Which skills do you believe will still be valuable in 2026 even if today’s dominant technologies are replaced—and why are they so resilient?
In an era of automation, core workplace success skills will be hardest to automate and find, but the most valuable to build. These human-centric skills are capabilities that AI cannot replicate. These include:
- Problem Solving: Navigate complex challenges with structured thinking
- Creative Innovation: Generate novel solutions and approaches
- Analytical Reasoning: Make sense of data and complexity
- Effective Communication: Influence, inform, and engage across contexts
- Teamwork & Collaboration: Work productively across boundaries
- Inclusive Influence: Build coalitions and bring diverse voices forward
- Resilience & Adaptability: Thrive through uncertainty and change
- Digital Fluency: Leverage technology effectively and responsibly
- Continuous Learning: Evolve capabilities constantly and systematically
These skills are the ones that sit above execution. They are what enable someone to use whatever tools exist, rather than the ability to use a particular tool.
Why are these resilient? Because they’re not about doing specific things. They’re about knowing what to do, evaluating whether it’s been done well, and adapting when circumstances change. Technical execution can be learned for whatever tools emerge. But the judgement layer above execution transfers across every technological shift because it’s fundamentally about navigating uncertainty rather than operating machinery.
The skills that become obsolete are the ones that depend on specific implementations. The skills that persist are the ones that would still matter if you woke up tomorrow and every tool had been replaced with something completely different. Could you still figure out what needs doing, evaluate whether it’s been done well, and help others do the same?
Where do you see the biggest mismatch between what organisations are training for now and what their people will actually need to perform well in two years’ time?
Many organisations are still training people to execute within today’s structures, investing heavily in technical upskilling that’s tied to current roles, systems and processes. But in two years, roles and structures will look different.
Automation will strip away routine tasks and careers will become more fluid, with people moving across projects and functions rather than climbing linear ladders. What will matter most isn’t deep expertise in a single tool or job, but the ability to adapt, problem-solve, and collaborate in unfamiliar contexts.
Organisations that continue to train for static technical proficiency risk creating a workforce that can’t pivot when priorities shift. Those that build foundational human capabilities like judgement, resilience and inclusive influence will be able to redeploy talent internally, retain knowledge and turn disruption into opportunity.
How should leaders distinguish between “skills of the moment” and capabilities worth long-term investment?
The world of work is being reshaped by four major forces – global megatrends like sustainability and human-machine collaboration, economic and workforce shifts, rapid technological evolution, and organisational change toward skills-based structures and hybrid teams. To distinguish short-term skills from long-term capabilities, leaders should ask, “Does this skill help someone navigate across these forces, or is it locked into a single context?” The most valuable investments share qualities – they transfer across roles and industries, stretch into new situations, amplify other skills, remain relevant under pressure, and enable people to move internally rather than be replaced.
Capabilities like systems thinking, judgement, inclusive collaboration, and continuous learning meet these criteria because they help professionals anticipate change, integrate perspectives, and design solutions that work with the system, not against it. These are the capabilities that help people navigate complexity, adapt to change and influence outcomes. They move professionals from reacting to anticipating and from being shaped by change to shaping it. Organisations that prioritise these capabilities won’t just stay competitive; they’ll lead. Because these are the foundations that drive long-term advantage, make continuous adaptation possible and help organisations thrive in constant change. Organisations that choose the right investments won’t just survive the forces around us, but they will shape them.
In your experience, what prevents companies from shifting their training focus from roles to capabilities?
The biggest barrier for organisations moving from role-based to capability-based training is structural, not cultural. Many organisations recognise the value of building workforce capability and even claim progress. Our research shows 55% encourage employees to learn new skills and 54% have integrated skills identification into HR processes. But when you look at what employees experience day-to-day, the picture changes dramatically. Only 38% strongly agree they have clear progression pathways based on capabilities rather than job titles. That gap tells us the challenge isn’t intent, it’s execution.
The incompatibility lies in career architecture. You cannot operate a genuine capability-based system while maintaining title-based career structures. Yet 55% of organisations still tie progression to job titles and functions. This creates friction, even if capabilities are identified and valued, employees can’t move fluidly across the business because pathways are locked to roles rather than transferable capabilities.
Visibility and mobility are also hurdles. While 54% say skills identification is part of HR processes, only 41% strongly agree they use technology to track and analyse capabilities, and just 40% allocate work based on capabilities rather than job titles. Without robust capability data and opportunities to apply those capabilities beyond a current role, development remains theoretical. Hiring decisions reflect the same issue with only 42% strongly agreeing they hire based on capabilities rather than roles.
Leadership buy-in and employee resistance aren’t major barriers. The blockage sits in the middle: translating strategic intent into operational reality. Organisations have read the case for capability-based thinking and announced it internally, but dismantling legacy structures, enabling cross-functional movement, and training managers to lead in this new way is hard work. Until that happens, companies will remain in an uncomfortable middle state, aspiring to be capability-driven but still operating largely within role-based frameworks.
How should businesses measure the return on investment of skills that don’t map neatly to job descriptions?
Skills don’t always translate into immediate role performance, so businesses need to broaden how they measure ROI. Instead of asking “Did this skill improve output in this job?” ask “Did it make the organisation more agile?” Metrics like internal mobility, project speed, innovation contributions, and retention are strong indicators.
For example, employees who develop problem-solving and analytical reasoning skills might reduce time-to-resolution on complex client issues, cutting costs and improving customer satisfaction. Those with creative innovation skills could generate new product ideas or process improvements that drive revenue growth.
Effective communication and inclusive influence skills often show ROI through stronger stakeholder engagement and faster buy-in for change initiatives. Teamwork and collaboration skills can be measured by cross-functional project success rates, while resilience and adaptability skills pay off when teams maintain performance during market disruptions.
Even continuous learning skills demonstrate ROI when employees quickly upskill for emerging technologies, reducing reliance on external hires. Ultimately, investing in skills is about resilience and adaptability, which pay off in reduced hiring costs and faster response to market change.
If you were designing a skills strategy today with 2026 in mind, what would you deliberately not include?
Firstly, aiming for a complete transformation to being a “skills-based organisation”. Instead, use skills thinking where it genuinely solves problems and keeping traditional structures where they work fine. Design for selective adoption, not complete rebuild.
Second, detailed task-to-skill mappings. The utility is limited because the same skill manifests completely differently across roles. Marketing analysts use data analysis for campaign performance; finance analysts use identical capabilities for budget variance analysis. Focus instead on understanding how transferable skills manifest differently across roles and creating mobility pathways based on skill potential rather than exact task experience.
Third, any assumption that you can predict which specific technical skills will matter in 2026. The pace of change means the skills needed are increasingly specialised and emerge faster than training programmes can respond. What you can develop is the meta-capability: technological curiosity, judgement about when AI recommendations are helpful versus nonsense, and the ability to help others navigate new tools. These won’t be obsolete in eighteen months.
Emma O’Dell, Director of Skills and Capability, BPP.
Emma O’Dell is Skills and Capability Director at BPP. She previously worked in the Financial Services and Legal sectors across a range of HR, Early Career, Talent and Learning and Development roles. At BPP she is responsible for helping organisations understand current and future skills needs across their business. With economic challenges changing the landscape of skills requirements, Emma is also passionate about understanding recent trends around talent shortages in the skills market, and advocating for these gaps to be bridged.
