Managers say staff assigned work beyond their skills

Skillsoft has published research on workforce readiness and skills gaps, finding that many managers say employees are assigned work they do not have the skills to do.

The findings are based on responses from 2,000 employees, managers and executives in the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany.

The report highlights a gap between companies' awareness of missing skills and how work is allocated. According to the survey, 77% of managers and 60% of individual contributors said skill gaps are present in their workplace. Meanwhile, 54% of managers and 37% of individual contributors said people are frequently or always assigned work that requires skills they do not have.

That mismatch appears to be affecting both day-to-day delivery and broader technology programmes. Among managers, 31% said skill gaps most often lead to quality assurance issues, 26% cited increased workload and burnout, and 23% linked them to delayed or unsuccessful AI adoption. Another 22% pointed to slower product or service delivery, while 20% said skill gaps contributed to lost revenue or missed targets.

Employees reported a somewhat different view of the consequences. Individual contributors most often identified increased workload and burnout, at 31%, followed by lower engagement or retention at 24%, customer dissatisfaction at 21% and slower product or service delivery at 20%.

AI oversight

The data also suggests AI use is creating more supervisory work for managers. Some 38% said they are spending more time reviewing or verifying AI-generated work, suggesting organisations may be introducing new tools without a clear picture of whether staff can use them effectively.

Skillsoft's research also found that many workers only become aware of a missing skill after problems emerge. A quarter of individual contributors said they discovered a gap after struggling to complete a task, and the same share said the issue surfaced during a performance review rather than through earlier assessment.

Perceptions of organisational preparedness also differ sharply between managers and employees. While 62% of managers said they were very confident their organisation could identify the skills needed to deliver business priorities, only 35% of individual contributors said the same.

Support delays

The survey indicates that support for closing those gaps is often slow. Thirty per cent of individual contributors said they waited between three and 12 months for help building a needed skill, while one in 10 said they received no support at all.

The findings suggest employers are often reacting after work has already been affected, rather than identifying weaknesses before projects suffer. In practice, that means managers take on more oversight while employees try to compensate for skills shortfalls as deadlines and quality expectations remain unchanged.

Skillsoft framed the issue as one of execution rather than training alone, arguing that organisations need a better understanding of what work requires, what skills exist internally and whether employees can apply those skills in context.

Ciara Harrington, chief people officer at Skillsoft, said the issue goes beyond broad recognition that skill gaps exist.

"Organisations do not need more evidence that skill gaps exist. They need a clearer view of where those gaps will affect successful delivery of the work," Harrington said.

She said hidden skills problems force intervention only after performance has already been hit.

"When skill gaps remain hidden until deadlines are missed, quality suffers, or business outcomes fall short, leaders are forced to react after the fact. Managers step in to provide additional oversight, employees spend extra effort compensating for the gap, and execution ultimately suffers. This is not simply a learning problem. It is a skills gap manifesting itself as an execution problem," Harrington said.

Readiness question

The report argues that businesses need to connect workforce planning more closely to operational demands, including the way human labour and AI tools are used together. That includes understanding not only which skills are needed, but also whether employees have the knowledge, experience, tools and support to apply them effectively.

Harrington said early AI adoption alone will not determine which organisations perform best.

"The organisations that pull ahead will not necessarily be the ones that adopted AI first. They will be the ones that understand the skills their business depends on, know whether people and AI are ready to do the work, and can close gaps before execution suffers. Adopting AI without the skills to use it effectively can create as much risk as moving too slowly. The real differentiator will be how well organisations develop and deploy their combined human and AI workforce against business outcomes," Harrington said.