 |
 |
 |
 |
ManagerZine Archive Favorite
6. What Is A Competency Study? Really.
In the early-1970s, McBer and Company, a consulting firm, was approached
by the US Department of State. It wanted to find a method to predict which
Foreign Service Officer candidates would be most successful on the job. Of
course, the State Department had been using a venerable exam that tested
knowledge of liberal arts and culture such as American History and Western
Civilization. It found, however, that the scores on these exams were actually
negatively correlated with ratings of on-the-job performance. In short, their
system was broken, and they needed a new way to select recruits.
McBer developed an approach that, in retrospect, was both elegant and
obvious. The gist of their methodology was to ask high performers what they
did in their work and compare those results to what average performers said
and did.
The result was a fresh and new view of performance in action. It turns out that
the best Foreign Service officers were excellent listeners, great networkers and
persistent optimists. These so-called “soft skills” made the difference, all other
things being equal. Knowledge of history and civilization were, if anything,
extra embellishments but not really the core of the job.
THE BASIC IDEA
McBer’s methodology was based on several relatively simple concepts. First,
define what excellent performance is. This criterion usually has something to
do with achieving quantitative targets—sales, safety goals, incremental
improvement, and the like. Then, create two samples: people who consistently
over-achieve those targets—whether it was safe landings on aircraft carriers, on-
time delivery, or successful new products—and people who are average. For
each group, observe how they work, ask them what they would do in different
kinds of situations and compare the conclusions. The result will be a
hypothesis that can be tested with another group of over-achievers and
average performers.
The final competency model can be used for selecting and recruiting—using
similar behavioral incident questions asked in the research—training for the
job, professional development, and the appraisal of HR systems designed to
manage performance.
VARIATIONS GOOD AND BAD
Like everything else, when it works, it is great; when it doesn’t, it breeds
confusion. To a large extent, confusion has landed in the world of
competency studies. For the most part, this comes from the notion that
listening to an idea—in this case the competency study methodology—is the
same thing as understanding it. We believe that many performance
professionals who conduct competency studies in organizations have a
shallow understanding or a complete misunderstanding of what it is and how to
do it.
For example, what passes for a competency study in some organizations is
actually a job task analysis. In that methodology, all the different things a
performer has to do in the job—the content of the job—are defined. To turn
this into a competency study, someone—whether a focus group of performers
or managers—highlights the tasks required for success. This is a combination
between a wish list and a shopping spree. There is no necessary empirical
correlation between the items being selected and their contribution to
success. While useful for other purposes, a list of tasks, even important ones,
does not constitute a description of what high performers do.
Similarly, some organizations opt for what has been called the “wise person”
approach. Let’s say a new job category is opening up because of a strategic
change in a business. Managers are going to have to run larger divisions with
more direct reports. So, what makes for success in that future state? The “wise
person” approach has been to ask an expert panel of usually higher-level
executives to identify what a manager in that position has to be good at. The
results paint a picture of the kinds of expectations executives have for the new
job, and it is a useful framework for educating and recruiting candidates.
However, unless the executives are extremely perceptive, this is not a
description of competencies.
Even less effective, “wise people” panels assemble descriptive words like
“integrity”, “courageous”, or “determined” to what they believe is a model of the
ideal performer. Again, the picture that emerges is a desired expectation, not
a guiding set of competencies. It may be useful at some level, perhaps to
clarify what is needed, but not as a selection or training tool.
AT THE HEART OF COMPETENCIES
A competency study involves empirically defining performance in different
situations, comparing different responses, creating and testing a hypothesis.
Organizations can implement in many different ways from simple to complex,
but the basic idea is to study behavior. Without some degree of scientific
method, a competency study isn’t really a study.
Remember, competencies are just that: personal behaviors and attributes that
define success. “Listens with empathy” is a competency; “Interviews clients” is a
behavior. “Knows how to get things done in the organization” is a competency;
“Troubleshoots problems” is a behavior. A competency is a higher level of
behavior, and it implies an attitude. Someone who “Listens with empathy” is
excellent at picking up subtle signs and nuances when talking with someone
and views that extra bit of communications detection as the key to
understanding. People who are not competent don’t necessarily view the
message in as many dimensions.
Competencies are not mechanical; they imply a deeper understanding of what
is required. “Sits down regularly with direct reports to discuss performance” is
much more than a process of sitting and talking. It reflects an understanding of
how that performance discussion contributes to improvement.
Competencies are also more than one-time performances; they are regular
parts of a person’s repertoire. People who are competent at listening with
empathy always listen with empathy. The competency is a part of how they
operate. The competency represents some manifestation, to some degree, of
who these people are.
Which raises the obvious question: If competencies are a habitual part of
someone’s repertoire, can we train people who don’t demonstrate those
competencies? The answer is definitely yes. People can learn competencies
just like they learn other behaviors they value. The kind of training and
development required goes beyond skill training and into the realm of attitude
change. The trainers or coach’s strategy has to be two-fold: develop the skill
and demonstrate its value. An effective competency-building program is
definitely not a one-shot event. In fact, the development of competencies is a
continuing series of interactions between the learner and a coach or instructor.
One of the most useful applications of competency modeling is when an
organization changes. Whether caused by a merger or shift in strategy, the
organization will require new performances from all employees. The model
represents the competencies individuals need to demonstrate as a collective
team. With greater numbers of people in a company to learn a competency
model, change agents have more options to employ. Critical mass training
programs for every employee, manager meetings that reinforce competencies,
knowledge management systems, company communications slogans and
executive presentations are all vehicles for the new competency model. Is it
easy? No way. A competency model can, in fact, become the heart of a
company strategy. With persistence, organizations can learn to become more
competent.
So, if you are a consumer or even an observer of competency models, beware.
If you see lists of skills, be skeptical. If you see lists of adjectives, be doubtful. If
a “team” developed the model in a two-hour meeting, be suspicious. A true
competency model doesn’t have to be lengthy statistical project with a cast of
thousands, but it does have to have some degree of scientific integrity.
© 2006 Singularity Group
6. What Is A Competency Study? Really.
In the early-1970s, McBer and Company, a consulting firm, was approached
by the US Department of State. It wanted to find a method to predict which
Foreign Service Officer candidates would be most successful on the job. Of
course, the State Department had been using a venerable exam that tested
knowledge of liberal arts and culture such as American History and Western
Civilization. It found, however, that the scores on these exams were actually
negatively correlated with ratings of on-the-job performance. In short, their
system was broken, and they needed a new way to select recruits.
McBer developed an approach that, in retrospect, was both elegant and
obvious. The gist of their methodology was to ask high performers what they
did in their work and compare those results to what average performers said
and did.
The result was a fresh and new view of performance in action. It turns out that
the best Foreign Service officers were excellent listeners, great networkers and
persistent optimists. These so-called “soft skills” made the difference, all other
things being equal. Knowledge of history and civilization were, if anything,
extra embellishments but not really the core of the job.
THE BASIC IDEA
McBer’s methodology was based on several relatively simple concepts. First,
define what excellent performance is. This criterion usually has something to
do with achieving quantitative targets—sales, safety goals, incremental
improvement, and the like. Then, create two samples: people who consistently
over-achieve those targets—whether it was safe landings on aircraft carriers, on-
time delivery, or successful new products—and people who are average. For
each group, observe how they work, ask them what they would do in different
kinds of situations and compare the conclusions. The result will be a
hypothesis that can be tested with another group of over-achievers and
average performers.
The final competency model can be used for selecting and recruiting—using
similar behavioral incident questions asked in the research—training for the
job, professional development, and the appraisal of HR systems designed to
manage performance.
VARIATIONS GOOD AND BAD
Like everything else, when it works, it is great; when it doesn’t, it breeds
confusion. To a large extent, confusion has landed in the world of
competency studies. For the most part, this comes from the notion that
listening to an idea—in this case the competency study methodology—is the
same thing as understanding it. We believe that many performance
professionals who conduct competency studies in organizations have a
shallow understanding or a complete misunderstanding of what it is and how to
do it.
For example, what passes for a competency study in some organizations is
actually a job task analysis. In that methodology, all the different things a
performer has to do in the job—the content of the job—are defined. To turn
this into a competency study, someone—whether a focus group of performers
or managers—highlights the tasks required for success. This is a combination
between a wish list and a shopping spree. There is no necessary empirical
correlation between the items being selected and their contribution to
success. While useful for other purposes, a list of tasks, even important ones,
does not constitute a description of what high performers do.
Similarly, some organizations opt for what has been called the “wise person”
approach. Let’s say a new job category is opening up because of a strategic
change in a business. Managers are going to have to run larger divisions with
more direct reports. So, what makes for success in that future state? The “wise
person” approach has been to ask an expert panel of usually higher-level
executives to identify what a manager in that position has to be good at. The
results paint a picture of the kinds of expectations executives have for the new
job, and it is a useful framework for educating and recruiting candidates.
However, unless the executives are extremely perceptive, this is not a
description of competencies.
Even less effective, “wise people” panels assemble descriptive words like
“integrity”, “courageous”, or “determined” to what they believe is a model of the
ideal performer. Again, the picture that emerges is a desired expectation, not
a guiding set of competencies. It may be useful at some level, perhaps to
clarify what is needed, but not as a selection or training tool.
AT THE HEART OF COMPETENCIES
A competency study involves empirically defining performance in different
situations, comparing different responses, creating and testing a hypothesis.
Organizations can implement in many different ways from simple to complex,
but the basic idea is to study behavior. Without some degree of scientific
method, a competency study isn’t really a study.
Remember, competencies are just that: personal behaviors and attributes that
define success. “Listens with empathy” is a competency; “Interviews clients” is a
behavior. “Knows how to get things done in the organization” is a competency;
“Troubleshoots problems” is a behavior. A competency is a higher level of
behavior, and it implies an attitude. Someone who “Listens with empathy” is
excellent at picking up subtle signs and nuances when talking with someone
and views that extra bit of communications detection as the key to
understanding. People who are not competent don’t necessarily view the
message in as many dimensions.
Competencies are not mechanical; they imply a deeper understanding of what
is required. “Sits down regularly with direct reports to discuss performance” is
much more than a process of sitting and talking. It reflects an understanding of
how that performance discussion contributes to improvement.
Competencies are also more than one-time performances; they are regular
parts of a person’s repertoire. People who are competent at listening with
empathy always listen with empathy. The competency is a part of how they
operate. The competency represents some manifestation, to some degree, of
who these people are.
Which raises the obvious question: If competencies are a habitual part of
someone’s repertoire, can we train people who don’t demonstrate those
competencies? The answer is definitely yes. People can learn competencies
just like they learn other behaviors they value. The kind of training and
development required goes beyond skill training and into the realm of attitude
change. The trainers or coach’s strategy has to be two-fold: develop the skill
and demonstrate its value. An effective competency-building program is
definitely not a one-shot event. In fact, the development of competencies is a
continuing series of interactions between the learner and a coach or instructor.
One of the most useful applications of competency modeling is when an
organization changes. Whether caused by a merger or shift in strategy, the
organization will require new performances from all employees. The model
represents the competencies individuals need to demonstrate as a collective
team. With greater numbers of people in a company to learn a competency
model, change agents have more options to employ. Critical mass training
programs for every employee, manager meetings that reinforce competencies,
knowledge management systems, company communications slogans and
executive presentations are all vehicles for the new competency model. Is it
easy? No way. A competency model can, in fact, become the heart of a
company strategy. With persistence, organizations can learn to become more
competent.
So, if you are a consumer or even an observer of competency models, beware.
If you see lists of skills, be skeptical. If you see lists of adjectives, be doubtful. If
a “team” developed the model in a two-hour meeting, be suspicious. A true
competency model doesn’t have to be lengthy statistical project with a cast of
thousands, but it does have to have some degree of scientific integrity.
© 2006 Singularity Group
Visit Singularitygroup.com
Click Board! After Action Review Source The After Action Review is a extremely highly effective technique that helps teams and organizations learn how to achieve excellence. This .pdf file has the basic idea. http://www.fireleadership.g ov/toolbox/after_action_re view/aar.pdf The Art of Conversation Here is a guide for the shy person. What do you say after you say hello? What would you say after you said hello to Paul McCartney? Michael Jordan? Be prepared. http://www.entertainmates. com/experts/conversation. asp |
| Singularity Group Helping organizations implement change since 1983 For more information: www.singularitygroup.com |
Well-Spoken
"Opportunity is missed
by most people
because it comes
dressed in overalls
and looks like work."
Thomas Edison
"It isn't the changes
that kill you; it's the
transitions."
William Bridges
"Opportunity is missed
by most people
because it comes
dressed in overalls
and looks like work."
Thomas Edison
"It isn't the changes
that kill you; it's the
transitions."
William Bridges