Maybe your top ten looks like this:

If you’re a COO, that is.

If you’re in a different field, your list may look a little different - why not ask a large language model? Gemini came up with the one above.

I expect the results would be quite similar, say, for an HR Director, with a soupçon of people strategy, employee relations and EVP development.

Here’s the rub - if these skills are in your top 10 list of transferrable skills, they are likely in the top 10 list of your competition’s transferrable skills.

And if everyone has the same skills, none of them stand out.

So if transferrable skills are your USP… how are they unique?

But then the problem doubles down.

If, in our days of generic advertising, a company is looking for a COO or an HR Director, their essential required skills can often include these transferrable skills.

Can you communicate at all levels with strategic thinking fostering an innovative culture?

Me too!

We all know that a customised CV is the way to go.

Yet what exactly are you customising against, if your custom skills are the same as every other applicant who applies to this advert?

This is the transferrable skills trap.

Skills that in real life serve you well, and are valuable in any context. Yet skills that are common enough they work against you, when you declare them your strength.

What can we do?

Move from transferrable to applicable.

Applicable skills are precisely the same skills as transferrable skills, with two differences:

The direction of any applicable skills is that of the employer.

How does your skill apply in their domain?

The definition of any applicable skill is the context in which you have applied them successfully, including synonymous skills, tools, processes, software etc.

If the direction and definition don’t reflect each other, then you may not be an ideal candidate.

Should you even apply?

And if they do reflect each other, but not in a way that is explicitly clear, the onus is on you to show how your skills work in the employer’s context.

In an ideal world employer hiring processes are skilled and knowledgeable.

In practice, you should assume the weakest link in their hiring process is the gatekeeper - an administrator, a recruiter, an HR assistant.

Maybe they’re lazy, maybe incompetent, maybe swamped, maybe inexperienced.

It doesn’t matter - a weak part of a hiring process doesn’t necessarily mean employment is unsuitable but may prevent you from being considered.

And we aren’t mind readers.

Help us do our jobs by showing how your skills apply, and we may see you as a suitable candidate.

With the benefit that this helps skilled recruiters too, and won’t work against you.

What is context?

This is the relevant background that adds sufficient substance to an assertion.

So you’re a COO?

Are you a COO within a £2m bootstrapped start-up that’s achieving profitability?

Do you work in a multinational charity streamlining your operations to save money?

Or are you a safe pair of hands to keep the ship steady in your £30m family-owned manufacturing company with 120 employees?

These three COOs may well have the same transferrable skills, and might be brilliant in their own right, but their contexts are more important than their job title in establishing suitability.

Going further.

The ugly brother of transferrable skills is responsibilities and experience.

In the same way, adverts copy-paste job descriptions, how many CVs do the same under each job title in a CV?

When you do this, you’re telling people who know what a COO does, what a COO does.

But you can apply direction and definition here too, by showing impact, by showing your achievements (with numbers and context), and by showing how you can help.

These principles help you move from being a <job title> with a dry set of responsibilities and experiences.

To someone who shows how they can help, how you can solve problems, and how you can heal the pain of the people who might employ you.

It’s the same as moving from features to benefits in sales.

Features are what you do, benefits are how the customer’s life is improved.

Transferrable skills are highly valuable to your next employer and you should be proud of them.

But unless they are specific and relevant to the roles you apply for, they can get in your way.

If you can gain insight into what your potential employer actually needs, and show how you may solve their problems, your odds will improve.

Of course, the frustrating caveat to this is that sometimes you are only given a generic advert to try and glean this from.

If you can’t gain insight, is there any point in showing applicability by tailoring?

Apart from using their terminology (such as if they say Continuous Improvement, and you’re a Six Sigma Black Belt), my answer is no.

Instead, I’d default to a good enough CV, one which plays to your strengths by showing how your skills apply through tools, process, context and achievements.

Apply with what you have, follow their instructions and diarise a follow-up. Then move on.

Treat transactional generic adverts transactionally, and worry more about the ones that speak to you personally.

Don’t rely on transferrable skills and the hope that others will see how they apply.

Help us do our jobs and see you as a great candidate by showing how your skills apply instead.

This won’t guarantee interviews, but it will certainly improve your odds.

The more marginal and maximal gains you can find, the closer you’ll get to what you need.

Showing applicability is a maximal gain, for every aspect of your job search.

Regards,

Greg

P.S. Please share this article in a post on LinkedIn, if you found it helpful, to spread the word. Those reaction buttons at the foot of this article might also do something - who knows?