# Sales Team Skills Gap Assessment

> Score your existing team against the core sales competencies to see, with real numbers, whether your next hire should fill a gap or double down on a proven strength.

Free assessment/quiz for sales leaders. Topic: [Hiring, Interviewing & Team Building](https://www.peerlab.ai/library/topic/hiring-interviewing-team-building/). Published by PeerLab in the [Sales Enablement Resource Library](https://www.peerlab.ai/library/). Source: https://www.peerlab.ai/library/sales-team-skills-gap-assessment/

## How to use it

Run this once per quarter using real call/deal evidence rather than memory, rank competencies by Gap Severity rather than raw score, and let that ranked list, not instinct, decide whether your next req should target a weakness or reinforce a strength.

## What's inside

- 9-competency team scoring matrix
- Per-rep and team-average scoring method
- Gap-severity formula weighting distance from target bar by strategic importance
- Fill-a-gap vs double-a-strength decision rule
- Segmentation guidance by tenure, segment and manager
- Fully worked 6-person team example
- Action-planning template tied directly to the results

## Step 1, Score every rep against the same 9 competencies
Use the same competency set as your hiring scorecard so gap analysis and hiring decisions speak the same language:
1. Discovery & Qualification
2. Objection Handling & Negotiation
3. Closing & Deal Control
4. Pipeline & Territory Management
5. Business/Financial Acumen
6. Communication & Executive Presence
7. Coachability
8. Resilience & Grit
9. Culture & Values Fit

Score each rep 1–5 per competency based on the last two quarters of observed calls, deal outcomes, and 1:1s: pull 2–3 recent call recordings per competency if a score feels uncertain, don't rely on memory alone.

## Step 2, Build the team matrix

| Rep | Discovery | Objection | Closing | Pipeline Mgmt | Biz Acumen | Comms | Coachability | Resilience | Culture Fit | Row Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rep 1 | | | | | | | | | | |
| Rep 2 | | | | | | | | | | |
| Rep 3 | | | | | | | | | | |
| Rep 4 | | | | | | | | | | |
| Rep 5 | | | | | | | | | | |
| Rep 6 | | | | | | | | | | |
| **Team Average** | | | | | | | | | | |
| **Target Bar** | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | |

## Step 3, Calculate gap severity per competency

```
Gap Severity = (Target Bar − Team Average) × Strategic Weight
```

Use the same weights as your hiring scorecard (e.g., Discovery = 15%, Coachability = 10%). Rank all 9 competencies by Gap Severity: the highest numbers are your biggest organizational exposure, not simply the lowest raw average. A low-weight competency with a big gap may matter less than a high-weight competency with a small one.

## Step 4, Fill-a-gap vs double-a-strength decision rule
- If your #1 or #2 ranked Gap Severity competency is also flagged as a must-have on your role scorecard → **hire to fill the gap.** Write that competency directly into the next req's must-haves.
- If your team already scores 4.0+ across all 9 competencies and the goal is market/segment expansion → **hire to double a strength**: bring in someone even stronger in your top competency to push into a harder segment, rather than patch a weakness that doesn't materially exist.
- If gaps are concentrated in one or two reps rather than team-wide → **this is a coaching/PIP conversation, not a hiring signal.** Don't let one underperformer's scores masquerade as a structural team gap.

## Step 5: Segment the view
Cut the same matrix by:
- **Tenure:** new hires (<6 months) will naturally score lower on Discovery/Closing: that's a ramp signal, not a hiring signal.
- **Segment:** an Enterprise team scoring low on Business/Financial Acumen is a bigger structural risk than an SMB team scoring the same.
- **Manager:** a systematic gap concentrated under one manager specifically is a coaching-the-coach signal, not a team-wide hiring signal.

## Step 6, Worked example (6-person mid-market team)
Team averages: Discovery 3.8, Objection 2.6, Closing 3.4, Pipeline 3.9, Biz Acumen 3.1, Comms 3.7, Coachability 3.5, Resilience 3.3, Culture 4.0
Target bars: 3.5 across the board except Biz Acumen (3.0)
Weights: 15/15/15/10/10/10/10/10/5

Gap Severity ranking:
1. Objection Handling: (3.5 − 2.6) × 0.15 = **0.135**: highest, and a must-have → next hire's priority
2. Closing: (3.5 − 3.4) × 0.15 = 0.015, negligible
3. Resilience: (3.5 − 3.3) × 0.10 = 0.02: small, monitor

Business Acumen is actually above its lower target bar (3.1 vs 3.0) despite a low raw score, not a priority gap.

**Decision:** next req's must-have competency is Objection Handling & Negotiation, weighted at 15–20% and screened explicitly in Stage 3 of the interview loop.

## Action-planning template
For your #1 ranked gap, fill in:
- Competency: _______________
- Current team average: _______ / Target bar: _______
- Hiring gap, coaching gap, or ramp gap? _______________
- If hiring: added to next req as must-have, weighted at ____%
- If coaching: owner = _______, plan = _______________, review date = _______
- Re-assessment date (recommend quarterly): _______________