Short answer, it's fine and a bit lower than I might have expected from survey data. But probably your business story is more in the mean or the top-2-box percent.
For discrete scales from social science research, in practice the standard deviation is a direct function of the mean. In particular, I have found through empirical analysis of many such studies that the actual standard deviation in surveys on 5-point scales is 60% of the maximum possible variation (alas undocumented here, will look for a link in daylight).
At the simplest level, consider the extremes, imagine that the mean was 5.0. The standard deviation must be zero, as the only way to average 5 is for everyone to answer 5. Conversely, if the mean were 1.0 then the standard error must be 0 as well.
Now in between there's more grey area. Imagine that people could answer either 5.0 or 1.0 but nothing in between. Then the standard deviation is a precise function of the mean:
stdev = sqrt ( (5-mean)*(mean-1))
The maximum standard deviation is sqrt((5-3)(3-1)) = sqrt(2*2)=2.
Now of course people can answer values in between. From metastudies of survey data in our firm, I find that the standard deviation for numeric scales in practice is 40%-60% of the maximum. Specifically
- 40% for 100% point scales,
- 50% for 10-point scales and
- 60% for 5-point scales and
- 100% for binary scales
So for your dataset, I would expect a standard deviation of 60% x 2.0 = 1.2. You got 0.54, which is about half what i would have expected if the results were self-explicated ratings. Are the skills ratings results of more complicated batteries of tests that are averages and thus would have a lower variance?
The real story, though, is probably the ability is so low or so high relative to other tasks. Report the means or top-2-box percentages between skills and focus your analysis on that.