Let your Skill–Will matrix change your mind

A leader opens a team map and moves an engineer into the lower-Will half. Two follow-ups were late. The engineer has seemed less involved in recent meetings. The position feels plausible.

In this fictional situation, there is enough information to start a conversation. There is still a lot to learn before the leader can explain what happened or what support will help.

The value of the map depends on the next move: inspecting the impression. A leader should be able to explain the work behind it, the uncertainty it contains and what evidence would justify a different view.

Put the observation next to the interpretation

“Two agreed follow-ups were late” describes a bounded part of the work. “Low motivation” adds an interpretation. To examine that interpretation, the manager needs to know which commitments were agreed, who owned them and what changed during the engagement.

Perhaps the engineer was covering another project. Perhaps the follow-ups were not understood. Perhaps the concern persists after ownership and workload are clarified. A conversation can examine these possibilities without turning any of them into a diagnosis.

Ryan and Deci's review of self-determination theory examines how social conditions and support for autonomy, competence and relatedness relate to motivation. It provides a reason to consider the environment. It does not let a manager infer an individual's needs from a chart.

When writing a review note, separate the observed event from the proposed explanation. Leave room for the person's account. That makes the judgement more open to challenge and gives a coaching conversation somewhere specific to begin.

A useful map leaves space for uncertainty

A dot looks definite. The knowledge behind it may be partial.

In the fictional example, the manager attended the first customer workshop. The account executive attended the second. The engineer's self-reflection concerns a difficult handover between them. A disagreement may reveal different work, different expectations or a genuine change over time.

Ask what each person saw before trying to reconcile their views. Identify the shared behaviour under discussion. An average of unlike observations can look tidy while leaving the original question unanswered.

This is a proposed way of working, not a claim that retaining separate views has been shown to improve every decision. Its immediate benefit is inspectability: the leader can explain where a judgement came from and which part remains uncertain.

Preserve the point at which your view changed

A development conversation becomes more useful when a manager can say which new example changed their interpretation. That might be an observed discovery session, the contributor's explanation or a previously missing piece of customer context.

Record that reason alongside the formal decision. Preserve the original feedback as a source, even when the final judgement differs. A later reviewer can then understand the distinction between a new observation and a changed interpretation.

Talentonics makes that separation explicit. A private first-pass map holds exploratory positions. Independent assessments remain separate, and a formal calibration records a human rationale. Moving a person in the first-pass map does not rewrite their assessment. The next step opens feedback, review or coaching for the current stage. It does not share the map. A leader can deliberately share a separate snapshot with selected workspace leaders; check the named audience before sharing.

Ask what the manager will do differently

The conversation should reach a commitment that the person can act on and the manager can support.

For the fictional engineer, that might mean agreeing follow-up ownership during the next handover, protecting preparation time and reviewing the resulting customer note together. If the issue concerns a new technical task, a rehearsal or pairing session may be more useful than another expectation to “show initiative”.

Managers also need evidence about their own contribution. Was the promised rehearsal available? Did the engineer get a suitable opportunity to practise? A missed checkpoint may reveal a plan that the working environment never made possible.

Feedback collection is only one part of development

Smither, London and Reilly's meta-analysis of 24 longitudinal studies reported generally small improvements in subsequent ratings after multisource feedback. The authors discuss conditions that may support change, including goals and action. The study spans other settings and instruments; it does not evaluate Talentonics or this review method.

For a leader, the practical question is what happens after feedback arrives. Agree a chance to practise, support it and return to an actual example. A revised matrix position may be one output. A clearer expectation or a useful new work habit may matter more to the person doing the job.

Use the map to make your current thinking visible to yourself. Then bring enough curiosity to revise it. Explore that starting point with a fictional team, or use the review worksheet to prepare a conversation.

Related guide: a practical Skill–Will guide for presales leaders.