Peter Goodge of the360.co.uk highlights some of the common problems with competencies and explains some the pitfalls.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with competencies – clear, helpful competencies make a huge difference to HR’s business contribution. But, in practice there is sometimes a lot wrong with competencies! An organisation often discovers its competencies are problematic or even unworkable, despite considerable research, time and expenditure.

Some of the common problems include:

1) Overlapping – A common problem is that similar indicators are used to define different competencies. For example, there’s no practical difference between the following, yet one organisation used them to define three different competencies…

– “Involves people in decisions”

– “Shares information when making decisions”

– “Engages people in decision making”.

Overlapping competencies produce confused assessments and feedback; they wreck the validity of 360 questionnaires, assessment centres and appraisals.

A quick test of the difference between any two competencies is to name a person who’s good at one of those, and a second person who is poor at another. If you can do that for four or five different pairs of people it is fair to say the two competencies don’t overlap.

2) Ambiguous – The competencies are defined by long, extravagant indicators. For example, what does the following example provided by a company mean?

– “Does not inhibit others setting up processes or systems to ensure that others analyse the causes of events and create powerful, all-embracing solutions.”

If an indicator’s meaning is clear you should be able to say which competency it defines. If you can’t do that easily, how are employees supposed to work with the competencies? If your competencies have levels of ability or management the quick test is to ask which level is being defined, as well as which competency.

3) Inconsistent – An “inconsistent” competency contains statements which mean different things. For example, the following two statements were used to define the same leadership competency, but many managers are good at one and poor at the other. Where do those managers stand in relation to the competency?

– “Gives clear direction and accountabilities”

– “Approachable, easy to talk to, promotes openness.”

A test for inconsistency is to think of a person who is good at one part of the competency (e.g. clear direction) but poor at the other (e.g. approachable). If any one such person exists the competency is inconsistent, and the competency will confuse feedback and assessments.

4) Failure to set standards – For example, “Makes decisions” (a manager might do this but are they good decisions?) Failure to set standards means competencies can’t discriminate between levels of ability – good and poor performers will get similar assessments.

Check that every single indicator sets a standard – look for adverbs that define how things are done, e.g. “effectively”, “clearly”, “quickly”, “openly”…

5) Unsupported – People need to be convinced about the relevance of your competencies. So, if you’ve spent a lot developing competencies show the research and statistics that justify the competencies, their levels and clusters. Show the significance of your competencies in addressing your business’s unique challenges – don’t allow people to think the competencies could be any organisation’s competencies.

6) Outcomes not actions – Some most unhelpful competency indicators define results and outcomes, not actions or behaviours. For example…

– “Exceeding expectations”

– “Acts as a role model”

– “Delivers results”.

The problem with outcomes is they are the product of good competencies, not clear definitions of the competencies themselves. If I am “exceeding expectations”, then that’s probably because I have a few strong competencies, not just one. Or I might have been just lucky; outcomes are the results of many things other than competencies!

A good test is to count the number of indicators that focus on outcomes. You are allowed one or two! They can be identified by asking if you could train someone to do it. If you can’t think of clear, helpful training for an indicator, then it is probably an outcome.

7) Ignoring research – There’s a lot of sound new, useful research on UK change and leadership. It is very worrying if whoever develops your competencies does not use that important body of knowledge, or if it does not appear in your organisation’s competencies.

8) Dull! – Perhaps it is unfair to describe any competencies as “dull”, but some competencies don’t excite or capture the imagination. Visionary, engaging competencies are crucially important when it comes to selling them within the organisation, and convincing people to change.

9) Muddled – Individual competency indicators become muddled when they use qualifiers or woolly wording. One company’s competencies used “appropriate” 16 times. Another organisation’s competencies used “and” 62 times. Stick to the rules of good questionnaire design.

10) Not “owned” – If competencies are “owned” the executives, managers and employees who contributed to their development should be evident. They might give their views on the competencies, what they learnt, and how they see the competencies being used. That’s an important step in establishing recognition for, and acceptance of, your competencies.

Related item
Do you believe that competencies are an effective way of assessing candidate ability? – asks Maxine Lever.
http://www.hrzone.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=124590