Jack,
Sorry I haven't replied to your query before this but time and tide etc.
Re the MCI competency (skills) standards, the following is my understanding
(having been part of the team who piloted them) of how the standards were
developed and implemented:
>How were these validated?
The competencies were first identified from a functional analysis approach
- ie, the skills and knowledge of those people agreed as being 'good'
managers were analysed for the competencies they displayed and, more
importantly, how these competencies were actually applied on the job. These
were firstly validated across a wide range of industries and then piloted
in a small number of industry groups. Feedback from this went to enhancing
the way the competencies were captured and this was then piloted in a
larger group. Again, feedback was used to enhance the product and another
pilot was carried out - this time across a wide range of industries. Once
again the feedback was used to enhance the standards. (There were a couple
more steps in there but I've forgotten exactly how they went - suffice it
to say they were centred on trialling the competencies in a variety of
workplaces.)
Once MCI were happy with the product they took the competencies to what was
then called the National Council for Vocational Qualification (loosely the
equivalent of the National Skills Standards Board) where they were endorsed
for their content, industry input and support, format and workplace
usability. This endorsement was for a number of years during which time it
was expected that MCI would continue to pilot the standards in the
workplace and report back on industry takeup and use.
This report enabled MCI to once more enhance the competencies because of
feedback received throughout the UK and overseas on both their
applicability and usability. This enhancement continues to this day.
These processes are far more rigorous than those found in any other country
(how many people are still using the Hay/McBer competencies - after all
these years?) and are indicative of the rigour that goes into the
competency-based processes in defining and implementing workbased
competency standards.
>Did the majority of good managers exhibit these competencies and the
>majority of bad managers lack these competencies?
Not at all. There is no comparison between 'good' managers and 'bad' ones.
The competencies are based on what is considered to be 'best practice' in
management (or whatever vocational field the standards are being written
for) without pointing the finger at those who are considered 'good' and
those considered 'bad'.
I guess the simple explanation for this is centred on the question of who
is it that would determine who is 'good' and who is 'bad'? And what would
they base their determination on? And, besides, what would give them the
right to make such a determination? Only film critics have the right to
make such determinations about something they have no ability in.
>How were the good and bad managers discerned in the first place?
>
Exactly. There are schools of thought that still consider it profitable to
measure high level performance by looking at what is considered to be low
level performance. It seems that in doing so they figure that if you
identify what is bad, and do the opposite, then you must be doing good. But
this is nonsense. In management people can do everything very well and
still end up with failures. It isn't always their fault - just like it
isn't the surgeon's fault if the patient dies even when the surgeon does
everything right.
Hope that helps.
Regards
Phil Rutherford
------------------------------------
P D Rutherford & Associates Pty Ltd
Competency-based systems specialists
61 2 6230 4823
robnphil@ozemail.com.au
http://www.prassociates.com.au