Will / Skill Matrix
Use stated willingness and demonstrated task skill to discuss support, retaining unknowns and explicit authority boundaries.
Use this for a coaching conversation about one task at a stated time. Ask about willingness and examine relevant performance separately. Quadrants suggest questions about support; they do not classify a person permanently.
Task, observable success criteria, date, personal statements, task-skill records, barriers and unknowns.
A task-specific willingness/skill map, evidence gaps and proposed support and review arrangements.
How to use it
- Define one task, observable criteria and time.
- Record the person’s willingness and relevant skill evidence separately.
- Place supplied categories with will upward and skill rightward; keep unknowns outside.
- Discuss delegation, guidance, barriers or concrete steps according to the task context.
- Confirm support, capacity, authority and a review with the person; reassess when conditions change.
Keep its limits in mind
Do not infer willingness from silence, overtime or expression, or skill from title or one error. High/low categories are contextual judgments, not personality, performance scores or diagnoses. Unknowns stay outside. A quadrant neither delegates authority nor compels compliance; clear steps and training are still needed when both dimensions are low.
Different support for the same v2 handoff task
Original fictional I5 teaching packet: Clearbrook Support. Records, statements, trials and agreements are synthetic, not real outcomes or personnel assessments.
On a small screen, scroll across the diagram to read it.
Keep one task: The supplied categories place four people in four contextual positions. Yu has no statement or skill record and stays outside. The criteria concern v2 forms, not all work.
Discuss rather than assign: Guidance, delegation, barrier discussions and concrete steps are support options. No quadrant grants authority or proves that training or motivation changed.
Lin H/L, Qiao H/H, Mei L/H, Tao L/L, Yu unknown: all task- and time-specific.
Next step: If the task and evidence are clear but support remains uncertain, use GROW to explore the person’s goal, barriers and choices.
Three reasons to keep a person out of a fixed label
First, pause when the task is vague or changes between people. “Good at handoffs” covers several activities. Define one observable task, version, and date. Skill evidence for a different form or a jointly completed sheet may not demonstrate independent performance on the chosen task.
Second, ask about willingness rather than reading it from silence, overtime, or facial expression. A person who declines this week may face another deadline, need different conditions, or prefer another role. Keep their actual statement and investigate the relevant barrier without assigning an attitude or diagnosis.
Third, stop if a quadrant is being used to delegate authority or compel compliance. A capable and willing person still needs a bounded task and explicit authority. Someone needing guidance requires concrete steps and training conditions. Unknown evidence stays outside the map; an empty position cannot be filled from job title or reputation.
Choose between support, alignment, coaching, and responsibility
Use this matrix for a conversation about support on one task. Related leadership models can inform the questions but are not identical to these four categories. The axes do not certify a permanent development level or a person’s overall ability.
| Question and input | Method | Output and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Task-specific willingness and skill evidence | Will/Skill matrix | Support options and unknowns; no automatic authorization. |
| Interests, demonstrated capability and requirements need comparison | Will/Can/Must | Task alignment and gaps; requirements need confirmation. |
| The person needs to explore goals, barriers and choices | GROW | Their selected action and support request; not a manager’s inferred commitment. |
| An agreed task needs execution and approval roles | RACI matrix | A bounded responsibility agreement; capability alone grants no authority. |
Compare five records for the same v2 task
The complete fictional I5 snapshot is October 7 at Clearbrook Support. The task is independently completing one v2 handoff sheet. Will comes from the person’s statement. High skill means three recent v2 sheets were independently completed with all required fields; low indicates guidance is needed. These are contextual teaching criteria, not a psychometric scale or a general performance rating.
Lin wants to learn but needs guidance. Qiao is willing and has three complete sheets. Mei also has three complete sheets but says another deadline means declining this week. Tao declines and has not been trained; the packet supplies a low-skill category for this discussion. Yu has no statement or skill record. Do not infer Yu’s position or generalize Tao’s category to other work.
The table retains all five records and suggested conversations. Will increases upward and skill rightward. A proposed October 9 review follows checks about agreement, capacity, and authority; it is not already an accepted appointment. No support arrangement has been implemented, and no increase in skill or willingness is supplied.
| Person and supplied Will / Skill | Evidence in the snapshot | Proposed support and remaining condition |
|---|---|---|
| Lin H / L | Wants to learn; guidance needed | Demonstration and practice; agree scope, time and checking. |
| Qiao H / H | Willing; three independent complete v2 sheets | Discuss bounded delegation; authority and capacity still need confirmation. |
| Mei L / H | Three complete sheets; declines this week due to another deadline | Discuss workload and conditions without diagnosing motivation. |
| Tao L / L | Declines; not trained, supplied guidance-needed category | Clarify small steps and training; do not compel or label general ability. |
| Yu ? / ? | No statement or relevant record | Ask first and gather evidence; keep unplaced. |
Review the support, the attempt, and the criteria
For Lin, agree what the demonstration covers and what a practice attempt should show. Keep help received visible when reviewing the sheet. A form completed with prompts is useful learning evidence, but it is not the same as independently completing the task under the stated criterion.
For Qiao, define the limits of any delegation, available time, escalation route, and who retains approval. For Mei, discuss the competing deadline and whether timing or scope can change. Capability does not create spare capacity, and a current refusal does not establish a lasting lack of interest.
For Tao, explain the task and possible training arrangements before discussing an attempt. Do not substitute encouragement for missing instructions or impose a low/low script. For Yu, invite a statement and appropriate task evidence without guessing from another person’s assessment. The person may still choose not to participate in this exercise.
At an actually agreed review, retain each person’s statement, relevant attempts, support provided, and remaining barriers. Reapply the same criteria or explain any change before moving a point. One new sheet does not by itself meet a three-sheet criterion. Completion, independent capability, willingness, and authorization need separate records; the present map proves none of their later improvement.
Check your work
- Task, time and evidence for both dimensions are explicit.
- Axes are correct and unknowns stay outside.
- Support is negotiated; no automatic authority or diagnosis.
Framework references
References explain the framework and its scope; they do not validate the fictional example's results.
Put the framework to work
Copy the outline and add your question, evidence, and open questions.