DS Cohen & AssociatesFor the past few decades, Human Resources has been cranking out behavioural competency models. In 2005 I wrote an article Why We Are Still Incompetent About Competencies. What follows is an update of the article.
One benefit of having behavioural competency models has traditionally been to provide the employee and manager with a clear understanding of what actions result in the employee’s success. However, many of the behavioural models intended to clarify, for everyone, the mutual expectations ended up just causing more confusion. Consulting firms, large and small, were doing a healthy business selling the same cookie-cutter model to every client.
The idea of behavioural competency models was and remains theoretically sound. Each organization would identify the individual actions that were unique to that organization, resulting in a success model for high performance. So, what went wrong?
One Size Fits All
Human Resource leaders are not, by nature, risk-takers. Too many organizations became obsessed with the concept of benchmarking the “best in class,”; turning to other organizations not only in the same industry sector but across all sectors in the quest to find the model that seemed to work best. But every organization is different, and the model that worked best for another company would not necessarily work best for your company. Why? Because the other company has entirely different values and culture and a different business plan. Importing the best in class to your company was a disservice to your employees.
The outcome of benchmarking behavioural competencies sanitized the competency models to one generic size. While there were some word games to make the model specific to the client, the core always remained the same. Even if the business plans were similar, company cultures are always different. The acceptable norms of behaviour (the culture) that over time prove to be the way of doing things right within a company became ignored. The behavioural competency models became scrubbed and generic.
To make the quest for the allusive perfect behavioural competency model even harder, many consultancies began to generate more complex models. One common approach was to build behavioural competency models in stages. In developing the stage model, the theory was the more ‘mature’ the behaviour, the more compensation the employee would earn (with mature stages being reserved for senior roles).
In stage model theory, the next stage must be uniquely different from the previous stage. Yet, most behavioural models using stage development theory failed because many of the stages were the same as the previous one. The difference in wording was how creative the writer of the model was with a thesaurus. The behavioural difference was, at best, nuanced. The next issue came with the application of the model to talent deflowerment.
Further, the stage development theory suggests that to pass onto the next highest level of behaviour, one must reach equilibrium at the person’s current level. Yet, promotions were handed out because of business outcomes, not because the outcomes were accomplished using the desired behaviours. This resulted in employees feeling a disconnect between the model and their individual success. The behavioural competency models lost all credibility with the average employee.
Why They Didn’t Work
In the real world of work, managers did not take the time to socialize the model with their direct reports or build a mutual understanding of the actions in their specific work domain. Relying on an overly complex model only created more confusion. Seeing that the models were confusing, coupled with a lack of understanding and pre-existing apprehension to these systems, employees’ quickly felt the futility of the entire process and became disenchanted with it.
In short, the model of five core competencies and seven job-specific competencies became unworkable.
And to make matters worse, the content of the behavioural statement was not even behavioural. The statements were descriptions of outcomes, not actual behaviours. Other statements outlined traits – not behaviours. The content also included qualifying statements like “makes an effort,” “understands the concepts,” and “tries when necessary.” The qualifying statement allowed for high-performance review scores without getting the results. What was lacking was a standard definition of what a behaviour is and how to phrase the behaviour as an action leading to success.
As a result, the competency model became a messy labyrinth of levels, an assortment of statements that were so generic they could apply to everyone in any company.
So, What Actually Works?
Put into perspective the purpose of the behavioural leadership model and all other models. If correctly designed, they should be specific to the organization’s values and business purpose to ensure the successful execution of the business plan. As I stated in my original article, the organizational need was for a statement of specific actions that results in high performance. The success model approach does not have levels or stages and lacks a plethora of statements of theoretical or aspirational actions no one would ever demonstrate in the company. The success model is real, tangible, and actionable.
How does one build a successful model of performance? First, identify those people in the job family that are already highly successful because they demonstrate the desired behaviours. Realizing no one person will encompass all the expected behaviours, find a group that, collectively, encompasses the traits of a highly successful employee. This requires one set of desired behaviours, not a series of stages statements. Using critical incident interviewing, you will find the statements that make these employees different from the average employee and, in turn, more successful. You will end up with no more than four or five clusters or categories, with no more than 20 statements in total. Each statement will be directly linked to the business priorities and consistent with the behaviours of living the values.
You need to pay close attention to the identification of the behaviours. Each person does many different things during the workday. Many of them are not differentiating factors. You must identify the few areas that make these people able to achieve remarkable success. In the end, you will have a solid leadership model with far fewer statements.
Next, each statement needs to be linked to the desired outcome. Remember – the complex off-the-shelf competency models included every competency that was remotely related to the organization. These models have generic statements that do not account for your “real world” factors. Collectively they do not dive into the information needed to be a highly successful employee within your culture and execution of your business plan.
By understanding the desired business results, organizations can highlight the actions specific to accomplishing their desired outcomes, putting together a success framework particular to the culture and business plan.
Words and ideas must be derived from the company and the jargon of the employees. The pride of authorship cannot be from human resources or senior management, and it especially cannot be a computer-generated printout purchased from an external consultant.
In short, interview for the critical incidents that separate the competent from the highly successful employee, ensuring you link each statement of behaviour to the successful execution of the business. Make certain you write the behavioural statement as an actual behaviour and not an outcome alone, using language and wording specific to the company.
Good Corporate Citizenship
Using this approach, you will be best equipped to define what it means to be a good corporate citizen within your specific organization. To ensure the message is clear that these are the fundamental conditions of being a good corporate citizen, you need to ensure that they are integrated into all aspects of talent management. It can’t just be about ideas without execution.
Another benefit of utilizing this model is that it gives you the ability to create learning experiences and a leadership program that is engaging and moves towards the execution and evolution of the organization.
Once the model is in place and communicated to employees, you will have a real foundation to provide the best workplace for employees to be successful. The final benefit comes from having a concise leadership success model, and people can see it links to success.
A Question
Over the past two years, we have seen a massive shift to “flexible” work arrangements. During this period of “working from anywhere,” do your employees understand the new ground rules for success? Have your behavioural competency models kept current, or are they still based on an in-person, in-the-office work environment?
Please don’t hesitate to reach out if there is anything I can do to help.
