Building a Competency Model For Your Organization

 

 

In life, there are many areas where we end up overwhelmed by choice.  (Look for a mustard at the grocery store and you may have several dozen options.)  With competency models, there are dozens of licensable models.  Beyond the models you can license you could also engage a consultant to go fully custom or do a custom build in-house.  Here are a couple of points to consider as you weigh your options, whether you potentially replace an existing model or seek to use one for the first time.

 

Ensure selection/design is an HR-wide initiative vs. tied to a particular HR function

In order for a competency model to serve all HR functions effectively (e.g. enough detail for a learning function to develop training content, but high level enough to be able to use them in job descriptions/recruiting profiles, and observable enough to translate to performance management, etc.) it has to live in a middle ground.  If one HR sub-group is leading the charge on designing competencies, the final product will generally skew to design decisions that align with that function’s needs (at the expense of others).  I have observed organizations with 100 page competency models (when the model’s development was driven by the learning function) as well as others with one page models (generally driven by HR leadership in conjunction with other executive team members, resulting in more of a ‘values’ like output).  To make a decision like this that is fundamental to your HR organization, bring all stakeholders to the table, determine how the competencies will be used and where (now and into the future), and select your path appropriately.

 

Separate your thinking – core vs. job specific competencies

 Certain behaviors and results are important at a variety of jobs in your organization – these generally fall into the category of “core” competencies.  They may not each apply to all positions, but the library of total competencies is transferrable across functions.  Job-specific competencies get into the details around technical outcomes related to the nature of the work being performed.  Both are equally important and need to be given similar levels of attention.  Competency models with only core competencies end up ignoring the key functional and technical skills necessary to succeed in a particular job (e.g. you can’t be an electrical engineer without requisite skill in electrical engineering, regardless of how strong your core competencies might be).  Similarly, spending time only on the granular job skills misses the key aspects of increasing someone’s effectiveness and preparing them for higher level positions.

 

Ultimately, we recommend licensing your core competencies (these are not unique to your organization) through a vendor like Talent Mandala and either internally developing or working with a consultant to develop your job-specific competencies.  

 

When selecting a library of core competencies, consider these important criteria:

• • Organized – each competency should be of similar scope and weight, and its content should be encapsulated in such a way that the skills and behaviors included generally fit together (e.g. someone strong at ‘persuasion’ is also likely strong at ‘understanding their audience’; this same person however may or may not be strong at other people-related items like ‘listening’ or ‘empathy’.  Individual competencies should be designed accordingly.)

• • Holistic – competencies should cover the full range of potential strengths that commonly make people successful in the workplace.  Building relationships, managing projects, managing workgroups, setting strategy/envisioning the new and different, and many other areas.

• • Distinct – each competency should be clearly defined in a way that its definition is clearly separate from other competencies; they may be related to other competencies but it should be at ‘arms-length’ in terms of definition to prevent ‘bleed’ from category to category.

• • Observable – whether including behaviors, skills, abilities, or other aspects of individuals, competencies should ultimately be written with observable behaviors.  There are some HR/Talent functions that require competencies to be rated, and a rater cannot know that someone has a ‘strong sense of ethics’, but they do know if someone makes ethical decisions, or works to create an environment where ethics are important in teams they lead.

• • Clear – they should limit the use of highly interpretable language or overly academic language that is difficult for employees to understand and use.

Regarding development of job-specific competencies, four important points to keep in mind:

• • Know your job families first.  If you use broadly banded job titles (e.g. “Analyst II”) driven by the compensation function, it will be very difficult to create workable job competencies.  These jobs should be divided into manageable groups that truly share skill requirements at a more detailed level, as well as share a common career progression.

• • Only engage with individuals who have developed job specific competencies before, and ask to see examples.  More than a page for a position within a job family is way too much, even for functions with granular needs like learning and development.

• • Establish your core competencies first.  This will make it clear what areas are already covered, otherwise if these are developed in parallel the overlap with be very large

• • Involve people in the positions and who manage the positions in the creation of these profiles – not focused on top performers (they tend to be top performers because they have unique skills/approach the job differently) but more on your solid contributors.

     

Developing a competency library for your organization is a daunting task, and selecting the right partner is crucial.  Keeping these points in mind can help you navigate this process more effectively.