Organizations world over are trying to work on what many have known to be an OD initiative.

Though it is as true as it gets, competency frameworks are as much a success as they are a failure when not managed as religiously as a quality initiative. HR or for that matter OD have largely owned such initiatives in many organizations. The overwhelming evidence from research suggests that competency frameworks can do more than wonders in attuning the performance issues within an organization. However, the science of competency has its own troubles both at conceptual level as well as execution levels. Having been in the centre of the storm more than thrice I have come to conceptualize what the biggest issues are that go into destroying the competency framework efforts. These issues have been anecdotally presented here. The effort largely remains to bring the practical insights that have been learned through the experience of two unsuccessful and one successful competency framework. Identifying Competencies Competencies have been loosely defined. On one end people simply consider them to be glorified KSAOs. At other times people generalize the competency frameworks as success profiles. Very rarely do we come across practitioners who really understand what a competency means. Is it just KSAO? Is it just a success predictor or indicator? The answer to both is a big no and a small yes. Competencies are underlying characteristics, KSAOs that help an individual exhibit exemplary performance. But there are other hygiene factors too. A competency must be measurable A competency must be distinctly defined Competencies within a framework must be clearly different from others Competency must relate to some business competence in a direct or indirect way Competency is critical for success and relatively hard to come by, it must differentiate top performers from the average ones. (what is the point of looking for it if everyone has it; it wouldnt justify investment) A rather important discussion that many practitioners would engage in is how to identify the competencies. The most common methods remain competency based interviews, critical incident analysis, competency research, surveys, repertory grid technique and focus group discussions. However, each has its own tradeoffs. While qualitative methods mentioned above consume a lot of time, quantitative measures are relatively easier on time consumed but required bigger sample sizes to be effective. Depending on our experiences and environment the methods would differ. However, it is always advisable to have to methodologies applied just to be sure. It must be kept in mind that qualitative

studies are indicative while quantitative are conclusive. Best practice would be to include both the methodologies to answer the question what would differentiate a high performer from a mediocre one, in this job, in this role, in this company, in this industry and if possible with this long term strategy. This question answers pretty much what the supreme purpose of a competency development process at any company is. It is rare, however, to find this question sufficiently answered by practitioners. Many competency frameworks remain success profiles; very few become a strategic guide to a desirable alternate future state of a company. Defining Competencies Most practitioners would agree that in spite of large repository of research available in the field of competency based HRM, the word competency itself has barely been consistently and uniformly defined. The absence of a clear and agreed upon definition would lead one to believe that competency is an ambiguous concept. Though it is largely agreed upon that competencies are predictors of performance, their details remain vague. Many times they are just considered to be behaviors that are measurable in a particular context and lead to performance. At many other instances, technical knowledge has been kept outside the framework of competency while at other instances it is an integral component of competency. Similar ambiguity remains about the scope of competency and competence in business terms. It has been overly pointed out that competency at business levels might be different from those of the ones at the level of talent management. However, the bigger issue which happens to be an operational one is the uniformity of the definition of competency for the purposes of every framework. It becomes quintessential to identify what competency means to the organization. This is to avoid the confusion at the operational level. Though, the scholastic definition may not be agreed upon, the operational definition must be mastered and scripted in detail before the commencement of any implementation or even competency mapping itself. Here presented is an anecdote from one such experience from a PSU where the competency based assessment was on and the confusion was very unnerving. Seven competencies were defined and were produced in detail with behavioral indicators which were again classified into five proficiency levels and in a continuous hierarchy in the form of BARS. The candidates participating in the assessment had a very unnerving query. Though, the facilitators emphasized that the assessment was not testing any knowledge that formal business education would impart, the competencies were indeed measuring the knowledge levels when it came to strategy. A case problem posted to them consisted of advanced analytical problems which could differentiate between the engineers and those who were exposed to business diplomas and other qualifications. The result was quite anticipatable; the engineers at managerial roles consistently

scored lesser as compared to those with MBA degrees. The participation in the assessment center also was lower in terms of energy and enthusiasm. The engineers also more frequently (four times as much as MBAs) rejected the feedback from the assessors and were twice as likely to give a negative feedback about the assessment center and its fairness. The issue that is highlighted is the consistency of a single operational definition of competency(s) within individual organizations. The unity of the definition would guarantee lesser paranoia amongst the audience. Organizational issues and sense of fairness need to be treated as top priority when it comes to evaluating performance. Means and Ends It has been a regularly cited observation that competency mapping process is a means to a healthier performance oriented organization. Competency mapping itself should not be treated as an end. Organizations that go for competency mapping process because they are best practices must reconsider their stance. The problem is that though a competency framework wouldnt hurt, the fact remains that every organization is unique and that when treated as an end in itself, competency mapping might be less than effective in enhancing the performance of the organization. This is why the objective of the process should be very well defined and hence the realization that competency framework is here to serve a purpose more important than the project itself. Alternatively, another problem can be encountered which corresponds to the micro view of competency framework. Competency frameworks must be a part of the bigger picture of the organization and though they can be applied in multiple sub domains like training and performance, they remain a holistic concept. The competency mapping process from a BPO firm represents similar problems; the competency mapping process was being done to enable better succession planning. The perils of the project were very evident. The competency framework would be time and again tweaked depending on the performance based employee classification. The result was a competency framework just to suit the succession matrix. Another, experience with an education sector private player serves an excellent example as to why some frameworks fail. The competency mapping project was being done because of the fact that it was a best practice. The business need of such a project though very evident, was not documented and the project turned to be a purist and highly theoretical framework with multiple implementation failures for the very fact that there were bigger business requirements which were not considered; for example the fact that the education sector and the company too is highly bureaucratic in culture and would need a more open culture for the program to succeed.

The bottom line remains that its important to document the objective of the framework and do so in a balanced way. The ends should be macro enough to encompass the framework while the framework shouldnt be an end in itself. The business link The business needs are of paramount importance but it is highly argued that they be studied in line with the companys vision and mission statement both implied and otherwise stated; at times they might not complement each other. When the business objective is survival, for example, as demonstrated in a live case of an education sector medium sized company, the objective of competitiveness or excellence cant be assumed in spite of the fact that the vision statement demands so. The competencies for survival turned out to be drastically different from the excellence picture as dictated by the company leadership. As it turned out, a number of competencies ended up way too unfocussed to the prime need of survival, including brand building. A company fighting for financial stability would definitely find it impossible to focus on brand building. The business needs would differ and so would the skills and competencies of the people. The difference of opinion as regards the vision and strategy of a company can be a make or break issue when it comes to the competency mapping efforts. Usually the business needs at the ground zero are of more importance than the ones dictated by the senior leadership and are generally of short term concern but critical nonetheless. The senior leadership on the other hand would give a bigger picture and competencies that would be needed in future of the company. A balance is quintessential. A more fertile practice would be to bring the senior leadership into unanimity about a singular picture. Task becomes difficult if the business mission is divorced from the reality. It should be kept in mind that the competency needs at organizational level would drastically differ when it comes to the strategy of the firm. Hence having a clear and stable strategy and in turn leadership is very necessary. A big threat remains the ready to use competency frameworks available in market. The competency libraries are a good tool for a consultant but just a tool; nothing more. In a simple analogy this can be explained by the fact that a librarian is not half as wise as the man who wrote either one of the books in the library. The message is that a library is a reference tool for developing a framework and caution must be exercised in using them. Both the competencies and their definitions might not suit the cultural, strategic and business needs of the organization. A relevant question that practitioners must ask themselves is why not one should walk an extra mile to create ones own framework when already a huge amount of resource is being spent on the same, especially when the effectiveness and long term performance is at stake. The additional effort of customizing the framework for business needs is a highly

fruit bearing practice. The premise is very simple. If performance in different environment differs then so should the formula for performance. The bottom line is, if detailed, the performance predictors will differ with differences between organizations even in same industry or level of job role. Strategic Focus It must always be borne in mind that the people competencies do not help an organization unless they are leading to the cultivation of a business competency which can give a competitive advantage in the domain. This is how a competency framework becomes bigger than just an HR initiative. Companies that excel in services would need excellent quality focus and customer satisfaction measures to justify competitive advantage in market. Additionally such a company would need to be flexible and sensitive towards the demands of its customers. In practical sense a company would concentrate on one such strength and try to make it a core competency. If such an advantage has to be consistent it must stem from the human capital of an organization. So if the core competency remains the service quality, competencies that must be included in the framework must directly be linked to it. Seldom do the leadership competencies change with the business domain but functional competencies must and not just with business domain but also with strategy of the organization. If a technical advancement of new service renders the quality advantage ineffective, it must strategize a new path and in turn a new set of competencies to support it. In effect we can easily suggest that a competency framework must be definitely revisited to see if the market forces have changed. Market forces may compel a company to change its bearings midcourse. A change in strategy would also imply a change in the framework. Changes might be subtle but would align the organizations effort and talent to the correct direction. Measures of a Successful Competency Framework The biggest indicator of a competency frameworks success is the success of an assessment centre based on it for the audience population. Competency frameworks success must be reflected in the predictive validity in long run and concurrent validity in the short term. What is highly objectionable is the practice of measuring a competency frameworks success by quantitative figures of number of people assessed, promoted or trained by them. This could imply the regular use of a misleading framework only to prove ineffective and counterproductive in the long run. Competency frameworks are good if they lead to performance. There can be no better measure of its success. Unlike believed, the analysis of a competency based assessment is the simplest way to determine its efficiency. If the scores of related competencies correlate with those of the real-time performance, you

have hit the bullseye. Further, similar correlation with future performance of a candidate will provide valuable insights about the success of the competency framework and the assessment centre itself. However, it must be kept in mind that assessment centers must be carried out religiously. The good predictor could also be seen with the help of a coach or parallel 360 ratings. Changes in that could also suggest improvement especially in case of development centers. A competency framework would be highly usable and resourceful if it is made well. It would reflect on the long term health of the company and the higher level of engagement. These qualitative and quantitative measures are however, only indicative. Caution must be realized as many other factors come to play. However a good practitioner must have his measures ready to defend the framework or tweak it in the right direction if required. Art and Science A very relevant discussion ensues when we come to question whether competency mapping is an art or science. When most of the performance has to be dealt with scientifically, a lot of the organizational dynamics and execution is left to the delicate work of art. However, the most important aspect remains connecting the dots. Bringing the science to the art in competency mapping is a hygiene requirement for every competency project. Competencies are formula of individual and organizational success. However, theoretical, the effort is all about the ability to predict performance to the greatest level of accuracy as permissible by the errors of social sciences. Hence, the competencies must be derived very scientifically. The logic is simple. If competencies predict performance, they would differentiate the top performers from the average and average from the underperforming employees. The strength with which a statistical relationship of this kind is observed is in reality the actual worth of the competency framework hence obtained. Making competencies work requires a lot of work even after the competency framework has been established. Typically a competency would require constant validation and its very own maintenance cycle. The validation must establish the validity of each element of the framework and hence every competency and indicator contained therein must justify its place in the competency. Against the logical importance of this step, many task forces rely on their intuitive understanding of what needs to be in the framework. Since the framework is the formula for performance, the reverse must be experimentally true or else the framework is a waste of valuable resources and would eventually do more harm than good. In many technical projects and researches this is obtained by a predictive validity score or even commonly used convergent and discriminant validity score between constructs measured by valid instruments.

Additionally there are legal implications of not having a valid competency framework. Many countries and laws dictate the requirement of high and regularly measured validity values if the frameworks are to be the foundation of selection and promotion as regards the equal employment rights and racial discrimination. However, the theoretical accuracy is not sufficient because the ROI from such an effort is what the organization really cares for. Everyone wants results in terms of value. In practice this is not only a harsh reality but also the moment of truth for all frameworks. And this impact on bottom line however indirect would definitely happen in the long run when the art aspect is taken care of. The acceptability of the framework is an important indicator of the first step of impact for the framework. This is where we must emphasize the fact that competency mapping becomes an art especially for those who belong to the organization. As for the task force, the buy in has to be achieved at the very outset. Caution must be borne when it comes to the involvement of the internal customers of the organization in competency research. Their motives to create inaccuracies must be tackled tactfully. And this must be done with the full knowledge that those who would be affected by the framework must contribute to it. It must be drawn to them that the framework is a result of their views and opinions and not something that has been pushed down at them. Additionally it must be ensured that before any implementation of the framework, the audience must clearly understand the competencies. The art aspect of most competency frameworks is hard to excel at, in spite of its relative lower cost and greater effort from the organizational stand point. One cant stress more on the importance of communication and proactive change (resistance) management. Skills in this very art need to meet scientific foundation in every task force that is responsible for the design and implementation of competency frameworks. Needless to say that competency frameworks are just one side of the coin, the other complementary program would be assessment and development of these competencies, without which no efforts shall be realised. Further, leadership would be of paramount importance, leadership's biggest role would be to challenge the common sense which is often wrong and take steps that make the competency initiative more meaningful and rewarding in the company's lifetime.