10 www.ispi.org • AUGUST 2004

This article provides a general review of present competencdevelopment prac-

tices and compares these practices to the authors’ experience in developing

performance improvement-focused competency models. Competency mod-

eling is a more powerful intervention than is the development of standard

competency statements.

Over the past seven years, a number of clients within a range of businesses—hi-tech,

manufacturing, insurance, defense, etc.—have engaged us to help establish compe-

tency-based programs. This has afforded us the opportunity to understand the current

view of competency development and to identify best practices, while testing and

expanding our own methodology through the Language of Work model (Langdon, 2000).

Current Practice

We have arrived at a number of conclusions about what individuals, managers, and

human resources professionals believe competencies are, and how competencies are

typically identified, measured, or achieved. These conclusions come from several

sources: our work within a number of organizations, the professional literature, and web

searches of consulting companies’ offerings to their clients.

First, the generally accepted view of what constitutes competency is very limited—and

somewhat misleading. Competency is almost universally perceived as being comprised

exclusively of skills, knowledge, and attributes (SKAs). The following is typical of the

descriptions of competency:

The main reason for the growing use of competency models in business is their

strategic value as performance improvement vehicles for both organizations and

individuals. Competency models have several performance-related benefits:

They make explicit the clusters of knowledge, skills, and personal attributes that

lead to high performance. These can be understood and learned by all organiza-

tion members through the use of effective training, development, performance

management, and compensation systems (Cornelius Grove & Associates, 2004).

by Danny Langdon and Kathleen Whiteside

Bringing Sense to Competency Definitionand Attainment

The underlying assumption of such approaches to compe-tency models is that if the SKA can be changed or devel-oped, then the work will be improved. As we hope to prove,this is a limited view that fails to reflect how work is to beaccomplished. It also fails to recognize that developing orimproving the SKAs is futile unless the “work execution” isunderstood and improved.

Second, once competencies are defined, there seems to bedifficulty in knowing how to measure them … or, havingmeasured them, in knowing how to improve competencylevels systematically. The assumption appears to be as fol-lows: Describe the desired behavior and individuals will nat-urally try to attain it; or the training department will knowhow to build a curriculum, or managers will know how tocoach to get that competency. One potential client specifi-cally told us she wasn’t worried about how the competencieswould be achieved—she would figure that out later.

Other practitioners, however, have made attempts todevelop competency statements. For example, OttawaUniversity (1999) has developed a comprehensive compe-tency-development plan. Competencies are stated clearly,the examples of appropriate (or illustrative) behaviors arelisted and contrasted with non-examples, and a variety ofresources for developing the competency are listed. In addi-tion, the competency project is linked to the performanceappraisal system and a series of questions and answers areprovided. The only incomplete aspect of the project—aswith so many other projects we have observed—is that thelinkage to the work is unclear in terms of how an individualexecutes the work to achieve or promote competency.

From our experience, the method used to identify compe-tencies should not only assure accuracy and completeness,but it should also shape the mechanism that managementand employees will use to understand, assess, and improvethose competencies. Given that performance improvementis the goal for competencies, and given that work improve-ment can be observed and measured, it follows that execu-tion of the work should be fundamentally included in thedefinition, measurement, and achievement of competen-cies. As many organizations have come to realize, simplyhaving a bank of well-understood competency statementswill not tell managers or employees how to measure orimprove performance.

A third observation is that when organizations have difficultyachieving competencies, they often decide to synthesize orcombine competencies into fewer statements. The thinkingseems to be that if the statements were simply easier tounderstand, they would be easier to accomplish. This is aninteresting idea, but unworthy of practice. Attaining compe-tencies will not be any easier, and understanding of what ittakes to measure and develop competencies is weakened.Organizations must still measure and achieve tasks. Unless

they can be linked specifically to individual jobs, managersand employees may find competency statements “nice” butultimately confusing at best—and a deterrent to performanceat worst.

The goals for a competency definition and developmentshould be to do the following:• Base competency statements not only on SKAs, but—

more importantly—on the execution of work.• Assure that the organization defines accurately, com-

pletely, and quickly the competency sets for coreprocesses and jobs.

• Assure that the competencies can be easily updated, notas an administrative activity, but rather to recognize howwork changes and to accurately conduct performanceappraisals.

• Ensure that the methods used to define competenciesalso serve as the basis on which to assess, understand,and implement improvements in performance.

• Define and use competencies as part of an integratedhuman resources system—as a strategic part of an orga-nization’s definition of its work, selection of its peopleand their performance reviews, career development andwork change, while providing input for more accurateand useful employee benefits.

Competency Statements Versus Competency Modeling

As noted in our opening comments, competency is cur-rently generally thought of in terms of SKAs. For example,Lucia and Lepsinger define a competency model as “...adescriptive tool that identifies the skills, knowledge, per-sonal characteristics, and behaviors needed to effectivelyperform a role in the organization and help the businessmeet its strategic objectives” (1999, p.8).

This is often expressed in short word descriptors or phrases:• Skill Competency Examples

- Project Management- Information Technology Tools/Systems- Budget

• Knowledge Competency Examples- Applications Limitations- Information Technology Methodologies

• Attribute Examples- Results driven- Attention to detail

In some cases, longer statements are used, such as this onefor delivering presentations: “Prepares and delivers clear,smooth presentations; carries self well in front of a group.”

In our own practice, we have included these kinds of exam-ples to satisfy clients’ understanding of a conventionalcompetency definition. However, we have also encouraged

Performance Improvement • Volume 43 • Number 7 11

12 www.ispi.org • AUGUST 2004

our clients to perform an important analysis before movingto such definitions. We refer to this as the “execution ofwork” to which SKAs are important underlying enablers.By analogy, you might think of SKAs as equivalent to thecollege degree required for some jobs. This degree is animportant foundation, but it does not describe the work theorganization wants done.

In current practice, the typical development of competencystatements or word descriptors, such those above, oftencomes from a process that includes the use of competencybanks. A facilitator will lead a group through some activity,such as card sorts or voting to select and perhaps rank-orderthe appropriate competency statements for a given job. Suchpractice assumes that those who are ranking the competencystatements are very familiar with the job being discussed,often as managers or exemplary performers of that position.In our experience, however, significant competencies areregularly missed through this process. The result, then, is alist of competency statements that cluster around the con-cept of a particular job but that do not link specifically to thework being conducted. A receptionist is likely to have somecustomer service competency. However, without linking thecompetency to the execution of the work, which includesanswering phones, directing visitors, issuing ID cards, andreserving scarce conference rooms (often simultaneously), itis difficult to make improvements in the receptionist’s per-formance. Techniques other than competency banks, such astask analysis, often also produce limited results for similarreasons.

Instead of beginning with or brainstorming a generic list of com-petencies, we believe it is critical to begin with a definition ofthe work to be executed. Merely linking competency statementsto typical job descriptions will not meet our goal. To define andunderstand the execution of work, clients need to be introducedto “competency modeling.”

Our use of the term competency modeling is not the same asgenerally described in the literature, such as that cited byLucia and Lepsinger (1999). Instead, our definition of com-

petency modeling mirrors or reflects what thework results are and how that work is to beaccomplished at an exemplary level. In otherwords, rather than describing SKAs that oughtto be in place for the work to be done well, ourapproach to competency modeling focuses ondescribing the accomplishment of the workitself. There are various models of work thathave been devised (Dean and Ripley, 1997);however, we use the Language of Work Model(see Figure 1).

In the Language of Work Model, both coreprocesses and individual jobs (as well as businessunit and work groups) can be defined using six

systemic, behavioral, and performance elements. Once defined,other performance enablers such as SKAs can be linked specif-ically at the point where they will be used. Thus, the SKAs arein the context of their use in accomplishing work. To carry forththe previous analogy, we will have both the specification of the“degree” (SKA) and how these are used to execute the work toproduce job results.

Competency statements provide a means for sharingexpected performance for the creation of annually devel-oped performance objectives. While the former stand at alltimes, the latter are given more definition each year. To illus-trate this point, we provide below the case of a business ana-lyst who always develops business case justifications. Thisyear, however, his goal is to perform, let us say, five businesscase justifications, including justifications for three mergers.

Sample Competency Model

Here we shall illustrate part of a job model to exemplify exe-cution of work as a competency model (in the form of a jobmodel), as well as the more traditional SKAs that are typicalof most competency programs in business today.

Our exemplary worker, John, is a business analyst. In thisposition he produces eight major outputs (or deliverables):• Solution strategy• Business case justification• Expertise and advice• Training• Functional specification• Applications/Interfaces/Transactions• Test plan• End-user documentation

Figure 2 on page 13 illustrates the second of these outputs,Business Case Justification, per the Language of Work Model.

The other work elements—inputs, conditions, conse-quences, process steps, and feedback—as they relate to theoutput of business case justification, are also included. (In a

Figure 1. The Language of Work Model.

complete job model, these same five elements would bedefined for each of the eight job outputs.)

In reviewing John’s job, one can readily see that the intent isto capture both what the individual is to produce and howit will be produced. The what is captured in the combina-tion of outputs and consequences. These are, respectively,the deliverables and value-added to be produced by theworker. If properly aligned to the business strategy, thesetwo components should link directly to the goals and objec-tives of the organization—which would be displayed in amodel of the core processes of the business (see Langdon,2000, for a discussion of business units, core processes,jobs, and work groups).

The question to ask in relation to competency statements iswhether the outputs (or a combination of outputs and con-sequences) are the key competencies of a job. In otherwords, are the following abilities the execution competen-cies of John’s business analyst position:• Produce a solution strategy• Produce business case justifications• Provide expertise and advice• Provide training• Develop functional specifications• Develop applications/interfaces/transactions• Develop a test plan• Develop end-user documentation

If you were a manager or business analyst, would not thislist of competencies resonate with you? In the face of vari-ous demands, requests, and projects, would it not provideclarity to know that these are the eight things in which youneeded to be competent? And how much more specific andto the point are these than a generic list of competencies

that approximate one’s expecta-tions? For example,

Analytical problem solving:Able to use a systematicapproach in solving problemsthrough analysis of problemand evaluation of alternatesolutions; uses logic, mathe-matics, or other problem solv-ing tools in data analysis or ingenerating solutions (Green,1999, p. 172).

An execution competency such as“ability to produce a solution strat-egy” more clearly defines andoperationalizes results. When pre-sented with these options, organi-zations—especially those thathave worked with competenciesthat ignore the work—are typically

pleased with this approach for a number of reasons. There isno question that the generic competency statement supple-ments the understanding that John has about his executioncompetency; however, without the execution competency,John is left trying to develop elements that are intended toimprove work performance, when he needs to improve thework execution itself, which might occur through develop-ment of “presentations” or “business acumen,” for example.

The Role of SKAs in Competency Modeling Defined by theExecution of Work

Certainly SKAs are important. But they are best viewed in asupporting role that serves to enable performance of the job.They are “lay” words that can be used to communicateexpectations. They are statements of need between the linemanager and the training department. In our sample job ofthe business analyst, having a degree in economics is likelyto enable one to perform the job well. The educational andexperiential requirements serve to describe some of theunderlying skills and knowledge related to the job.However, having that knowledge does not guarantee job per-formance, as most employees and managers have experi-enced at least once in their careers. Yet without somespecification of the underlying SKAs, recruiting and select-ing employees is left to “chemistry” or is limited to thosewho have performed the job in the past. Identification ofcritical skills needed to perform the job and to improve per-formance may well be ignored by those untrained in educa-tional principles—or overly constrained by budgets. In thecontext of work execution, how would we identify and usethese SKAs in competency statements?

We have found it most useful, complete, and accurate todefine the six-element job model first, then to attach the

Performance Improvement • Volume 43 • Number 7 13

Figure 2. Partial Business Analyst Job Model.

14 www.ispi.org • AUGUST 2004

required skills and knowledge to do that job to certain of thesix elements. Attributes, as will be described, are identifiedin a different way.

Once the six job-execution elements are defined for a job, weidentify with exemplary performers and other sources theskills and knowledge as they relate to inputs, conditions,process steps, and feedback. These four work elements pro-duce the outputs and consequences within which the neces-sary skills and knowledge to do the work should reside. Thishas major implications for measuring and reviewing indi-vidual performance. For example, we will not only identifywhat process steps the individual is having difficulty with—or which inputs, conditions, or feedback are problematic tothe performer—but then we will also identify the underlyingskills and knowledge deficiencies that are contributing to theunacceptable or marginal work performance. Sample skillsand knowledge for the business analyst listed earlier in thisarticle were originally identified from the process steps ofthe business case justification output. Thus, the linkbetween work execution with skills and knowledge is direct.It makes it clear that skills, knowledge, and work executionneed to be a significant part of the competency model.

What About Attributes and Competency?

Attributes are the “hard-wired” capabilities that we eachbring to the job from our personality and personal ability.While those in the profession (Brethower & Marelli, personalcorrespondence, February 5, 2004) might debate which abil-ities can and cannot be developed, we take the position thatthe individual and the organization are both better servedwhen employees are selected for positions for which theyalready possess the needed attributes (and thus, their capa-bility to execute the work). Therefore, managers need sup-port in identifying accurately the attributes required forsuccess in the particular job. “Attention to detail,” or “ini-tiative” might be influenced and enhanced by a healthy orga-nizational culture, but the cost to the employee and theorganization in developing these traits where they do notexist is enormous. According to First, Break All the Rules(Buckingham & Coffman, 1999), when employees have theopportunity to do what they do best every day, the organiza-tion is likely to be more productive and profitable. This find-ing indicates that accurate determination of attributes, alongwith the testing or identification of those attributes in per-formers, is in the best interests of executives, managers, andemployees. The question for human resource professionalsis, do we guess what these attributes are or is there a morescientific and reliable way to find out what they are?

We have found that it is far better to identify these attributessystematically than it is to guess, even within a group ofexemplary performers. There are several inventories avail-able, but we prefer what is known as the Kolbe® Index. TheKolbe® Index was devised by Kathy Kolbe (2003) in the mid-

1990s to measure the innate or conative (intuitive) attributesof individuals. We ask exemplary performers to complete theinventory at the end of four-hour job modeling/competencydevelopment sessions. It takes about 20 minutes for the par-ticipants to complete the worker part of the index (a managerview is also available). When analyzed, a profile of theimportant attributes for the job emerges. These are incorpo-rated as a special section in a competency model, which con-sists of work execution specifications, skills, knowledge, andother details, such as entry-level skills and experience desiredby the client. Sample attributes for the business analyst, iden-tified through use of the index, were shown on page 11.

Some Related Questions

Q. I already have competencies defined. What good is thisinformation on competency modeling for me and my orga-nization?

A. One idea is to link your existing competency statementsto the job models you are developing. This will tell individ-ual workers and their managers operationally what it willtake to measure and achieve the existing competency list, nomatter how broad or specific the competency is.

For example, a chemical laboratory was struggling with a cor-porate-driven competencies list. Through job modeling, wewere able to help link the competencies to the precise placeswhere individuals would demonstrate specific competencies.

Q. I have broad-based competencies that are easy for peopleto understand but difficult to know how to achieve. Whatwill competency modeling do in this situation?

A. There is no better way to make the general more specificthan to show how a job relates to general attributes. In oneproject, our client wanted to increase the “collaboration”among teams. “Collaboration” is a pretty broad competency.By showing employees precisely where collaboration isexpected in their job execution, they can begin to build thatcompetency. Additional interventions that will support build-ing this competency can be developed and installed, keepingthe execution clear. This approach does away with notions of“it’s good for you,” or as Mager and Pipe (1999) most elo-quently said, “You really oughta wanna!” Competency mod-eling enables you to measure the improvement, not just thenumber of people who have been “inoculated.”

In Summary

The key lesson here is that competency developmentinvolves more than listing the SKAs. Work execution—asdefined by outputs and consequences to be achievedthrough inputs, conditions, process steps, and feedback—isthe key to competency definition, measurement, promotion,and attainment. SKAs then take their appropriate place as

Performance Improvement • Volume 43 • Number 7 15

Visit theISPI OnlineBookstoreToday!

HPT RevisitedReviewed and selected by Roger Chevalier, PhD, CPT

Human Performance Technology (HPT) Revisited is a collection of morethan 50 articles focusing on the field of performance improvementfrom the International Society for Performance Improvement’sPerformance Improvement journal from February 1998 to August2003. HPT Revisited is an attempt to fill the gap until the next definitivebook on the subject is written. The collection contains articles fromsome of the best practitioners, researchers, and scholars reporting onthe current state of the performance technology and its application.

Important New Performance Improvement Book Available

www.ispi.org • Click the Bookstore link found at the top of any ISPI web page.

underlying or foundational to work execution. Work execu-tion provides the framework for assessing, promoting, man-aging, and monitoring competencies—systematically.

References

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all therules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently.New York: Simon and Schuster.

Dean, P., & Ripley, D. (1997). Performance improvementpathfinders: models for organizational learning systems.Silver Spring, MD: International Society for PerformanceImprovement.

Green, P.C. (1999). Building robust competencies… Linkinghuman resource systems to organizational strategies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Cornelius Grove & Associates. (2004). Global competencydevelopment. Retrieved on March 15, 2004. Available:http://www.grovewell-global.com/global-competencies.html#Performance-related%20Beginning.

Kolbe, K. (2003). Powered by instinct. Phoenix, AZ:Monuments Press.

Langdon, D.G. (2000). Aligning performance: Improving peo-ple, systems and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lucia, A.D., & Lepsinger, R. (1999). The art and science ofcompetency models: Pinpointing critical success factors inorganizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Mager, R., & Pipe, P. (1999). Analyzing performance prob-lems: Or you really oughta wanna (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA:The Center for Effective Performance.

Ottawa University. (1999). Core competency developmentguide. Retrieved March 15, 2004. Available:http://www.uottawa.ca/services/hr/perf/comp_dev_guide_e.html.

Danny G. Langdon, founding partner of Performance International, has more

than 30 years of experience in instructional and performance technology. He has

published seven books in the field of instructional and performance technology,

served as the series editor of the 40-volume series titled the Instructional

Designs Library, and authored more than 20 articles. He is the recipient of two

major ISPI awards of excellence. He is a past international president of ISPI,

Honorary Life Member, model maker, and has presented at more than 25

national conferences and numerous local chapters of ISPI and other professional

organizations. He may be reached at Danny@performanceinternational.com.

Kathleen Whiteside, founding partner of Performance International, has been

improving performance in organizations for more than 25 years. Prior to her pre-

sent consulting practice, she served as Corporate Director of Human Resources

for a major service organization. She is a past international president of ISPI

International, invited speaker at the annual ISPI Awards Banquet in 2001, and

led 15 business executives to explain performance technology at the White

House. She is the coeditor of Intervention Resource Guide: 50 Performance

Improvement Tools and frequent presenter at conferences here and abroad. She

may be reached at Kathleen@performanceinternational.com.