Assignment:
In this article illustrated below, how can competency be used in hiring process? Also, I have to use KSAO (Knowledge, Skills, Abilities and Others).
What Is It And What's It Good For?
As the interest in measuring and predicting performance in the workplace has grown over the past decade, the term "competency" has become a staple part of every HR person's vocabulary. While it is among the most frequently used terms flying around the halls of HR, it is also one of the least understood.
I have lost track of the number of times that clients and associates have asked me, "Just what is a competency anyway?" I don't pretend to have THE answer to this question. While I do have some opinions on the matter, it is hard to provide a direct answer to this question because there is very little standardization associated with this term. Different people define competencies in different ways, depending on what they are trying to accomplish and the approach they are using. One thing that everyone can agree on - the term describes something that has to do with an individual's ability to perform a certain job or role within an organization. This basic definition should reinforce the importance of the term because the ability to clearly define and measure the things about an individual that allow them to perform a job or role in the organization is essential for all HR functions.
In an effort to share my two cents worth on this issue, the remainder of this article represents a brief opinion of what the term competency means.
Why should we care about competencies?
Before I start explaining my point of view, I think it is important to provide some context for why we even care about competencies in the first place. They are important because much of what we do as HR professionals relies on our ability to clearly describe humans relative to what they can contribute within the work environment. Think about it, in order for us to be even marginally effective in making hiring decisions, it is important that we are able to understand what an individual brings to the party relative to what they are going to be asked to do at that party.
The ability to break job performance and human performance down into common elements is also critical for the effectiveness of other HR systems. For instance, competencies are necessary for providing measurement of performance in a job vs. the expectation that comes with that job (performance appraisal) and for helping create systems to help individuals learn and develop so they can expand their ability to further their careers while continuing to add value for the organization (training and development). Finally, competencies are critical for helping provide an understanding of what an individual's ability to make a contribution is worth in monetary terms (compensation).
The bottom line is that we should care about competencies because they provide us with a common language or vocabulary that underlies all things that define people relative to the work they are asked to do. While this is important for ensuring the effectiveness of individual HR functions, the ability to use a common set of terms to describe people relative to work is also a critical ingredient if we are ever going to truly integrate the various silos within HR.
So what is a competency anyway?
Traditionally we I/O Psychologists have broken down a person's capabilities to perform a job into what are known as KSAOs. This stands for: Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other things. Using these terms has always been difficult for me because there is no real firm definition to separate each of these individual criteria. For instance, when is something like communication a skill but not an ability? Just what is meant by "Other" anyway? While these terms do describe things of value when trying to learn about someone's job related capabilities, they are a bit too micro to really capture the broader elements that define job performance. This means that when one attempts to separate a job into its discreet elements using KSAOs, the bigger picture of what it takes to do the job can get lost in translation. While doing specific job related tasks may involve the use of KSAOs, it is the way the person uses the Ks, Ss, As and Os together that makes them either a slug or a star performer when accomplishing the tasks that define their work. So, in my mind KSAOs do help us define the requirements of a job, but they really end up defining the job more then the person. Conversely, competencies describe the person more than they do the job.
My viewpoint is based on the idea that you can't accurately describe who a person is in terms of their individual experiences or the individual things they know how to do. A person represents something more then the sum of their experiences and their doing and learning. I think of competencies in this same "the whole is greater then the sum of its parts" perspective. A competency is a much broader description of one aspect of what a person has to be able to do to perform a job but it also describes what it is about a person that will allow them to do other jobs or perform well in specific work related situations. Thus by putting together multiple competencies we can begin to describe what a person must be able to do in order to perform a specific job as well as how they can add value throughout many different roles within the organization. So, using competencies offers a modular approach that allows organizations to better look at individuals relative to their lifecycle within an organization rather then in terms of their ability to perform a specific aspect of a job.
The thing about competencies that trips people up is that thinking about people and jobs in this broad nature can be hard to operationalize when it comes time to actually measure things related to job performance. So, I feel that in order to be useful when measurement and standardization is involved competencies must have several levels of meaning.
Here is an example of what I am talking about, which is part of a competency model that I developed for a client. Notice that the main competency in the example, Ethics, has several components to it. The first is a high level broad definition of what someone who has ethics will do in a work related situation. Beneath this are sub-competencies that describe the things a person with ethics does in more detail. Each sub-competency is further defined by specific behaviors that demonstrate how a person uses their ethics in the course of the workplace.
# Competency: Ethics
# Definition: The ability to understand and exercise honesty, integrity, responsibility, trust, respect and responsible citizenship in all aspects of personal and professional life. The ability and willingness to set an example for the organization when dealing with employment practices, records and information, communicating with internal and external parties, potential conflicts of interest, the handling of organizational assets. The ability to safeguard the public's trust in the organization.
# Sub-facet 1: Ethical Leadership
>> Definition: The ability to ensure the creation of a climate in which adherence to ethical guidelines and responsibility is valued by all employees.
>> Behaviors: Lives by a clearly defined code of ethics; Provides ethics training and awareness; Leads by example
# Sub-facet 2: Employment Practices
>> Definition: The ability and willingness to exercise ethical, and honest behaviors when dealing with employees and the practices that guide their relationship with the organization.
>> Behaviors: Supports and practices ethical behaviors as they relate to the following - Workplace Harassment; Equal Opportunity; Diversity; Fair Treatment of Staff; Work-Family Balance; Discrimination; llegal Drugs and Alcohol; Use of Organization Property; Proper exercise of authority
Sub-facet 3: Records and Information
>> Definition: The ability and willingness to exercise ethical and honest behavior when dealing with records and information related to the organization and its business.
>> Behaviors: Supports and practices ethical behaviors as they relate to the following - Maintaining records and information; Recognizing the need to maintain privacy and confidentiality and maintaining when required; Using ethical principles when disclosing information
When competencies like the one above are combined with others, a picture of a person emerges. It is then possible to compare this composite picture with an understanding of what the role requires in order to ascertain who is best suited for a particular job. The beauty of this picture is that it can also be compared to other jobs within the organization in a way that speaks volumes about an individual's ability to make a contribution. This picture can also be used to help provide an understanding of what might be missing from the picture should that person be interested in another job within the organization.
Once all jobs are explained using a common set of building blocks that define both broad and micro level behaviors it becomes easier to see how individuals can fit into new roles or perform well in new situations. This approach also provides a standardized meaning that creates consistency between all of the HR functions that impact an individual and thus is a form of common language that can begin to break down the walls between various HR functions.
It is probably unrealistic of me to think that there will ever be one universally accepted standard definition for what defines a competency. In fact this may not really even be necessary. It is more important to see that organizations are beginning to create a common language that they can use to accurately describe sets of individual characteristics that describe an individual's ability to perform a job or role within that organization. By understanding these things organizations have created a foundation that is needed to manage the entire employee lifecycle.