We’ve been preparing competency models for our clients for over 17 years. As you recall, we define competency as skills, knowledge and abilities applied for a specific outcome. Only when we understand what the real outcomes of performance are can we build complete models that really help people perform their best.
Lately, we have been asked to align our competency models to various web based systems, generally covering 2 to 3 different levels of jobs within the same family. Often these models will be used in combination with a more global statement of competency that is based on the company’s value or vision statement. I am still unsure whether this is a good approach or not. But of course, we do as our customers ask and endeavor to establish clear expectations for performance within the broader context of a group of jobs.
Most of these broader models use a common group of dimensions and define those dimenions using various levels, such as Learning, Applying, Leading and Expert. The object here is to define the skill, knowledge of ability in behavioral terms and to discriminate between the 4 levels using appropriate examples. Here is one I am working on today:
Financial Acumen:
- Learning – Understands and can accurately interpret financial statements, such as income and expense, balance sheets, profit and loss, accounts payable and receivable, to assess the state of business.
- Applying – Uses financial statements to identify trends and to allocate resources to maximize profitabilty and enhance growth.
- Leading – Can fluently discuss financial results, based on the analysis of reports and tools, in order to identify opportunities for increased profitability and evaluate performance of the business.
- Expert – Serves as a source of reference in the use and interpretation of financial data and analysis for others. Uses financial tools to develop and manage a profitable business, which maximizes the return on investment of resources.
As you can see, there are differences between the levels and the primary advantage of such a model is that when the organization restructures, we don’t have to redo all themodels. We simply edit the content, then create a new job map to establish the standards for each new role. The job map shows what level of competency a particular job will use for each of the dimensions.
While this model does not include as much content as I am used to writing for a model, I will say that it challenges you to make sure that you write succintly and that you cover the key points. The thing the writer must avoid, however, is the inclusion of examples. While users like those, they can cause a model to get out of date very quickly. Examples might be better handled elsewhere, such as in performance rating guidelines or behaviorally anchored rating scales.
I suppose as we do some more analysis of the data to see what the actual correlation of demonstrating competency versus performance results, we will be able to see if the old way works better, or whether there really is no difference using this approach. I’ll keep you posted.
Filed under: Competencies, Organizational Development, Talent Management | Tagged: competency systems, correlation of competency to results, Keeping High Performers
