The skills-based organisation and the luddite in me

I’ve been holding out hope for a while now, clinging to this quiet, slightly stubborn belief that some skills are worth keeping. Take text editing, for example. I like it. The tiny shifts in rhythm. The word choices that land. The hours of shaping a paragraph until it finally does what it’s meant to.

Maybe that’s because I studied English Literature as an undergraduate, and then spent years working as an instructional designer, thinking about words, language, writing hooks, making sure things land. There was an earnest honesty to that work that gave me a sense of pride.

But lately, I’ve started to wonder: am I just being a Luddite?

Because this shift toward skills-based organisations, it’s real. It’s not just another trend or buzzword. It’s a genuine, structural change in how organisations think about talent, capability, and the future of work. And with it comes new challenges, new tools, and yes, new questions about which skills we still hold onto, and which ones we hand over to the machines.

I sat down recently with Cammy Bean, Account Director at Kineo, and Elton Machholz, Senior Manager, e-Learning Platform Management, Insourcing Solutions at Charles River, for an episode of Totara Talks Talent, the podcast I host.

I asked them something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately: is the rise of the skills-based organisation actually something new, or is it just L&D getting back to what it’s always done? Helping people build capability, grow in their roles, and perform better at work?

There’s truth in both perspectives. But what’s changed, what really feels different now, is the pace of technological change. AI is evolving faster than most businesses can update their competency frameworks. New roles are emerging before we’ve even defined the skills they require.

That’s why the shift to a skills-based approach is so critical. It’s not just about structure, it’s about agility. When organisations can clearly see what skills they have today, and what they’ll need tomorrow, they’re far better equipped to respond to disruption, adapt with confidence, and help their people grow in meaningful ways.

And that’s not just a nice-to-have anymore. It’s becoming essential.

From chaos to clarity: Mapping skills like you mean it

For most organisations, knowing you need to shift toward skills is just the start. The real challenge is figuring out how.

Elton Machholz has spent the last decade getting stuck into that question at Charles River, where he oversees the implementation of the organisation’s Learning Management System within its Insourcing Solutions (IS) buisiness. Charles River is a global partner to the biopharmaceutical business, and IS helps provide resource management solutions for organisations across the industry. When your work involves scientific research, regulatory compliance and animal welfare, skills aren’t just nice to have, they’re make or break. There’s no room for guesswork about who knows what.

To get real visibility over skills across the IS business, Elton’s team built a framework, using Totara, with their Patner Actua, that breaks everything down into four buckets:

• Core – the universal skills everyone needs, wherever they are
• Job – role-specific stuff tied to everyday performance
• Site – the localised bits: legal, regulatory, cultural
• Process – the deep, technical, “don’t-mess-this-up” protocols

It’s simple, but it works. It helps them see what skills they’ve got, where they sit, who owns them, and how to keep them sharp. It’s the kind of structure that actually gets used, not filed away under ‘strategy slide deck’ and forgotten. And in a fast-moving industry like theirs, that clarity isn’t just helpful, it’s vital.

Learning to love the force multiplier

Eventually, the conversation turned, as it always does, to AI. And let’s be honest: it’s hard not to be both awed and slightly unnerved by it.

Both Cammy and Elton see it as a force multiplier. Something that helps L&D professionals do more, faster. It can support skills mapping, data analysis, personalisation, even content creation. In many ways, it’s a gift.

But it’s also a bit terrifying.

Because when you’ve spent years crafting learning experiences, agonising over phrasing, structure, tone, there’s something uncomfortable about a tool that can do it in 20 seconds.

And here’s the part where I come clean: I’m not ready to let go of that. I’m not ready to completely offload the part of my work that feels meaningful. And that’s where the Luddite in me pipes up, not to smash the machine, but to ask: what are we giving up when we give everything away? And perhaps more importantly: where do we fit now? What’s still worth learning by hand, and what should we let go, like making fire in a house warmed by central heating, or stalking wild game when there’s a supermarket just down the road?

So who actually owns skills?

This was one of my favourite questions to ask: who actually owns skills in an organisation?

Elton’s answer was refreshingly human: the individual does.

Yes, L&D teams build frameworks and platforms. HR guides the journey. Leaders set the vision. But the person doing the job has to want to grow, has to know where they’re heading, and has to feel supported to get there. Cammy made the same point:

Without that individual agency, even the most beautifully designed skills strategy will stall. And without organisational clarity, the individual has no idea which direction to run in. Skills need both alignment and autonomy.

Good systems help. But people still make it happen.

The real challenge isn’t just identifying skills, it’s knowing which ones are actually worth investing in. And more importantly, how we measure them in a way that’s meaningful.

Elton talked about moving beyond surface-level checklists and tick-box training. What’s needed now, he said, is a more intelligent, holistic approach to skills assessment, one that combines qualitative insight with quantitative evidence. Not just whether someone’s completed the training, but whether they’ve actually grown in capability, confidence, and performance.

Cammy brought the conversation back to AI, and the risk of leaning on it too heavily.

And I knew exactly what she meant. Because AI can simulate skill. But it can’t simulate purpose, or voice, or judgement. It doesn’t build relationships. It doesn’t follow through. It doesn’t reflect.

Yes, skills are evolving. But the ones that matter most like critical thinking, creativity, communication, reflection are only becoming more valuable.

And maybe that’s the real job of a skills-based organisation: not just mapping what people can do, but creating the space, systems and support for them to grow into what’s next.

What’s worth holding onto?

Maybe that’s the value of the skills conversation, not a single model to follow, but a moment to pause and ask better questions. About how we help people grow. About what kind of work we’re building. About the careers we want to shape together.

The future of work is being built in real time. The tools are evolving. The frameworks are maturing. But at its core, this movement is about people. About giving them the clarity, support and motivation to grow and making sure we don’t lose ourselves along the way.

I might be a Luddite. But what I do know is this: the tools are changing, but our role in helping people grow? That matters more than ever.
Because in the end, it’s not just about keeping up. It’s about helping people move forward with purpose.