Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Competency Models

and Performance
Getting It Right
Bill Bradford
Competency Models and Performance Management — Getting It Right

Many managers and employees greet the subject of performance management and annual reviews
with the same attitude that one might bring to a morning of root canal work in the dentist’s chair.
What has the potential to be the most meaningful employee engagement opportunity of the year is
often seen as an awkward and archaic ritual.
Many traditional approaches to performance management and annual appraisals are outdated and
irrelevant in a contemporary setting. These processes were designed for an industrial age when
change was slow, competition was negligible, and the economic and operational context was largely
domestic. Now, human resource practitioners are challenged to develop strategies and tactics that
attract, retain and motivate employees in a world where change is constant, competition is global
and highly educated and mobile employees make minute-by-minute decisions about how much
discretionary effort they are prepared to give.
If an organization sees its appraisal process as the primary vehicle for performance management,
it is living in a costly time warp. The imperatives of speed, customer expectations and competition
dictate that performance must be managed daily. This requires both competent and enlightened
leadership of the human resource and exceptional management of the systems and processes.
Organizational diagnostics consistently validate the relationship between the quality of leadership
at all levels and organizational performance. Bluntly put, quality people do not have to work for jerks
and people give exceptional performance to their managers because they want to. It’s about trust,
relationship, shared purpose, respect and a range of related variables that constitute “engagement.”
The annual review, appraisal or whatever one wishes to call it becomes more important than ever
but requires more sophisticated talent management insights with increasing emphasis on
development, goal setting, communication, job satisfaction and, yes — performance and

The implementation of a competency framework into an organization is a complex process requiring
advanced technical skill and organization development expertise. If it is seen as just another human
resource process, disaster often ensues. Most get it wrong before they get it right and many wish
they had invested more time and intellectual effort in considering the implications and managing the
risks associated with the initiative. If the competency framework is coupled with a 360-degree multi-
source feedback process, the situation can be very problematic. If linked to pay, the scenario
becomes even more complex. This does not mean it is not a good idea—it means this is serious HR
work requiring good analysis, critical thinking and creative design.

Competency frameworks have emerged from a narrow application concept in the 80s to a leading
method for diagnosing, framing and improving all aspects of human resource management.
A well designed and implemented model can become a strategic cornerstone of an integrated
process which can:
• Clearly signal corporate priorities and values
• Focus recruiting efforts
• Act as a career and job development tool
• Focus the connection between competence and performance
• Aid in succession planning and talent management
• Assist an employee in managing their own career, development and job satisfaction
Competency Models and Performance Management — Getting It Right
• Act as both an individual and organizational dynamic training needs analysis
• Provide the data to establish a dynamic statistical norm base of competence and track
organization development
• Help to focus development resources on high value returns in either a specific job or more
broadly in the organization.
Although these theoretical outcomes are very possible, it is worth being aware that the successful
implementation of a scheme represents dramatic change that will require a paradigm shift on the
part of many. If it is managed as a “process” implementation rather than a fundamental change in
values, expectations and the subtle nature of the unwritten employer-employee contract, expect
problems. The competency model itself, the definitions, the measurement process and all aspects
of the operation of the new model must pass rigorous scrutiny and maintain an intellectual integrity
in the face of robust challenge and resistance. If you do not get it right the first time, resistance can
become systemic and the battle for hearts and minds is lost. If the proper resources are given to the
design, consultation, testing, validation and implementation, a competency model has the potential
to dramatically enhance both corporate performance and individual job satisfaction.
Each organization will have its own goals, expectations, culture and tasks and for that reason there
is little “best practice” theory and bench marking is difficult. Case studies tend to be journeys of
exploration which evolve uniquely for each organization.


Core Competencies
In commercial terms a “core” competence is often seen as an organizational capability that:
• Benefits the customer
• Is difficult to imitate
• Can be leveraged to different markets or products
Honda is often cited as having a competence in engine technology; Volvo in safety and so forth.
In cultural and HR terms, a “core” competence is usually seen as the skills, behaviors and attitudes
which will lead to competitive advantage or an aspirational level of organizational effectiveness.
Core competencies are helpful in reinforcing values and encouraging common culture and behavior.
A core competence model loses the specificity of job focus and is of limited use in recruitment and
expectations are often vague and inferential.
Whatever model an organization adopts it will usually break down into a range of categories with
behavioral or technical statements or definitions with a consistent scoring mechanism.

Job or Job Family Competencies

A job or job family model would provide definitions and competence statements which relate more
directly to a specific function. They can assist in recruitment and are helpful in reinforcing job
territory boundaries. This model often makes sense in a functional structure or in a matrixed
organization where talent management is dynamic or where work is project based. This model is
also appropriate where technical expertise is specific or where the common-sense application of
competence would mean different things in different professional areas.

Role or Level Competencies

This model often applies different competencies at different levels in the organization. This
approach is often used when attempting to link competency development to job evaluation,
Competency Models and Performance Management — Getting It Right
promotion or compensation issues. It requires a role or level-based structure to be in place but does
not work well in a fast-changing environment where flexibility is important.
Some large organizations have successfully implanted a core model with varying definitions at
different levels. For example, “Customer Focus” as a competence would have a different definition
for a vice-president than it would for an entry level position. These models are helpful where there is
longer term commitment to a strategic direction, a clear values proposition or a strong sense of what
kind of organization will deliver competitive advantages in the future.

Combined Competencies
A combined model may take elements from core, role and job family. There may be applications that
make sense after serious thought and the development of a defensible rationale, but success is rare.
Combined models are difficult to design, articulate or communicate and can end up meaning little
to anyone.

• Keep it as simple as you possibly can while focusing on what is important. Data fatigue is a
real issue that can undermine the process.
• Have all statements and definitions been tested and confirmed as the best indicators of
success or performance? Without statistical correlation this becomes a matter of experience
and judgement.
• Does it meet the needs of the organization, managers and employees?
• Is it easy to work with and time efficient?
• Is it fair, objective and just?
• Have employees and managers been engaged early in the design process? If the process, tools
definitions, metrics and outcomes are not seen as meaningful, the initiative will be seen as just
another top-down process which adds to the work burden.
• Does it pass the test of logic and common sense in all dimensions, in theory and application?
• Does it answer the “What about me?” question in the mind of the employee?
• Have you decided whether the competence framework will be used as a developmental
platform or are you going to pursue a direct link to a competency-based performance definition
with all of the implications?
• Do not let the software tool dictate the design. Design the model that is right for the
organization and then find the tool to manage the data.


If the model is to include either compulsory or optional feedback from others, a host of risks needs
to be managed:
• The rules of who solicits what information from whom must be crystal clear!
• There must be absolute clarity of scoring definitions and metrics that are well communicated
and understood
• There must be documented clarity of roles and responsibilities
• There must be clarity as to how the data will be used and interpreted by whom (privacy issues
may need to be considered)
• A top-down rollout is best. It demonstrates leadership and develops expertise in the process
• Employee involvement in the process is critical if you wish to avoid a “big brother” paranoia
Competency Models and Performance Management — Getting It Right
• Safeguards need to be built into the design to protect an individual’s self-esteem in the event
of irrational or counterproductive feedback. The objective is awareness, growth and
competence. Fortunately, most employees adopt a very mature attitude when giving feedback
to others. A forced distribution in the scoring process can factor out excesses.
If there is a 360-degree element to any performance assessment component, get ready to do battle
with the brighter people in your organization:
• “Feedback” is perception—not necessarily fact, particularly on behaviors
• Perception is qualitative not quantitative
• Feedback is subjective not objective
• The relationship between a competence and actual performance is intuitive and only assumed
unless validated by statistical correlation


One of the biggest decisions is deciding whether the competency framework is to be used primarily
as a development platform (with or without 360-degree) where skills, behaviors and attitudes are
encouraged, signaled, coached, taught and rewarded … or is the organization actually saying that
this is either wholly or in part the new definition of performance? If this is the new definition of
performance, there are significant issues to consider.
Traditionally, appraisals and performance management focused on standards, task completion and
quantifiable outcomes. What we are now calling competencies were often see as “contributors”—
knowledge, skill, attitude or behavior which facilitated or enabled performance. Performance is
usually measured by quantitative outcomes while behavioral competencies are usually qualitative.
Competence correlates with performance but is not performance and some experts see the two as
casually related. Competent people can under-perform for a wide range of reasons and it is not
unusual to see highly motivated people perform well beyond their competency.
It could be argued that Abraham Lincoln was not competent to serve as President of the United
States. He had experienced electoral defeat on several occasions, business failure, financial
problems, bouts of emotional instability and faltering social skills—hardly a candidate for high office.
This is not finite science and a latitude of interpretation needs to be brought to the entire subject.
When defining competencies, we are at best identifying norms. Ironically, exceptional performers
are often successful for all the wrong reasons.
If on reflection you decide that the competence framework becomes a part of a new definition of
performance with linking implications for compensation, you are well advised to have worked
through the many “what if” scenarios to develop the defensible rationale.
What happens to the old definition of performance? Does the “baby go out with the bath water?”
More implementations have stumbled on this point than on any other and it is important to
appreciate that if you redefine performance as competence, this is a radical, stressful and confusing
redefinition of work for many people.


• DON’T RUSH! Invest the time to get the model, metrics, competencies, statements, process,
definition, technical aspects and rationale right
• Go slow. Consider an incremental implementation and maturing of the process
Competency Models and Performance Management — Getting It Right
• Do not skimp on the up-front training and education investment. This is sophisticated
organization development, and everyone needs to fully understand the rationale, language,
rules, definitions, expectations, metrics, objectives, benefits, framing values, strategic context,
interpretation of data, scoring and the process
• Don’t focus on the “tool” (the technical process or the software); focus on the value, the
benefits, the opportunities
• Use the initiative to signal values. The way in which you do it may say more than what you do
• Use your very best change management or organizational development talent to lead the
• If you do not have advanced in-house expertise and experience (rare) get professional help
from someone who has been there and done it
• Nurture an evolving critical mass; go for small wins; reward new behaviors
• Insist on total management engagement and visible leadership modelling

Implementing a competency-based performance management model is a strategic initiative. The
range of benefits and potential problems in any such undertaking are reflective of the multi-
dimensional nature of the concept. It touches all aspects of human resource management and can
effectively re-define — not just the definition of performance but all of the assumptions underpinning
the employer-employee relationship.
A well designed and implemented process can add immense value to an organization. However, if
one attempts to shortcut the up-front investment required with a ready-fire-aim approach that is
driven by political or budgetary expediency or other factors — get ready for resistance, cynicism and
in some cases outright rebellion. If an organization is not prepared to do this properly, it is advised
not to do it at all.
The evolution of a competency-based performance model represents a huge leap forward in human
resource practice. Getting it right is a demanding undertaking but worth the effort.

Original link:

About the Author

Bill Bradford is an experienced consultant who works in the areas of capacity building,
strategic planning, operational effectiveness and human resources. He is a senior
consulting at PMC, a company that provide a full range of advisory services and business
trainings to help on the creation of a competency-based performance management model
in the organizations.
SoftExpert HDM is a comprehensive web-based human development management software. It allows for
competency mapping, training and development, performance review and succession planning. Its purpose is
to help organizations develop a highly skilled and engaged workforce, aligned with business strategy.

Competence mapping Performance evaluation

With this solution, organizations can easily create and manage competencies, and link them to business
processes or job positions. Competencies can be assessed and organizations can better understand where
workforce skill sets are strong and where there are gaps in professional development.

Employee profile Talent bank

With SoftExpert HDM, organizations can better prepare employees’ careers and succession. A “9-box-matrix”
makes it possible to assess talent based on past performance and future potential, developing succession
plans for any position. The solution allows customized portals to be created, providing clear insight in relation
to task completion, tracking of targets, employee scores, IDP deployment status, and more. This allows
managers to efficiently monitor and manage human development initiatives.

Learning Management System 9 Box Matrix

Learn More at:
Manage business process change with checklists
About SoftExpert
SoftExpert is a market leader in software and services for enterprise-wide business process
improvement and compliance management, providing the most comprehensive application suite to
empower organizations to increase business performance at all levels and to maximize industry-
mandated compliance and corporate governance programs.
Founded in 1995 and currently with more than 2,000 customers and 300,000 users worldwide,
SoftExpert solutions are used by leading corporations in all kinds of industries, including
manufacturing, automotive, life sciences, food and beverage, mining and metals, oil and gas, high-
tech and IT, energy and utilities, government and public sector, financial services, transportation and
logistics, and healthcare.
SoftExpert, along with its extensive network of international partners, provides hosting,
implementation, post-sales support and validation services for all solutions to ensure that
customers get the maximum value from their investments.

SoftExpert Excellence Suite

The Roadmap for Business Excellence and Enterprise Compliance

More information: |

Disclaimer: The content of this publication may not, in whole or in part, be copied or reproduced without prior authorization from SoftExpert Software. This
publication is provided by SoftExpert and/or its network of affiliates strictly for informational purposes, without any guarantee of any kind. The only guarantees
related to SoftExpert products and services are those contained within a contract. Some product functionalities and characteristics presented herein may be
optional or may depend on the makeup of the offer(s) acquired. The content of this material is subject to change without prior notice.