Competency Models could be Misleading
and Mischievous
T. V. Rao
In a seminar I was attending a
few years ago a pharmaceutical company presented their competency model in the
morning. After the session leader who presented it left, the same day afternoon
an IT company presented its model. Observing the stark similarity and near
sameness of the list of competencies presented in the two models by the Pharma
and It presenters, the participants became curious how can IT and Pharma
company require nearly the same competencies. The presenters themselves were
surprised until we all discovered that both these organizations had the same
consultant. It appeared that what they had is a standard model of a consulting
company than a research based tailor made competencies needed for the two
different organizations!
Now a days it has become quite
fashionable to commission the making of competency models for organizations. A competency model describes the
particular combination of knowledge, skills, and characteristics needed to
effectively perform a role in an Organization and is used as a human resource
tool for selection, training and development, appraisal, and succession
planning. (p5, Lucia and Lepsinger, 1999). Competency models represent the most
critical knowledge, skills and behaviors that drive successful performance with
respect to a particular type of job or occupation. They describe competencies in behavioral
terms, using behavioral indicators, so employees can recognize the competencies
when demonstrated. There can be competency models for a role, for a department,
for a function or for an organization. Competency models often contain some
sort of overall graphic depiction of the relationships between competencies or
show them clustered into related groups.
Organizational competency models present a list
of eight to ten most critical competencies required to perform various jobs in
the organization. As they are derived after studying most successful incumbents
at various levels (Executives, Deputy Managers, Managers, Senior Managers, Vice
Presidents, Deputy General Managers, General Managers and Vice Presidents,
Presidents etc.)Performing various roles across various departments in an
organization they are considered comprehensive models of competencies required
to be successful in the organization. The competency models normally describe the
competency, present illustrations of how the competency is exhibited at various
levels and functions in the organization. They also present indicators of
behavior which are classified normally into three or four levels like the
beginner, practitioner, expert, leader, etc. or simply by naming them as
proficiency levels like level 1, level 2, level 3, and level 4 and so on. The
levels are sometimes associated with the job levels or designations in the organization.
Most MNCs used to have competency models in the past and used them in
induction, training, performance appraisals, career planning, potential
appraisal etc. (TVRLS, 2006).
Indian organizations have also resorted to
develop their own competency models in recent years. In the last one decade
many organizations have developed their own competency models. For example
Infosys, Wipro, Philips, HUL, Wockhardt, HDFC Life, Tatas, Cummins, Dr. Reddy's
etc. have their own competency models. Inspired by these many more organizations
are commissioning the development of their own competency models. Once developed these competency models are
used as a part of recruitment, induction, performance management, leadership development,
career planning and development etc. Assessment centers or Development centers
are being designed around these competencies.
While this is a welcome trend I like to point
out that an overdependence on competency models can be misleading and might
even amount to playing mischief with organizational effectiveness and
productivity.
Limitations of a Competency Model:
A
competency model is arrived at for the organization after considerable research
and study of various effective role holders at various levels. They are
interviewed competency experts and asked questions like what Knowledge,
attitudes, skills, qualities, traits etc, are required to be successful in the
role you performed so successfully etc. Or alternately his superiors are
interviewed. In the RSBCM model of TVRLS all role set members are interviewed
and notes taken. After all the interviews are completed a list of competencies
are culled out from the successful performers at different levels.
Over the years it has been found that most
companies have same or very similar competency models. All of them list
competencies like Vision, Strategic thinking, Systems orientation, Entrepreneurial
attitude, Team work, Interpersonal sensitivity, Customer centricity, Technology
savvy etc. In fact if we survey all the competency models we can list around 30
to 40 competencies and can be compressed into dozen across all companies. It
looks as though if you possess these competencies you can be successful in any
company and anywhere in the world. So why not our B-schools start only develops
these score of competencies? In fact recent studies by Harvard Professors like
Srikant Datar have outlined a list of competencies that top B-Schools should
develop: Leadership skills, Creative and critical thinking, Change management,
Soft skills etc. Dave Ulrich and his
team at Michigan have developed a list of competencies and Skills for the HR
profession.
What is wrong with Competency Models?
Nothing. The only trouble is competencies are
contextual. As contexts change the competencies required to do a job well may
change. For example the competencies required y a finance head may change from initial
stages of a company to alter stages and also depending on the economic
situation and supply of money situation. Or the competencies of a HR head who
during industrial unrest and union militancy may change to a different list
when the organization needs global talent and is free of unionism. A CEO
or an R&D head competency profiles may change as the organization matures.
Dave Ulrich and W Brockbank have presented different lists of competencies in
the last one decade for HR managers as their context is getting changed. Hence
the competency models cannot be considered as valid for all time and need
periodic revisit and revision.
The second issue is organizational competency
models cannot ensure success of all role holders merely on the basis of the
possession of these competencies at a higher levels. The performance equation
which is well accepted by now says that successful performance one given job is
a function of abilities or competencies, motivation or work effort and
organizational support. The definition of high performance varies from time to
time and hence the need for defining the Key Performance areas, activities and
performance indicators annually. By reasoning if the KPAs vary from year o year
the competencies also vary. Hence no one time competency list for an individual
can be considered valid across all times. Fortunately for us the KPAs normally
don’t change from year to year but may change across a few years. To the extent they change the competencies
change and at organizational such cumulative changes of KPAs for all roles and
the consequent change in competencies need to be reflected in the competency
model.
No competency model can be exhaustive. It
cannot take into consideration the innumerable competences required to perform
each and every role. Hence an active use of competency lists should include the
role related competencies.
Most organizations commissioning competency
studies are happy when the consultant gives a short report and presents a
graphic model of competencies. Unfortunately this is misleading and is
inadequate for any purpose other than a standard package of induction, and
periodic appraisal. Even for induction it is not the competency model that
matters as much s the competency profile required by that job. Most organizations
donor even asks consultants to give them the competency profiles of the jobs
they surveyed. They are quite happy with the model.
It is high time that organizations realize the
limitations of competency models and stat suing competency profiles of each of
the roles mapped by the consultant or the internal teams. By ignoring this
while we are preparing universal managers and not organization or role specific
managers that bring success to the role.
Conclusion:
I don’t wish to convey through these arguments that competency
models are not useful. On the contrary they are good tools to communicate in
one stroke the critical competencies needed to be successful in the
organization and valued by the organization at senior levels. They are good
tools to inform the job aspirants and also good tools to develop critical
leadership competencies through a variety of interventions. However their
utility should not be overstressed and overstretched. They cannot become panacea for all talent
management needs and interventions. They cannot be the only criteria for
promotions and succession planning. They can be treated as necessary conditions
but not sufficient conditions for success. They may be useful for Development Centres
but not for promotion decisions as promotion decisions should be based on contextual
competencies besides and job specific competencies rather than organizational
competency models. Organizations should take pains to ask, get and retain the
job specific competency profiles when they commission competency mapping
studies. Job specific competency maps or profiles can serve better purpose of
talent management than mere competency models.
References:
- Lucia, Antionette; and Lepsinger, Richard.
(1999) The Art and Science of
Competency Models: pinpointing critical success factors in organizations,
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Pfeiffer.
- T V Rao Learning
Systems: Competency Mapping Education Kit: Ahmedabad: TVRLS, 2006.
