Marketing Skills Matrix: Template with Levels and Examples

A marketing skills matrix is a table that sets competencies (rows) against career levels (columns) and describes the observable behavior at each intersection. It becomes usable when every level is tied to examples and every rating comes with evidence. Below you get a ready-made matrix with 8 competencies for Coordinator, Specialist, Manager and Director, a 0 to 4 rating scale, target levels per role, a 6-step setup guide and a worked example.

The short version

• Structure: 8 competencies, 4 roles, scale 0 to 4. CMO Alliance recommends 8 to 12 skills for a marketing team, so this matrix stays at the lower end.
• Behavior anchors, not adjectives: "runs campaigns independently" can be observed, "great at campaigns" cannot.
• Two numbers per cell: the person's current level and the role's target level. The difference is the development gap.
• Evidence required: a level counts only if a project, campaign or result backs it.
• Rhythm: quarterly or twice a year, always with team calibration.

The matrix: 8 competencies, 4 levels, behavior anchors

The levels describe what someone regularly shows at that stage, not what the job title promises. A specialist can work at Director level in their core field and at Coordinator level elsewhere. The matrix is meant to make exactly that visible.

Functional competencies

Impact, numbers and leadership

The choice of competencies follows the EU occupation profile for "marketing manager" in ESCO (retrieved 18 October 2026: 28 essential and 132 optional skills). We grouped the essential skills, such as plan marketing strategy, define measurable marketing objectives, plan marketing campaign, track key performance indicators and create annual marketing budget, into eight rows. The grouping and the behavior anchors are our own work, not an official standard.

Rating scale: 0 to 4, with evidence

A short scale is easier to calibrate than a long one. We use 0 to 4, the same range CMO Alliance uses for marketing teams. The labels in the last column borrow from the five competency levels of the Chartered Institute of Marketing (Aware, Knowledgeable, Capable, Skilled, Expert). The mapping is our own.

The value describes what was observed, not potential and not the title. Anchoring rating levels to concrete behavior goes back to "Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales" (Smith & Kendall, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1963). It helps against leniency and likability bias but does not remove them. Practical templates are in our article on behaviorally anchored rating scales.

Target profile per role: which level is expected?

The matrix only starts to work once each role has a target value per competency. The values below are a starting proposal you adapt to your team. Assumption: a B2B marketing team of 4 to 12 people.

Two reading notes. First, specialists should reach 4 in their core field (for example SEO or paid); the table shows the default for all other rows. Second, the target for campaign execution drops at Director level because the role shifts from doing to deciding. That is intentional, and the reason a matrix without role targets makes leaders look unfairly weak.

Build your own matrix in 6 steps

1. Pick competencies. Start with the 8 rows above and remove or add what differs for you (events, marketing operations, partnerships). CMO Alliance recommends 8 to 12.
2. Fix the roles. Use the levels that actually exist in your company. Four columns are enough for most teams.
3. Write anchors. One sentence per cell in the pattern "who does what, and how you can tell". Have two people read each sentence: would both put the same person on the same level?
4. Set target values. Enter the expected value per role (table above) and agree it with leadership.
5. Assess. Each person rates themselves, the manager rates independently, peers are optional. Every value gets evidence in an "evidence" column.
6. Calibrate and act. Compare in the team whether the same evidence leads to the same value. Then calculate gaps and assign an action per gap: training, mentoring, project, hire. Repeat quarterly or twice a year.

In Excel or Google Sheets one formula per row gives the gap: =MAX(0,Target-Actual). How many people in the team reach the target is shown by =COUNTIF(range,">=3"). Where only one person holds a 3, you depend on a single person.

Worked example: a team of four

Assumptions (chosen freely, for illustration): the team is Mia (Coordinator), Jonas (Specialist SEO), Lena (Specialist paid) and Sara (Manager). We look at the competencies analytics and budget.

What follows: Lena has an analytics gap of 1 in paid although she is above target on budget. That is the combination in which budget is spent without clean measurement, so she gets a concrete project (set up attribution for two campaigns) instead of a generic course. Jonas needs only basic budget knowledge, one session with Sara is enough. Sara has a budget gap herself and is developed through a budget review with leadership rather than a course. At team level, three of four people reach their analytics target, but only Mia and Lena reach their budget target. Nobody in the team reaches the 3 that the manager role requires on budget.

Where the competencies come from: public frameworks

You do not need to invent the matrix. Three public frameworks help with orientation, each with a different strength:

Skills age quickly. The World Economic Forum expects in its Future of Jobs Report 2025 (January 2025) that nearly 40% of the skills required on the job will change by 2030. Schedule a regular review of the rows themselves, not only of the ratings.

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

• Too many rows. With 25 competencies nobody can calibrate the matrix cleanly. Stay at 8 to 12.
• Adjectives instead of behavior. "Strong communicator" cannot be calibrated. Describe what you can see.
• One yardstick for all roles. Without targets the Director looks weak in execution and the Coordinator weak in strategy. Both are wrong.
• Vanity metrics as evidence. Reach and followers say little about skill. Ask for outcome and the person's own contribution.
• Channel silos. Rating only channel skills overlooks collaboration and influence, which is why both are rows of their own.
• Misusing the matrix as a verdict. The matrix should steer development. If it feeds straight into pay decisions, people inflate self-ratings. Separate the development conversation from the pay decision in time.
• Rate once and file away. Without repetition the matrix is outdated within half a year.

Template and tools

The tables above copy straight into Excel or Google Sheets: one sheet per role for anchors and targets, one sheet for ratings with the columns person, competency, actual, target, gap, evidence, action. More templates and process descriptions are in our articles on the competency framework template, the customer success skills matrix and the engineering skills matrix, which use the same logic for other functions.

A spreadsheet is enough as long as one team maintains it actively. Across several teams, upkeep becomes the bottleneck. Then a system that keeps skills, self, manager and peer assessments and development plans in one place pays off, as Sprad covers in talent management. How to set up such a process is described in the skill management guide.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

What is a marketing skills matrix?

A table that sets marketing competencies against roles and levels and describes the expected behavior per cell. It shows who can do what, which role needs which level and where development gaps are.

Which competencies belong in a marketing skills matrix?

At least strategy and planning, campaign execution, market and customer insight, content and brand, analytics and KPIs, budget, collaboration and leadership. Add events, marketing operations or partnerships as needed. The skill list of the ESCO classification gives orientation.

How do Coordinator, Manager and Director differ?

The Coordinator executes from a brief, the Manager plans, prioritizes and leads people, the Director owns strategy, budget and influence on business decisions. The difference becomes measurable in the behavior anchors of the matrix above.

Which scale works best?

A 0 to 4 scale with one piece of evidence per value. It is short enough to calibrate in a team and fine enough to show development.

How often should we assess?

Quarterly in dynamic teams, twice a year in stable ones. Also check once a year whether the competency rows still fit the work, for example because of new channels or AI tools.

Can I use a ready-made Excel template?

Yes. Copy the tables from this article and add the formula =MAX(0,Target-Actual) for the gap. Further templates are linked above under "Template and tools".

Should the matrix drive pay and promotion?

As a basis for promotion conversations, yes, because it makes criteria transparent. Do not tie it automatically to pay bands, though. The more money hangs on a single value, the more self-ratings get inflated.