From the first module(Competency frameworks: anintroduction, Issue 10) you haveprobably gained a picture of acompetency framework. Youmay also have recognised thatthis is just one design and that,like vacuum cleaners, while thereis much commonality there arealso differences.

This module will look atdesigning a competencyframework.

Why does an organisation decideit needs a framework? Ourexperience is that it stems fromtwo prime sources:

● The first is to solve a realproblem that the organisationis facing, such as the need to select better recruits or to identify better managers,or ... Well, there are manyproblems that organisationsface.

● The second is a decision to improve the way things are done; for exampleintroduce coaching and self-development or have a common basis for thepeople processes in the organisation, such asperformance management or succession planning.

Having set out on the road tomeet the need or to change the way things are done, a six-stage design process is started. I am not going to suggest thatall the content of all the six steps is a must. What I amsuggesting is that, in an idealworld, this is the minimum thatwould need to be done toproduce an ideal framework. But we don’t live in an idealworld and we are probably notaiming for an ideal frameworkand we know that when theframework is in place the organisation will change. Afterall, that was the reason wedesigned it.

So what are these six steps?

1 The reason, motivation andscope.

2 The foundation information.

3 The basic design.

4 Testing the basic design toproduce the draft design.

5 Test, final design and ‘go’decision.

6 Roll out.

Design

TRAIN the TRAINER • Issue 10

● The questions you need toask before and during design.

● The skills and process ofdesign.

● Hints and tips on designing asound framework.

Key learning points

Authors

Barry E Johnson BA MCMI MCIPD and Mandy Geal BA are directors of LEARNINGpartners Ltd.Both Mandy and Barry have considerable business experience. Barry was the senior manager responsible for training,resourcing and development in Europe for a global company before joining LEARNINGpartners. He operated trainingon a ‘zero budget basis’. Mandy was the MD of her own software house before becoing a founding director ofLEARNINGpartners Ltd.Telephone: 01279 423294 • E-mail: info@learningpartners.co.uk • Website: www.learningpartners.co.uk

TRAIN the TRAINER • ©Fenman Limited 2004

Designing a competencyframework

Introduction

Six-step approach

Barry Johnson andMandy Geal

You now have a basic frameworkwith titles, and definitions withappropriate behaviours allocated.

It is useful to test what has beenachieved by using focus groups.The people involved will be aware of how the basic designhas been produced. Their role isto do a sanity check on the workso far – is it logical, does it hangtogether, will it be acceptable,what is missing? They have themore creative role of deciding thebasis of the scale progression sothat levels are coherent anddistinct.

The levels must be progressive.Level 1 is the most basic foreffective operation and level 4 isan outstanding one. For example:

The levels are cumulative. It isexpected that the person at level3 can do all the things in levels 1and 2 but not all the things inlevel 4.

The progression follows a themeor even two or three themes thatare directly related to thecompetency and the environmentwhere the competency will beused. Without a listing ofcommon descriptors, the processcan be a real brain-ache. Somecommon progressions are:

● simple to complex;

● single factor to multiple factor;

● low risk to high risk;

● short term to long term, etc.

Given the scale progression, youcan define each level. This enablesyou to place the behavioursappropriately.

There is no way of knowing how this will fall out withoutworking through this stage. In one organisation a verycomplex and demanding set ofinter-personal behaviours wasrequired by very junior people inthe organisation, and seniorpeople did not need this level ofbehavioural complexity. Focusgroups tell you this. So is thisstructured low complexity to highcomplexity or is a differentprogression used? Decisions arerequired at every stage. Given theadditional information from thefocus groups, you can produce thedraft design.

● Check that behaviours appearonly in one competency and at

one level. With computers thisis made easy by using ‘Find’.

● Check for non-observables – it’s amazing how words such as ‘understand’ slip in. The designer has to produceobservable behaviours that result from the ‘under-standing’.

● Eliminate redundant adjectivesand adverbs; for example, anadjective such as ‘competitive’qualifying ‘marketplace’.Market places are competitive;if not, they are not market-places.

Now the framework has thefewest number of competenciesconsistent with the requirement.Each competency has a definedtitle and defined levels thatfollow a consistent progression,and within each level arebehaviours consistent with thelevel descriptors. For example, ifthe level descriptor indicates‘responsive’, then none of thebehaviours will be ‘proactive’. The framework is clean and readyfor a final sanity check and thedecision to roll it out.

This is the subject of the nextmodule, which will also includewhat the framework can be used for.

It is useful to

test what has been

achieved by using

focus groups

“

”

The draft design

Summary

Test and final design

Roll-out

Producing the draft design

Level 1 Passes water

Level 2 Paddles in water

Level 3 Swims in water

Level 4 Walks on water

ReferencesR Boyatzis, The Competent Manager, John Wiley & Sons, 1982.N Rankin (ed.), The IRS Handbook on Competencies, IRS, 2001. V Stewart and A Stewart, Business Applications of Repertory Grid, McGraw-Hill, 1981.

Designing a competency framework

TRAIN the TRAINER

Let’s have a look at the first fivesteps in detail. From this you candecide what skill you have, whatresource you need or how you canlocate the resource you will need.

We have already touched on thereason and motivation, but let’s takeit a little further. If we are to besuccessful we shall need to answersome basic questions:

● What is the purpose of thecompetency framework?

● What is the target population?(e.g. graduate, sales, managers,etc.).

● What are the budget and timeparameters?

● Do we have expertise available?

● Who will use the framework? (e.g.managers, HR, target population,etc.)

● What formats have been pre-determined?

● How will it be made available?(e.g. intranet, booklets, cards, etc.)

● Who are supporters already andwhose support will be needed?

● What/who are the major blockers?

● How will it be piloted, validatedand launched?

Having answered these basicquestions, a picture will be emergingthat prompts other questions.

It is necessary at this early stage toexplore some of the questions. Forexample, you may decide to focus ona particular population and thatpopulation may spread across anumber of functions. So the questionarises, what sorts of jobs areinvolved? Are the jobs clustered infamilies? Does that indicate thatother people should be included?

By now you should have defined thescope of the framework.

You now have to gather thebehaviours that will form theframework. There are three keygroups of people to ‘interview’:

● The first group are actualjobholders. Jobholders know what they do and how they do it.

● The second group are thevisionaries and strategists. Theycan envision how the roles willchange as the organisationdevelops, and therefore whatbehaviours will becomeparamount and what differentones will become important.

● Third are the sub-groups. Theseare often missed. A group may be under-represented – such aswomen in management or men in administration. There may be class or education or ethnicsub-cultures.

This is all about acceptability – that ishow well somebody fits into thepresent situation. If managers aremen there may be a prevalentbehavioural culture with regard towhat is ‘acceptable’. This may bedifferent from what is ‘suitable’ forthe roles and therefore requiredifferent behaviours. So it must bepossible for the framework to beused to assess ‘suitability’ rather thancurrent ‘acceptability’.

The word ‘interview’ was used in theinformation-gathering context. This

is an absolutely vital phase of theprocess. There are three primeapproaches. They are Critical IncidentTechnique and Behavioural EventInterviewing (Boyatzis, 1982) andRepertory Grid (Stewart et al., 1981).All three require a high level ofinteractive behaviour and analyticalskills. The aim is to move past ‘why’the person does something, past‘what’ they do, to ‘how’ they do it –the behaviours used.

By integrating the informationgathered you can identify the com-petencies required. The competen-cies can be titled and defined. As thedesigner, you now have some ideaabout what you are dealing with.

With the definition clear, thebehaviours can be allocated.

At this point I should like to consider some of the designprinciples that apply to thedefinition and also apply to laterstages of the design.

The definition is a summary, a‘what’; it will therefore consist ofonly the essentials and avoid the‘how’. ‘How’ is the content of themore detailed behavioural levels.This makes the definitionunambiguous and unembellished –that is clear and simple.

TRAIN the TRAINER

Designing

The word or concept of planningas in ‘Planning and reviewing’cannot appear in ‘Business andcommercial focus’. It must benoted, however, that few compe-tencies are entirely free fromoverlap or contamination by othercompetencies. You must as far aspossible minimise overlap. This is a major challenge. Manyframeworks have this contamina-tion and it is very difficult toeliminate. For example, thecommon thinking on communica-tion, considering others andworking with others could easilyform a giant competency andsome behaviours could easilymigrate across them. Nerves ofsteel and hanging on to clearthinking helps but it is difficult.

This avoids ‘circularity’ or adefinition that adds nothing. Anexample would be defining‘decision making’ as ‘the ability todecide’. This is not helpful. ‘The

ability to make commitment toaction’ or ‘the ability to reach aconclusion after consideration ofpossible choices’ is much moredescriptive. What this alsohighlights is that, depending onthe orientation and the behavioursinvolved, definitions of the sametitle will be different in differentframeworks.

An example is ‘respecting others’.The standard definition employswords such as ‘show admiration’and ‘deference’. This is perhapsnot what is intended. ‘Consideringothers’ may be defined as‘thoughtful of somebody’s feelingsor position’, ‘to take somethinginto account, often sympathetical-ly’. These definitions have muchmore of the tone required. In most cases, though, most peopleunderstand and accept the‘correct’ words – althoughindividuals can and do occasionallyobject out of all proportion to thesituation.

Having said that, organisationshave cultures and cultures havelanguages. You must match thelanguage to the organisation. For

example, one organisationconsidered the word ‘issue’ asmuch more extreme than the word‘problem’. In another part of thesame organisation the culture wasdifferent. They did not like theword ‘problem’, but ‘issue’ wasacceptable. This is a small issue –or is it a problem? – but it isimportant for acceptability andunderstanding.

There is, of course, a basic problemin understanding what a wordmeans. For example, two wordsthat are very often confused are‘innovative’ and ‘initiative’.Looking at some dictionaries, it iseasy to understand why. For thisreason it is useful for designers tocompile a glossary so that wordscan be used consistently.

To take one example, ‘Changefocus or adaptability’ may have a co-competency of ‘Creativityand/or innovation’. Theorientation of the first isresponsive; the orientation of the second is proactive. Thisorientation sometimes causes aproblem, and two words becomemuddled because the competen-cies are assumed to be the same.

An example of a behaviouralstatement is ‘Be influential in achallenging environment’. If youare influential, you are influential.There are degrees, but that is incontent or context. If context isimportant it should be built intothe level definition.

Reason, motivation and scope

The foundation information

Overlap and contamination

The basic design

Definition

No definition must have concepts that appear in anotherdefinition.

Circularity

Words

Orientation

Limitation

No definition should use theword it is defining as part of thedefinition.

The words we use should reflectstandard English usage and meanwhat we are trying to convey.

Two of the competencies mayhave a commonality but theorientation would be different.

A behavioural statement shouldavoid limitations.