CHAPTER 1
The Underlying Principles of Competency Modeling
This chapter will provide a fundamental understanding of the why, what, and how of competency modeling. Let us start with the observation that all organizations have a very practical need to identify the criteria that define their ideal employee. Any leader who makes decisions about whom to hire, whom to promote, what skills to train, or how to appraise, implicitly assumes this ideal criteria. Defining this model employee—and creating a blueprint to replicate him or her—is an ongoing challenge dating back thousands of years. Indeed, two millennia ago the Chinese bureaucracy identified its ideal member as someone who could pass rigorous tests on the six arts of arithmetic, writing, music, archery, culture, and horsemanship.
Competencies are now the most prevalent method used to define ideal employees and have become a fundamental part of talent management systems across organizations. Talent management has been defined by the Society for Human Resources Management as “the implementation of integrated strategies or systems designed to increase workplace productivity by developing improved processes for attracting, developing, retaining and utilizing people with the required skills and aptitude to meet current and future business needs” (emphasis added). Therefore, having a competency-based system to link these processes is the key to cohesive and effective talent management.
Historical Influences on Current Competency Constructs
Modern concepts of an ideal employee have roots in the assessment center movement, dating back to World War II. For hiring and promotion, assessment centers created behavioral definitions of competence, calling them dimensions or variables and then used simulations to test the readiness of candidates. This methodology, used first at the Office of Strategic Services (OSS, now the CIA) and then at the Bell System (now AT&T), created a better and more predictable way to select spies as well as supervisors.1
Because assessment centers relied on the real-time observance of performance in simulations, evaluators needed to reference very specific behaviors to allow reliable ratings. (For example, Presentation Skills could be broken down into behaviors such as eye contact, gestures, loudness, organization, and inflection). These behavior-based definitions were excellent in providing an efficient and effective method of review and propelled the popularity of this form of evaluation.
Over time, other talent management professionals were interested in more holistic views of the employee and generated specific job requirements based on the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (referred to within the human resources profession as KSAOs) needed to perform well in a particular role. KSAOs could be used to define roles, and in a training context, provide learning objectives that could be framed in terms of knowledge gained or skills acquired (assuming that the individual had the required ability). Career counselors added values and motives to the mix as relevant variables when discussing potential positions and paths.2
The term competency really entered the talent management lexicon in 1973 when noted American psychologist David McClelland wrote the pivotal paper “Testing for Competence Rather than for Intelligence.”3 It was further popularized by McClelland’s colleague, Richard Boyatzis, and others who used the competency concept in the context of performance improvement.
Another influence on the evolution of modern competency modeling was Dr. Malcolm Knowles, and his seminal work in adult education and lifelong learning. Focused on what he called andragogy (i.e., adult learning versus pedagogy: childhood learning) Dr. Knowles referred to competencies as necessary segmentations in describing what was needed to perform in overall complex and cognitive leadership and life roles.4 He noted that in order to facilitate learning it was absolutely necessary to parse broad learning agendas such as teaching leadership into component parts such as Communications Skills or Delegating. In his listing of needed worker competencies, one can see the beginnings of several modern universal competencies such as Organizing and Planning and Relationship Building (see Table 1.1).
Table 1.1 Malcolm Knowles’ original worker competencies
| Worker competencies |
| Career planning |
| Using technical skills |
| Accepting supervision |
| Giving supervision |
| Getting along with people |
| Cooperating |
| Planning |
| Delegating |
| Managing |
While not working directly in the corporate world of selection and development Dr. Knowles distinguished reputation, and his independent and simultaneous use of the term competency provided credibility and acceptance.
A final competency influence came from the worlds of personality and trait research and the paper-and-pencil (now mostly online) testing associated with them. Thousands of individual tests were developed to measure hundreds of various cognitive and social constructs such as intelligence, personality traits, values, attitudes, and beliefs. For example, one of the world’s most popular personality instruments, the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, measures, among other things, an individual’s personality preference for extroverted or introverted behaviors. Another is the Watson–Glaser test, which measures critical thinking and is correlated with general intelligence. This entire body of testing knowledge creates an additional, very comprehensive resource to help explain underlying influences on behavior.
Defining Competencies Today
Despite lingering debate around definitions,5 professionals concur that a competency serves to connect these various influences into a single construct, with the “primary definitional element being a behavioral or performance description.”6 Thus an individual competency describes a specific set of behaviors or performance indicators associated with a facet of exceptional performance in an organizational role. Each competency reflects a unique combination of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other factors that are driven and influenced by multiple traits and motivations, ultimately manifesting themselves in skillful behavior. A competency model refers to a complete set, or collection, of different competencies that are applicable to a single organization, or more generically, to every organization. Ultimately, competence is manifested in explicit behaviors (what you do and how you show up) and performance (decisions, actions, and results); while intent and potential are part of the much more complex, and largely unseen, world of values, traits, and motivations (the O in KSAOs).
Active Listening is an example of a competency associated with many models. The definition includes behaviors such as eye contact, head nodding, verbal affirmations, smiles, and accurate paraphrasing or summarizing. How one is judged in this competency depends on knowing how to listen and also having the motivation to listen. (Do I value other people’s opinions? Am I curious about their experiences and feelings?) And while active listening may be a globally applicable concept, the types of behavior that illustrate effective performance have a cultural context that must be factored into local behavioral definitions. For example, in some cultures listening is important, but looking directly at those in positions of higher authority is considered disrespectful. Figure 1.1 illustrates the visible and hidden elements in Active Listening.
Figure 1.1 A simple representation of the concept of a competency
Comprehensive competency models offer an integrating framework that provides an essential foundation for key human resources processes, offering a complete menu of dimensions that can be sorted for individual organizational roles and levels. Figure 1.2 shows one commercially available competency model that includes 41 competencies distributed into seven clusters.7 This model presents a complete set of competencies that can be sorted by function and level in an organization.
Figure 1.2 Universal competency model
Source: Based on the Polaris Competency Model® 2014 Organization Systems International
Figure 1.3 is an example of a detailed definition of the Active Listening competency within the Communications cluster.
Figure 1.3 Competency detail (Active Listening)
Issues to Consider When Developing Competency Models
Several issues need to be addressed to fully understand, and more importantly apply, any given competency model:
1.The need for reliable and valid models and measurements
2.The necessary complexity and need for context of any given model
3.The decision to define competencies in terms of behaviors or motives and traits
4.The number of competencies that should be included in a model
5.The equality or relative weight of any given competency.
The Need for Reliable and Valid Competency Models and Measurements
When developing criteria (and any accompanying test or measurement of that criteria) it is essential to insure that accepted thresholds of both reliability and validity are met. This is especially important because models, and associated measurements, are typically used to select, appraise, and promote individuals and must be legally defensible. But even more importantly, measures of reliability and validity define how efficient and effective a measure is, and ultimately whether any investment in models and measurements is worthwhile.
Reliability means that a test or measure produces consistent individual results over time and from person to person. Validity means that a test accurately measures what it purports to measure—that is, it can be used to predict behavior. It follows that validity will be problematic for any measure that is not first reliable.
A simple example illustrates, and differentiates, these important concepts. A tape measure is a reliable measure of a person’s height, providing consistent, repeatable data. Height can be a predictor of success in professional basketball (the average professional male basketball player is 6 ft 7 in tall, while the average American male is 5 ft 10 in). So a tape measure provides a reliable measure of height, which is a valid predictor of success (just one of many in this case). Many personality inventories that measure more abstract dimensions such as extroversion (being expressive and action-oriented) may seem valid for certain organizational roles, such as a salesperson. However, reliability research has shown that many of these instruments are inconsistent from one administration to the next. Individual results may change from day to day or be manipulated by the test taker because the test is transparent, and they are driven to provide more socially desirable answers. This lack of reliability can invalidate much of the instrument’s predictive power. Consequently, criteria (that is, a competency model) must be able to be both reliably measured and relevant (valid) to be useful in application.
Complexity and the Need for Context
Competency models are inherently complex because they reflect multi-faceted human behavior at work. While individual competencies attempt to isolate distinct performance factors, in practice they overlap and interact. This creates a level of ambiguity that must be expected and accepted. Individual competencies do not stand-alone; they necessarily dissect roles into smaller parts to gain a more useful understanding of what it takes to perform successfully.
When first presented with a competency model, users may resist being defined and sorted into different boxes—they believe they represent more than just a sum of several dozen competencies (and they do!). Therefore, it is essential when using an entire competency model, to look at not just the parts, but also the whole, and the context for the whole. But, just as you cannot write a sentence without individual words (and the meaning of the sentence is more than just a jumble of the words), relevant competencies for any particular role need to be seen as a whole, synergistic with one another. For complete meaning, the competency set has to be put in the contexts of both the role and the general situation surrounding the role.
The concept of a job model is replacing the job description as the most important context for defining and using a subset of competencies. A job model places competencies in this context by combining needed competence with two other job components (objectives, standards, and responsibilities) for a more complete understanding of a particular role.
As illustrated in Figure 1.4, needed role clarity for any job is achieved when:
•Responsibilities are clear (including indicators of success and expected outcomes for each accountability);
•Objectives have been set, or clear standards have been communicated; and
•The subset of competencies needed to meet responsibilities and accomplish objectives is identified.
While organizations will have different formats for describing positions, it is important to place any competency model within this more complete representation of a job to help clarify, limit, and correctly apply relevant competencies.
Having a complete set of competencies (such as those listed in Figure 1.2) as an organizing structure can also help differentiate job analysis, job evaluation, and competency modeling. Job analysis focuses on the task, or the individual, to produce activity expectations or KSAOs for a particular job (or family of jobs) and often produces a classic position description with required knowledge and skills listings. Job evaluation is used to value a role for compensation purposes and takes into consideration factors such as scope (span of control), signature authority (budget responsibility), decision-making authority, and autonomy. External comparisons are often used to put the job in a salary range. Competency models go beyond individual jobs and provide a universal menu for all the roles in an enterprise.
In the article “Doing Competencies Well: Best Practices in Competency Modeling,” Michael Campion and colleagues pay particular attention to differences between job analysis, evaluation, and competency modeling. They note a key difference: Competency models tend to be top-down, driven by organizational development, while job analysis and evaluation are bottom-up and more isolated from organizational strategy and goals.8 Many practitioners have noticed that competency modeling projects are truly organizational development efforts, because they provide a top-down intervention that helps define the leadership behaviors desired; that is, they can help define the culture of the organization.
Defining Competencies in Terms of Behaviors or Motives
As previously mentioned, definitions of competencies can be ambiguous at times. Historically, some practitioners, such as assessment center advocates, prefer using behavioral descriptions while others, such as coaches or career counselors, favor traits or personality factors. In actual practice today, behaviors are preferred as they are more easily observed and measured, whereas traits and motives are myriad and hidden, and therefore more difficult to measure. Academic and research settings have also seemed to favor traits or personality dimensions for defining competence. Once again, most modern competency definitions have resolved this argument by including both behavior and the other factors such as personality and motivation.
Current science suggests that primary definitions are behavioral, but that other factors are included to allow a richer definition depending on context. In context, behavioral definitions can be most useful in predicting future performance (selection and placement), but underlying knowledge, skill, and other factors play a key role in developing competence. For example, the competency Presentation Skills (public speaking) provides a clear illustration of how motivation, knowledge, and skill interact to define competent performance. A young sales professional might receive the feedback that he or she needs to improve sales presentations to potential customers: You seem nervous and become too wordy. You’re very mechanical in delivery and the lack of enthusiasm diminishes your credibility. With this feedback, the sales professional becomes motivated to learn the competence (a job requirement) and can gain knowledge regarding public speaking (read a good book on giving presentations), but ultimately he must practice the skill to perform and behave at a higher level (can join Toastmasters to practice, practice, and practice). The demonstrated skill becomes the true, practical, definition of competence. Along the way he or she might explore how other factors influence competence, for example, how personality helps and hinders. Being an introvert may result in reduced motivation to be on stage and that understanding can help reveal and reduce potential obstacles to skill acquisition.
This is also a good example of how in training, development, and career planning, the hidden variables (motives, values, attitude, beliefs, and personality) are important influencers of competence, representing the preferences, intent, or potential of an individual. So once again it is most useful to think of competence as skillful behavior that can be improved through knowledge acquisition or skill practice, and that can be influenced, energized, and kindled by appropriate motivations.
The Number of Competencies That Should Be Included in a Model
How many competencies are needed in a complete model? A restrictive approach will lead to fewer competencies, but requires that each competency cover a much broader range of behaviors and KSAOs. This makes it easier to explain and promote the competency model but harder, if not impossible, to use. A model with more competencies means that each competency is a more specific cluster of behaviors. This results in a more complex model, but more accurately differentiates actual performance.
For example, a broader competency model that includes just a single, overall Communications Skills competency will be simpler as a representation, but will inevitably lead to confusion in evaluating the competency or providing individual feedback. An individual can have weak Presentation Skills but excel in Written Communications. If there was only one overall Communications competency how could one accurately rate this individual? Neither a high, low, or average score would accurately represent the individual’s ability. A more useful alternative is to divide the competency into more specific categories such as Presentation Skills, Informal (verbal) Communications, Written Skills, and Listening Skills. These differentiated competencies allow for more reliable evaluation, productive feedback, and developmental planning. As described earlier, the rich history of assessment center evaluation provides plentiful proof of the need for this differentiation to produce acceptable consistency among raters.9 In examining the commercial models available today, it appears that about three dozen independent competencies are required for a complete organizational menu.
The Equality or Relative Weight of Any Given Competency
Not all competencies are created equal. A shortfall in the competency Integrity may override exceptional competence across all other dimensions. Additionally, an organization’s vision, mission, and values (key marketplace differentiators) will help determine, which competencies are most important to that organization. For example an organization differentiating itself with world-class customer service may require Active Listening and Customer Orientation as key competencies for every customer-facing role. Likewise matrix organizations may require much more competence in areas such as Initiative, Assertiveness or Confidence, and Influence to overcome a lack of formal authority.
To be successful in building and implementing a competency model, all the above considerations should be taken into account—and they also argue for rigorous orientation and training when first introducing the model.
How to Build and Customize a Competency Model
Various methods of job analysis and competency modeling have been developed over the years to inform competency definition and selection. The approaches listed below have been used individually or in concert with others to build and validate models in real organizational settings. The most rigorous approaches combine techniques to produce robust models.
High-Performer Interviews and Focus Groups
Interviews and focus groups with high performers are the centerpiece of most modeling processes. Interviews are conducted with exemplar individuals to identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities they possess that set them apart. High performers are classically identified as those individuals with a history of generating both results and respect. They are also likeable (a shorthand for emotional intelligence) and passionate about their work. A significant portion of the high-performer interview is dedicated to soliciting examples (or stories) of effective and ineffective performance, which are later used to provide real life illustrations of the competencies in use. For example, the following condensed story was provided by a high-performing company executive as an example of a personal best:
I inherited a group of factories that were being milked for profit but needed dramatic investment. They were dirty and disorganized. I took pictures and a compelling financial case to corporate HQ and convinced the board we needed the investment. (It helped that I had blown up the pictures of these rust belt factories and posted them around the boardroom). I convinced them. After getting the needed resources I took the current management teams of the factories on a field trip to a sister division in Europe. This group of factories was clean and efficient. I meant this to be a trip to the future! It worked. We now run a model, profitable group of factories.
This type of anecdote is analyzed for the competencies it represents. In this case, on display are the proficiencies Financial Acumen, Visioning, Problem Solving, Diplomacy, Influence, and Presentation Skills.
Internal Document and Literature Review
Competency researchers often conduct an internal organizational review to identify existing resources that point to performance measures or benchmarks. For example, job descriptions, recruiting material, performance appraisal documents, and learning objectives can all provide inferences of competence. A variety of commercial organizations also provide examples of specific job competencies to purchase and use as a starting point.10
Competency Validation
Once a prototype competency list has been developed, it can be converted into a questionnaire and given to a representative sample of job content experts (that is, supervisors of the target role). Respondents are asked to rate how essential each competency is to successful performance from not necessary to absolutely essential. The results are statistically analyzed to validate each competency. This strategy, called content validation, is an accepted industry practice for defending the validity of a specific competency model.11 Of course, studies that track the effectiveness of using competencies to predict future success provide the gold standard for legitimacy. These longitudinal studies test the validity of the model in actual organizational application. For example, assessment center ratings across relevant competencies are correlated with on-the-job measures of effectiveness such as performance appraisal ratings or actual business results. These scientific studies have proven the economic value of models and their measurements.12
Strategic Fit and Presentation
Because the modeling process typically looks backward in time (that is, draws from historical examples) there is some danger in the tail wagging the dog. This means the proposed competency model should be tested against the organization’s future strategy and vision to ensure the competencies drive behavior toward a preferred future. This process can be more art than science, and a seasoned practitioner can provide insight to detect missing or incomplete competencies, with an eye to the future. Often such competencies are listed as aspirational and acquiring them becomes an overall organizational development effort.
Once completed, competency models can be presented to the organization as dictionaries, card decks, and one-page summaries (quick guides). Interestingly enough, even in this digital age, physical card decks have proven popular among the commercially available models as a preferred way of presenting the information. Each card is a separate competency and the decks can be sorted by individuals or teams to inform talent management applications.
Universal Competencies
While most competency models contain several dozen individual competencies, research has consistently surfaced a subset of competencies common to most well-respected models. One particularly robust report by W. Arthur and others analyzed a total of 34 articles that reported dimension (competency) level information and was able to collapse 168 assessment center dimension labels into an overriding set of six dimensions common to most effective leaders:13
1.Sensitivity: consideration and awareness of others
2.Communication skills
3.Drive
4.Influencing others
5.Organizing and planning
6.Problem solving
In addition to validation through solid research, these competencies also pass muster intuitively. Take a moment to personally identify an exceptional manager, or coworker, and then isolate the attributes that makes him or her more effective. You will likely identify an empathetic (Sensitivity), motivated (Drive and Energy), efficient (Organizing and Planning), and powerful (Influence) person who exercises good judgment (Problem Solving and Decision Making) and expresses herself well (Communications Skills). (See Chapter 4 regarding the Big Six.)
Competencies Across the Talent Pipeline
A complete organizational competency model includes all the competencies necessary to differentiate roles across the organization, from individual contributors adding value primarily through functional and technical competence, to general managers and company presidents who are exceptional because of their leadership competence. These universal models necessarily contain certain competencies that are only valid for particular levels in the talent pipeline. For example, a competency such as Delegation is not usually applicable unless the individual has someone to delegate to, that is, a direct report.
On the other hand, some competencies, such as Informal Communications Skills, may apply across all levels of a talent pipeline, although they may require increasing levels of proficiency as higher levels of responsibility are attained.
Figure 1.5 shows a generic representation of how a four-level talent pipeline interacts with and uses their competency model. It is useful to create custom versions of this for specific organizations, incorporating their language and specific characteristics.
Figure 1.5 Talent pipeline
Some competencies are likely to be less essential as the employee moves higher in the talent pipeline. An example is Special Expertise, a functional or technical competence such as those found in software development, the law, accounting, or engineering. Others such as Learning Agility will likely retain their importance across all levels. And some, such as Communications Skills, can become more important as you climb the talent ladder. Of course, this is a general guideline—some positions, such as a key account sales representative or chief scientist, may require special competency combinations not necessarily correlated to their level on the talent ladder.
From the largest Fortune 500 conglomerates to the smallest business, the concepts of competency modeling provide a better way to define a job, hire the right people, evaluate them, and provide a clear path to develop their talents—all the while ensuring that there is a strategic fit with the goals and values of the organization.
A well-researched, well-presented, and validated competency model provides a common talent language across an organization. Competency models are a key to optimizing talent systems, and without this common language organizations risk making talent management processes inefficient and ineffective.
Questions for Reflection
1.How do competency models help integrate talent management systems?
2.How is competency best defined?
3.What are some of the challenges inherent in building, understanding, and applying competency models?
4.How can the competency modeling process be leveraged as an organizational development effort?
5.How can you prove a competency model is useful?
6.How do competencies interact with talent pipelines?