, and an individual contributor's has seven.
Why three points, not five
Every competency is rated on a three-point scale: Always, Sometimes, or Never. The scale is intentionally blunt.
Five-point scales invite hedging. Everyone clusters around three and a half and calls it done. The rater feels they have given a thoughtful, nuanced rating. The person being rated feels they have gotten a passing grade. Nothing is actionable.
Three points force a stance. Either the behavior is consistently present or it is not. Sometimes is not a safe middle. It is a flag that says development is needed. Always is the bar. Never is a problem.
A Never rating is not a verdict on the person. It is a statement that this behavior is not present in this seat today, paired with a development conversation, not a consequence. The rating is about what you observe this quarter, not about who the person is.
You lose granularity on purpose. The unit of action is the rating per competency, not a composite score across the scorecard. A blunt scale you act on beats a precise scale you debate.
Pair every rating with a trajectory indicator: improving (↗), stable (=), or declining (↘). A Sometimes↗ and a Sometimes↘ are different conversations. Without the trajectory, both look like a Sometimes on the page and the coaching flattens. The trajectory adds the coaching signal without adding more points to the scale.
Do not convert the ratings to 3, 2, 1 and average them. The average of eleven mediocre ratings looks like a passing grade. The rating per competency is the unit of action, not the sum.
The anchors do the real work
Each competency comes with three written anchors: one for Always, one for Sometimes, one for Never. These describe what each rating looks like in observable behavior.
Without the anchors, Always and Sometimes and Never are subjective. Two managers rating the same person will land in different places. With the anchors, the rating is tied to something specific. "The person gives timely, specific, actionable feedback and balances positive recognition with constructive criticism" is either true or not. The anchors turn the rating into a behavioral observation.
The anchors are also what make the review conversation productive. When a manager and a person disagree on a rating, the anchor is the shared reference. Which parts of the Always description does the person demonstrate? Which parts are missing? The disagreement is no longer about opinion. It is about specific behaviors against a named standard.
How the library becomes the scorecard
The competency library is one of three inputs to every scorecard, alongside the Functional Accountability Chart and the company values.
When you build a scorecard for a seat, you pull the competencies for that seat's tier from the library. An individual contributor's scorecard has seven competencies on it. A people manager's has eleven. A department head's has fourteen. An executive's has all sixteen.
Every quarter, the person in the seat and their manager rate independently against each competency. They meet, compare notes, and land on an agreed rating with a trajectory. Those ratings feed into the overall A, B, or C classification. Over quarters, the ratings build a picture of how the person is growing in the seat.
The A-Player Team Assessment uses those ratings as the performance axis of the team-level scatter plot. The leadership team looks at every person across the values axis and the performance axis, and the competency ratings are what make the performance axis concrete.
Competencies Builder Tools
The guided prompt produces your customized library, ready to feed into the Scorecard Builder.
The starting library
What follows is the library I used at Rise Vision, adapted from work I have done with coaching clients since. Sixteen competencies across four tiers. The prompt adapts this starter to your company. Keep the tiered structure when you customize so competencies grow with responsibility.
If your company has no department heads yet, you only use the tiers you actually have seats for. The tier exists when the seat exists, not before. A 12-person staffing agency might use only base plus executive. A 40-person services firm might use base, people manager, and executive. Add the department head tier when you actually create department head seats.
I do not put technical skills on this library. Technical skill shows up through the critical number on the Functional Accountability Chart. If the person can produce the outcome their function is responsible for, they have the technical chops. Naming each technical skill separately turns the scorecard into a checklist and pulls development conversations toward skills instead of outcomes. That is your call to make for your own library.
| Competency | Always | Sometimes | Never |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual contributor | |||
| Business Acumen | Knows company strategy, team one big thing (OBT), and personal OBT. Deeply understands core customer and our plan to solve their problems. Uses critical numbers to evaluate performance. Every decision reflects this understanding. | General awareness of strategy but can't articulate specifics. Knows the customer exists but not their detailed problems. Inconsistent use of critical numbers. | Unaware of company strategy or customer. Doesn't know their critical number. Makes decisions without considering business context. |
| Prioritization | Ruthlessly focuses on what matters most. Applies 80/20 thinking. Says no to good ideas to protect great ones. Maintains focus despite distractions. | Generally focused but can be pulled off-track. Struggles to distinguish urgent from important. Occasionally takes on too much. | No clear priorities. Works on whatever arrives. Unable to say no. Constantly firefighting without strategic focus. |
| Expert and Continual Learner | Deep expertise in their domain. Recognized as a go-to resource. Actively expands knowledge through reading, courses, and experimentation. Shares learnings. | Competent but not exceptional. Learning happens but isn't systematic. May plateau at "good enough." | Superficial knowledge. No investment in growth. Relies on outdated information. Resists learning new approaches. |
| Communication | Strong written and verbal skills. Messages are clear in at most 2 iterations. Documentation and handoffs require minimal explanation. Listens more than speaks. Adapts style to audience. | Generally clear but sometimes requires clarification. Documentation exists but may be incomplete. May over-communicate or under-communicate. Listening could be stronger. | Chronically unclear. Messages require multiple rounds to understand. Documentation is absent or unusable. Talks more than listens. One style regardless of audience. |
| Resourcefulness | Finds creative solutions within constraints. Does more with less. Simplifies rather than complicates. Gets things done without requiring additional resources. | Can work within constraints but may default to asking for more resources. Solutions are functional but not elegant. | Stops when resources are limited. Complicates rather than simplifies. Requires ideal conditions to produce results. |
| Adaptability | Learns quickly and pivots execution when conditions change. Maintains composure and sound judgment under pressure. Tests alternatives against current approaches. Adjusts methods based on new information. | Can adapt but prefers stability. May be slow to recognize when change is needed. Occasional lapses in composure under pressure. Adjusts eventually but not proactively. | Rigid and resistant to change. Crumbles under pressure leading to poor decisions or paralysis. Clings to "how we've always done it." Spreads anxiety to others when conditions shift. |
| Analytical | Uses data to drive decisions. Identifies root causes rather than symptoms. Spots patterns and trends. Quantifies impact before recommending actions. | Uses data when available but may rely on intuition. Analysis is adequate but not rigorous. May address symptoms rather than causes. | Ignores data. Makes decisions on gut feel alone. Doesn't look for root causes. Unable to quantify impact. |
| People manager (adds to individual contributor) | |||
| Empowers Others | Delegates outcomes, not tasks. Asks questions rather than giving answers. Develops people by letting them struggle productively. Celebrates team wins. | Delegates but micromanages execution. Sometimes solves problems that should be left to the team. Takes credit alongside the team. | Hoards work. Solves everyone's problems. Takes credit for team accomplishments. Team is dependent rather than capable. |
| Feedback | Gives timely, specific, actionable feedback. Balances positive recognition with constructive criticism. Creates safety for receiving feedback. | Feedback is occasional or vague. May avoid difficult conversations. Imbalance between positive and constructive. | Avoids feedback entirely. Stockpiles issues for reviews. Feedback is harsh or personal. Creates fear rather than growth. |
| Team Building | Builds cohesive, high-performing teams. Addresses conflict constructively. Creates psychological safety. Team members grow under their leadership. | Team functions but isn't exceptional. Conflict is managed but not leveraged. Some team members thrive, others stagnate. | Team is dysfunctional. Conflict festers. No psychological safety. High turnover or disengagement. |
| Financial Acumen (Budget) | Understands and manages their budget. Reviews costs regularly and looks for savings. Makes spending decisions that maximize return on investment. | Aware of budget but doesn't actively manage. Occasional overspending. Reactive rather than proactive on costs. | Ignores budget. Spends without consideration of constraints. Frequently surprised by financial shortfalls. |
| Department head (adds to people manager and individual contributor) | |||
| Vision and Strategy | Sets clear direction aligned with company strategy. Translates vision into actionable plans. Inspires others to pursue ambitious goals. Connects daily work to purpose. | Has a vision but communication is inconsistent. Strategy exists but execution connection is weak. Team understands goals but not the why. | No clear vision. Strategy changes constantly. Team is confused about direction. Daily work feels disconnected. |
| See Around Corners | Anticipates problems before they occur. Identifies trends and their implications. Prepares the team for future challenges. Rarely caught off guard. | Reactive but recovers well. Some foresight but inconsistent. Occasionally surprised by developments. | Constantly firefighting. No forward thinking. Repeatedly surprised by predictable issues. Team is always in crisis mode. |
| Composure and Presence | Projects confidence and calm. Others look to them for stability. Handles difficult situations with grace. Represents the company well. | Generally composed but occasionally rattled. Presence varies by situation. May struggle in high-stakes moments. | Easily flustered. Presence undermines confidence. Struggles to represent the company effectively. |
| Executive (adds to all three tiers below) | |||
| Enterprise Financial Management | Full financial literacy: profit and loss, balance sheet, cash flow, 36-month forecast. Acts in the long-term interest of the owners and the company. Good steward of company resources. | Understands financials but doesn't actively use them in decisions. May focus on their area without enterprise view. | Financially illiterate at the enterprise level. Makes decisions without considering financial impact. Poor steward of resources. |
| Solves Problems That Matter | Identifies the highest-leverage problems for the company. Builds cross-functional alignment to solve them. Decisions create lasting improvements. | Solves important problems but not always the most important. May get stuck in operational details. Alignment requires effort. | Works on low-impact problems. Unable to build cross-functional alignment. Creates solutions that don't stick. |
How to put this to work
Before you start. You need either a Functional Organization Chart or two minutes to answer three tier questions. A Values document and Key Function Flow Map are optional, and they sharpen the anchor language but are not required.
How to build your library. Open the Competencies Builder. Paste your FOC (or answer three tier questions if you do not have one), confirm a few company basics, optionally paste your Values document, and the prompt walks you through every competency proposing anchor language tuned to your company. You accept, edit, or replace each adaptation. The prompt outputs a Markdown library file you save. 30-90 minutes depending on how much you customize.
Competencies Builder Tools
Run the prompt to produce your customized library. You review every line before it lands. 30-90 min.
The library is a starting point, not a finished artifact. Your first version will be rough. It gets better each quarter as you see it in use. The anchors sharpen. The language gets more specific. The conversations get more productive. After four quarters you have something that reflects how your company actually grows people.