Competency Frameworks 2012

A white paper by Silent Edge - 2012

Competency Frameworks 2012: Are they really being used effectively?

This research was undertaken to investigate the current state and usage of competency frameworks in the UK.

It is known that objective measures, paired with developmental training, yield better performance. This research found that, although there is a reasonable appetite for measuring competencies, there is considerable uncertainty as to what sort of things should be measured. The study found that only 8% of HR Directors are currently in a position to identify what good behaviour looks like amongst their staff.

It is widely acknowledged that competency frameworks are necessary. However, a lack of clarity, understanding and expertise can make it difficult to implement or identify the right competencies for each role and how to measure them. Although there is a drive towards using objectively measureable criteria, there is currently a lack of understanding about how to do that and what needs to be done or measured.

Competency Frameworks 2012: Are they really being used effectively? - 2012

Abstract


Organisations require consistency from their employees, and the ability to evolve. (Belschak, Den Hartog & Fay, 2010). It is important to have staff that go beyond the narrow remit of the role and are able to understand and perform the full requirements of their position.

An effective way to remove ambiguity and conflict from the role is to clearly outline the scope, remit and actions required to perform it (Rizzo, House & Lirtzman, 1970). These guidelines can be established through the use of competency frameworks, which seek to identify and objectively measure the key knowledge, skills and behaviours required for the job. When the job holder is made aware of these their performance is enhanced. Therefore, clarity leads to higher levels of attention to the relevant attributes.

Through the use of objective competency frameworks, it is possible for the organisation to give the job holder a well-defined route to effective performance.

There is an old saying in the management sphere; ‘If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it’. Defining and measuring effectiveness in the core competencies, particularly the performance of key workers, is a critical part of management.

As managers and leaders, we need to be able to measure the right skills for the job and have a mechanism in place that teaches staff how to apply their knowledge, skills and behaviours.

Introduction

Employing people in the first place is a skill, in which a robust process, such as a multi-faceted test, criteria based, assessment centre should be used. Research by the University of Kent (2011) shows that by measuring the right skills, knowledge and behaviours (competencies), assessment centres can offer an appraisal of applicants with up to 68% accuracy. The research shows that one of the most common recruitment tools, the unstructured interview, has a predictability factor of 15%. Furthermore, research by both Boyatzis (1982) and McCLelland (1994) showed that, when recruiting salespeople for L’Oreal, 85% were successful in their role when recruited using an assessment centre approach, as opposed to only 59% when recruited using a more traditional method. This 85% achieved their quotas more often and showed greater increase in sales per quarter. This means that using role-specific, objective measure will ensure that an organisation has the greatest chance of employing an individual that will succeed.

However, recruiting people is only one part of the resource equation. Organisations need to ensure that they are continually measuring their existing staff’s competency. Without doing so, performance, productivity and profitability are left to chance.

By having a defined set of competencies for each role in a business, it outlines to staff the kind of behaviours each individual needs to exhibit in order to achieve objectives. Staff work more effectively and achieve their potential and businesses benefit from linking personal performance with corporate goals and values.

85%

59%

What does this mean for HR and L&D?

Defining which competencies are necessary for success in your organisation can help you do the following:

• Ensure that your people demonstrate sufficient expertise.

• Recruit and select new staff more effectively – making the recruitment process less resource intensive.

• Evaluate performance more effectively.

• Evaluate skill and competency gaps. This ensures the most effective development programme is matched with the needs of the individual.

• Plan sufficiently for succession.

• Make change management processes work more efficiently.


Success of sales teams when employed usingcompetency measures

Fig 1: Showing the success of sales teams when employed using competency measures.

The use of competencies has fallen in and out of favour over time, but they are enjoying a renewed interest at the moment (Sultana, 2009) due to the more objective focus on performance measurability in the contemporary organisation. The modern competency framework can, in part, be attributed to McClelland (1973), who questioned the efficiency of IQ testing as a means of measuring success at work. McClelland argued that utilising intelligence appropriately in skill specific roles requires focussed application of competency, and thus a different method of measuring and teaching.

Delamare-Le Deist and Winterton (2005) have suggested that, when confronted by fast change at work, organisations need to quickly identify, measure and up-skill their workforce on the relevant competencies required to fulfil the evolving needs of the team.

The way in which competency is measured has developed too, to incorporate, where required, a 360 degree perspective (Sanghi, 2007). This means that the individual self measures and peer & manager ratings are all collected as useful data.

The use of traditional competency measurement and the 360 approach, can enable the organisation to realise the development needs and skills of the labour force, including clarifying job and role expectations, hiring the best people, identifying the need to employ certain people, maximising productivity, adapting to change and aligning behaviour to organisational strategies, needs and values (Lucia and Lepsinger, 1999).

Using competencies


Competences have become a common and vital tool for ‘operationalising’ the nature of the role.


•Theidentification,managementandapplication of competencies has become an important apparatus in the Managerial and organisational toolkit, and can help employees fulfil their potential.

• Employing people is expensive. Employing the wrong people, or not training them to perform at their peak, accumulates the expense through staff churn or lower productivity output.

Participants were drawn from numerous organisations and multiple industries across the UK.

They ranged from large global corporate companies through to smaller startups. They were approached directly through Silent Edge and asked to complete an online survey. In total 138 organisations took part in the research.

The survey consisted of 13 questions, the results of which are discussed further in the document.

A mixed methods approach was used to analyse the data. This method helped to identify quantitative and qualitative data, clarify the main issues and themes within organisations, and also to understand their attitudes to the use of competency frameworks within their organisation. Themes were defined as units derived from patterns such as conversation topics, vocabulary, recurring activities, meanings, feelings, or sayings (Taylor & Bogdan, 1989). This grouping accounted for the duplication of some statements and any overlap of meaning that was attributed to local dialect or cultural colloquialisms.

Participants and procedure


The results show that, of the organisations involved, the majority had a competency framework in place.

• 71% of organisations that took part in the research are using a competency framework within their organisation.

• Only 33% of the total population suggested that it objectively measured the right competencies, or was known to do so.

• 51% of frameworks have descriptions that best describe different levels of competency relevant to a behaviour which the manager will tick according to their subjective opinion.

Objective measurement is defined as the ability to check off known best practice items and critical job incidents in an applied setting. This may involve researched scorecards or the employment of Behavioural Anchored Rating Systems (BARS).

As only a third of users have confidence in the measurable outcome, it is unsurprising that only 23% of HRD’s identified positive behavioural change from the use of these frameworks.

Surprisingly 35% of HR Directors are unable to identify any outcomes from using a competency framework.

More alarming is that 71% of companies have implemented competency frameworks but only 48% of organisations can quantify an uplift in performance. The objective of a competency framework is to define best practice, measure actual behaviour, and identify development opportunities through evaluation. But if 48% of companies are unable to identify the power of having competency frameworks at the heart of an HR strategy then HR Directors will find it difficult to justify budgets during difficult times.

23% of managers do not like using the frameworks and do not see any benefit, and yet 79% of respondents are thinking of implementing or creating a competency framework at this time. Review of competency frameworks is another issue that was measured amongst the population. It was clear from the responses that this is not an area that enjoys a great deal of consideration.

Results

Only 8% of the competency frameworks in use today involve objective measures and result in positive behavioral change.



77%33%

Fig 3: Identified behaviour change from measuring against a competency framework.

23%26%

11%

4%

35%

Identified behavioural change

77%33%

Fig 2: Showing the difference between organisations using competency frameworks and being able to objectively measure outcomes.

77%

33%

Using v’s measuring

Below is a summary of how frequently participants review their competency frameworks;

1 year 22%

2 years 27%

3 years 21%

4 years 3%

5 years 6%

Unspecified 20%

However, research done by Rodriguez et al. (2002) demonstrates that if a competency framework is sufficiently robust and defined then the shelf life of that framework can be prolonged. This message substantiates the comments we received back, which suggested that ‘if frameworks are changed too often, then it will feel like the goalposts are always being moved’. For example, to be effective at sales, there is a well defined best practice approach. This approach has been defined and agreed for many years and is applicable across products, industries, countries and cultures.



• Being able to access a general globalised competency framework for a specific role is the most effective option as they are more accurate in definition and offer the greatest longevity. However, these are costly for individual organisations to develop themselves, even when they have the identified expertise already employed. It is therefore incumbent upon HR Directors to identify the best fit solution, including outsourcing where necessary.

• The research demonstrates that the use of home grown frameworks is not having a positive impact on positive behavioural change, as only 36% of HR Directors have noted a favourable behavioural change from their use.

• With 47% of managers seeing either no change or only a reasonable positive change in behaviour from using competency frameworks there is still some work to do to demonstrate the benefits and win their approval. So quantifying the return on investment from framework use is of paramount importance when looking to secure managers’ commitment to using them in everyday business.

During the survey, a number of questions were asked, which gave qualitative information in return. For each of these questions, themed analysis was undertaken with the following findings.

One finding from the qualitative part of the research is that there is a the lack of use of the competency data after the assessment has been completed.

“We produced some interesting information from the assessments but it seemed to go nowhere thereafter as the managers did little with it”

“After taking a lot of time to get the managers to assess their teams we struggled to get them engaged to help make the step change in behaviour we were looking for”

So it would seem that encouraging the use of competency frameworks is one challenge, but utilising the output to change capability and performance is another.

How can you quantify uplift in performance?

There are a number of different methods of measuring uplift in performance and these vary across the spectrum. For example, some organisations are in the process of using a 360-degree approach to measurement, whilst others suggest that using formal measurement criteria, such as performance reviews and the application of scoring ranges yield objective scores. In some cases, the production of evidence to support scoring is also used. But are scoring ranges really objective? Surely there is a significant amount of subjectivity involved, as one person’s perception of a 5 (on a scale of 1-5) would be very different to someone else’s.

It was also not clear how each organisation actually manages to settle upon an actual score, or what BARS they are using. Some simply measure levels of competence through single outcome measures, based on whether they had hit their target or not for example.

There is, in practice, evidence of staff being asked to self score their level of performance. Many organisations suggest that measuring competencies is either not easy to do, not consistent, or something that they are aspiring to achieve.

Finally, one organisation even suggested that scoring against competencies is detrimental to performance improvement, believing that it is ‘better to take people through levels of achievement. Those that learn quicker, can progress quicker’. This view, however, appears to contradict the research outlined above and would still demand identification of the required competencies to be able to know how to achieve.


Fig 4: How can you quantify uplift in performance? Summarised responses using a word cloud.

How do you know the outputs of the competency framework are reliable?

Some organisations have an evidence based process in place which is consistently reviewed, and in some cases this is further supported by use of a 360 methodology. In other cases, there exists a global, companywide framework used throughout the organisation to measure similar role profiles, which matches the approach suggested by Rodriguez et al. (above). It was also mentioned that in some cases, the users of the competency framework and the systems they are contained within, should be trained in their use to ensure a high level of consistency.

It was not uncommon to find that some organisations only have a framework in place for certain management levels. In these cases respondants suggested that they would like to improve upon this and identify / implement further for different roles.

Conversely, there were a number of organisations who identified the failings of their framework, but saw this as better than nothing, even without being objective. One responder noted that competency measurement was done by each department, but there was a lack of shared thinking across departments. Furthermore, others suggested that their measurement and output are getting better, but are a long way from being complete. However, there were many organisations that acknowledged that they simply do not know whether the output is reliable or whether they are measuring the right behaviours. One even observed that they were not sure what they should be measuring.

Realistically, some organisations may not either be using or even miss-using competency frameworks due to the fact that they are not user friendly and difficult to understand.

“We are just not sure what we should be measuring.”

“Our framework is critical to us to measure performance.”


Fig 5: How do you know the outputs of the competency framework are reliable? Summarised responses using a word cloud.

When asked whether there is a particular reason why an organisation would not implement a competency framework it was clear that, for many, the perceived complexity or sheer number of job roles within the company was a consistent theme. In some cases it simply came down to the organisation’s current status, based on their priorities at this point in time.

It is interesting to note that, given the known power and organisational advantage of using appropriate competency frameworks, only 22% of respondents who are not currently using competency frameworks are looking to implement one within their organisation. Of these, 79% are unsure where to go for advice to implement the right framework for the right role.

Finally, we posed an open question asking for any further comments on the subject.

Responses to this question were varied and did not necessarily follow a theme. There were suggestions that:

• There is too much reliance on measurement. Would you not rather have the people that can solve problems creatively?

• Some people are successful without fitting the competency framework. We should not edit out success.

• We tried frameworks before but failed. We now focus on using a more simple framework linked to talent management.

• Competency should be directly linked to business performance.

• Users must be trained to understand and use the framework and develop their staff from the output.

• Simplicity and ease of use are key. Must be in useable business language.

• Our system has expected behaviours per grading band (1-3, 4-6, etc), which has really helped managers to drive transition/performance to the next level. We have an ipsative approach that has made the process more consistent.

• Our framework is critical to us to measure performance.

• Most employees welcome an objective measurement, structure and feedback for their own development.

• We have a developed and reviewed framework, but we are not getting the best out of it. This is frustrating.

• Since introducing competency frameworks, we have changed focus from the ‘why are they doing’ to the ‘how are they doing it’. It has enabled us to change our culture and reinforce assessments and training.

• We have been using ours for just over a year and are beginning to see some business impacts. We will now look to do more longer term evaluations of people.

• Clear and measurable competency definitions are of overall better use to orgnaisations in terms of the output and information they provide.

• To be of value it has to measure the right things.

• Open communication about the process is essential. If this is done right a competency framework is essential in order to establish standards and clarify expectations.


The results suggest that there is insufficient identification of good quality or appropriate competency frameworks in use by UK organisations. Those organisations that are currently using competency frameworks may not be doing so effectively or correctly.

The potential outcome of this is that HR professionals and business managers may be attempting to invest in their people, but not actually adding any value to the staff, the organisation or the bottom line. Not correctly measuring or knowing how to correctly measure competency is ineffective, but to measure the wrong competency and then implement a training or development program or organisational strategy around this is damaging.

Furthermore, a question mark remains over the level of measurement alignment for the role and also in the context of the corporate strategy. There are many competency frameworks currently in use that cannot objectively identify what good behaviour looks like. It appears that the current methods of measurement in the UK needs some attention.

Finally, it has been observed, particularly in the US, that subjective performance measures have led to lawsuits being brought against the employer, due to their inability to actually measure good performance and feedback. An example is Vaughn v. Edel (1990): A discharged black female employee, Emma Vaughn, brought

a Title VII action against Texaco, Inc. The evidence showed that, to avoid a discrimination suit, Vaughn’s supervisors were told not to confront her about her work. In neither criticising Vaughn when her work was unsatisfactory nor counselling her how to improve, Texaco treated Vaughn differently from other employees because of her race. While the company’s decisions not to criticise Vaughn may have initially appeared beneficial, with objective feedback she might have sufficiently improved her performance so as to avoid termination. The court upheld the jury’s $465,000 punitive award. Uplift in performance is just one of many examples of how organisations are now finding objective measurements to be essential, not just for bottom line profit, but also to avoid expensive litigation.

Years of research demonstrates that measuring the right competencies and being able to develop staff on the back of skills gap analysis, yields a higher level of overall performance, both at an individual level and also at an organisational level. However, a large percentage of UK organisations lack the motivation, skill or desire to identify, develop and implement an appropriate, sound and easy to use system.

Increasingly, information is becoming available from both academic institutions and commercial organisations on the importance of identifying and measuring correct and relevant competencies for roles. This report suggests that a large majority of organisations concentrate on using competency measures, with an aim to identify and train good behaviours, but they are not currently achieving the uplift in performance and therefore return on investment from their use.

Objective measurements are essential, not just for bottom line profit, but also to avoid expensive litigation.

Discussion & recommendations


For over a decade we have been true innovators within the sales development arena.

We were founded in June 2002, born out of the frustration which two international Sales Directors felt at the sales training industry. Silent Edge was conceived to break this status quo.

During the last 10 years we have grown into a market leading sales development organisation with an international footprint. We work with a variety of clients including Barclays, BT, ADT and Archant and have a proven track record of increasing revenue for each one.

Over the past 18 months we have developed and refined a technology platform unrivaled in the global sales development market. We have the ability to objectively evaluate the behavioural capability of any sales role, frontline, sales management and sales leadership. We then develop a bespoke development journey that will sustainably change the behaviour, and therefore the performance, of an individual, a team and an entire sales force.

Sales is our passion. In a first for the UK we have recently agreed to work with the Sixth Form at Cranbrook School and take 60 of their students through a robust 12 month sales development journey. This will empower them to move into the working world armed with the skills that they will require to excel in sales.

Our vision is to have sales recognised as a profession, and we are continually striving to improve standards and lead change.

Credentials

“Silent Edge was brought in to help improve the sales performance of our business centres for 3 out of 15 regions. Despite the adverse economic conditions, and in less than a year, the programme has delivered 8% growth in revenues and a 900% ROI in the 3 regions they worked with. Consequently we have decided to roll out the solution to other divisions in our organisation.”

HR & Training DirectorReed Specialist Recruitment


• T Belschak, F., Den Hartog, D. N. & Fay, D. (2010). Exploring positive, negative and context-dependent aspects of proactive behaviours at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 2.

• Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The Competent Manager New York: Wiley.

• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredon and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

• Delamare-Le Deist, F., & Winterton, J. (2005). What is competence? Human Resource Development International, 8(1), 27–46.

• Fuller, C., J & Kelloway, E., K. (2009). ‘Flow’ at work: An experience sampling approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 3.

• Lucia, A., D. & Lepsinger, R. (1999). The Art and Science of Competency Models. Pinpointing Critical Success Factors in Organizations. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.

• McClelland, D. (1973). Testing for competency at work rather than intelligence. American Psychologist, 28(1).

• McClelland, D. C. (1994). The knowledge-testing educational complex strikes back. American Psychologist, 49, 6-9.

• Oliver, S. (2006). Competency frameworks and the changing workforce. Musculoskeletal Care, 4(3).

• Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163.

• Rodriguez, D., Patel, R., Bright, A., Gregory, D. & Gowing, M., K. (2002). Developing competency models to promote integrated human resource practices. Human Resource Management, 3.

• Sanghi, S. (2007). The Handbook of Competency Mapping (2nd ed). London, UK: Sage Publishing.

• Sultana, R., G. (2009). Competence and competence frameworks in career guidance: Complex and contested concepts. International Journal of Education 9.

• University of Kent (2011), retrieved 08 March, 2012, from http://www.kent.ac.uk/careers/selection.htm

References


References

Silent Edge Limited77 Mount EphraimTunbridge Wells Kent TN4 8BS

T: +44(0)1892 502 200F: +44(0)1892 502 201Email: [email protected]: www.silentedge.co.uk

Competency Frameworks 2012

Documents

Transcript of Competency Frameworks 2012