To Fred and Jack - and others following this thread,
I think that, unintentionally, the feedback so far received has all been
supporting my assertion that it is possible to develop competencies that provide
an accurate (or near as damn it accurate) criteria against which to measure
performance. All comments have so far said this in one way or another, but have
not entirely agreed with my assertion that MCI may have come up with the
appropriate criteria.
I would be curious to know just how many people have actually read the MCI
competencies? And if so, how many people have actually tried applying them in
either their training and education processes, recruitment or succession
planning, performance appraisal system or in the achievement of organisational
goals and objectives? Furthermore, I would be curious to know how many people
who have closely looked at the competencies have asked whether or not they
themselves possess these competencies? I'm sure the positive answer to many of
them would surprise those curious enough to ask.
There is no black magic in a process that defines the standards of performance
then provides the guidelines against which to measure them. It is something that
good managers have been doing ever since one person went to work for another.
This is what we today call a competency-based system, one that follows a process
of: I ask someone if they can do a particular job to a certain standard. They
say yes. I then ask them to show me, by either doing the job or providing
evidence that they can do the job. I then assess this evidence against what I
consider to be relevant and appropriate criteria. If this evidence is found
wanting then I ask them to provide more - either from other areas of their
worklife or from current or past training and/or education.
All very simple really.Billions of managers and supervisors do this daily. The
major difference is that in the past this assessment criteria (the competencies)
would be 'gut feeling' or a list of traits someone else has written and based on
common competencies.
Today, these criteria are defined as what a person must be capable of doing, on
the job (and measured against the needs of the job) and against the goals and
objectives of whichever organisation this person is working in. The competencies
don't define what the organisation wants because it is part of the individual's
competency to do this and mould the skills and knowledge to fit them. Nor do the
competencies state what a person must be trained in - only what he/she must be
capable of doing as a result of that training.
To make this simpler, we avoid writing the competencies as something the person
must do or be, and word them as something the person must achieve - however or
whichever way he/she deems fit and appropriate. For example, a competency for
senior management that has been bandied around for some time is the ability to
write a vision or mission statement from corporate goals or objectives. This is
an important competency but let's be honest - anyone can do that with training.
But can they write this vision or mission statement in such a way as to foster
support to it from those who would be expected to follow and/or implement it?
This is a totally different competency, involving far more skills and knowledge
than simple literacy, and can be applied in any organisation or environment. But
not everyone can do it without at least some experience at doing this on the
job. More importantly, it can only be assessed on the job (or, to put it another
way, can only be assessed after it has been applied in a real - or simulated -
workplace with real foibles, politics, individual and group needs, self- and
special-interest groups, etc, etc.) which takes the onus for proving competence
(or otherwise) away from the trainer and puts it onto the organisation.
In a similar vein, my specific area of interest is project management. In many
countries there are a number of competencies associated with the management of
projects and these usually form the basis for most popular training programs.
However we have identified that there are a number of other competencies also
associated with this (as well as another two levels of competence) which are
quite often overlooked by the trainers but not by the people trying to apply
them.
For example, integrating the project objectives with all elements of the
organisation in which the project is being run, is a critical aspect of good
project management - but not often taught nor assessed to find out whether or
not the individual can actually do this against his/her needs and in his/her
workplace. But such an action is, today, written into the competencies and
therefore essential for both training and workplace application. Another area
often overlooked is the development of contingency plans that people can
actually apply, manage and get widespread agreement to in the event that risk
becomes reality. All of these can be taught in a staid, one-dimensional training
program but whether or not they can be applied is only something that can be
measured against criteria that explicitly states what the individual must do or
achieve to show such application in practise.
The same goes for management in a generic sense. Traditionally we would
concentrate on Planning, Organising, Monitoring etc as the core competencies of
good management. No argument here because, as a trainer, I can teach these - one
dimensionally. But, which is more important - my being able to teach them or my
being able to help people apply them in the work area or organisation in which
they are employed? The way we've traditionally looked at the Planning etc
competencies they were all but impossible to apply as they were written. But
looking at Planning etc as an outcome (rather than a training input or starting
point) means that not only can we train people to that more important level, we
can very easily ascertain whether or not they've actually arrived.
What's more, all good training and education courses are (supposedly) based on
what is effective in the workplace - not what is easy to teach. So, with this in
mind, doesn't it make more sense to go for what would be far more attractive to
the student (workplace effectiveness) than what is easiest for us to provide?
Now, I agree with Fred. One of the greatest drawbacks to a wider adoption of
such an approach is the fact that there is no real agreement about what
constitutes 'competency'. This means that unless we are all talking about
something that is based on the one definition we will always be trying to
visualise a system based on what we perceive competency to be. I would disagree,
however, that it is a 'fad' because competency for managers has always been
measured by whether and how well someone can apply skills and knowledge on the
job. In the past such measurement would be against a job description or duty
statement with continuous assessment being against what the immediate manager
felt were important skills or knowledge. What we are trying to do today is
rescue the measurement of workplace competence from the trainers and educators
who maintain that they are the arbiters of competency (both its description and
its content) and return it to where it most rightly belongs - the workplace. The
processes that MCI (and many hundreds of others) have developed are one of the
very few that actually allow such competence to be measured in the workplace as
well as in the training venue. Not fully understanding it doesn't make it wrong
- nor will it make it go away.
Finally, what Fred says he has such difficulty in separating ("skill, attribute,
quality,
characteristic, proficiency level, and competency") are the very basics upon
which well written standards of competency are written. They can't be separated,
and if one is serious one should include values, traditions, cultures,
philosophies, attitudes and capacity. They are all there. So, I would encourage
anyone to take the time to look closely at the processes and not try to compare
them with the traditional way of doing things. An 'assessment centre' in the
modern sense of the term is far different to what it was ten or fifteen years
ago. Competency means far more than simply being able to do a job. Besides,
isn't it a critical competency of all good educators that they are au fait with
current trends and training methods?
Oh, I should point out that every country in the world is currently adopting
these processes. I have spoken at length in many countries, at academic,
business and government level, about these processes and I know that the
National Skills Standards Board is currently moving towards a more unified and
international set of guidelines for the adoption and application of a
competency-based system. It is only a matter of time before more of us are
debating the merits or otherwise of joining - or opposing - such a process.
Phil Rutherford