Words: 824
In making the distinction between competency modeling (CM) and traditional Job analysis (TAXI the authors articulate that the latter encores itself with describing and measuring day-to-day operations of specific roles In an organization while the former relates to desired behavioral competencies that transcend various roles and In doing so contribute to an overarching organizational strategy. The authors compare CM and TAX along six dimensions: purpose, view of the job, focus, time orientation, performance level and measurement approach.
While all dimensions are equally important in making a clear distinction between the two concepts, for the purpose of this summary I will be focusing on what is in my opinion he three most relevant distinctions between the two HRS methodologies namely, focus, time orientation and performance level. The authors argue that TAX focuses solely on the job and in doing so fails to recognize that job behavior could be influenced by factors other than formal responsibilities.
CM on the other hand, builds itself around notions of ’employer brand’ and ’employee value proposition’ that include behavioral themes and unique performance characteristics that derive directly from the organizational identity itself. The focus of CM Is particularly important because it has significant practical implications when communicating management expectations to employees.
An employer brand should identify with a business strategy and communicating strategic competencies as a component of management expectations is more likely to encourage on-brand behavior in the delivery of products and services to customers, regardless of the employee’s Job title. For example, the inclusion of ‘Discretionary Effort’ among Feeder’s competencies encourages Its employees to go above and beyond their day-to-day Job responsibilities and provide creative solutions to customers’ demands, which Is consistent with an overarching business strategy of exceeding customer expectations.
Furthermore, since competencies communicate universal behavioral themes that the organization wishes to see across all Jobs, employees seeking career advancement are able to identify with these themes and perform their duties that not only benefit themselves but the organization as well. Most organizations do not engage their employees In a manner that encourages them to demonstrate such on-brand behavior.
However It seems quite clear, that accompanying specific job duties with these behavioral themes and rewarding employees for demonstrating such behaviors in the workplace could have a significant impact on a firm’s reputation and overall consistency in the manner employees perform their duties. Secondly, the authors argue that TAX Is rooted In the past because It concerns itself with describing a Job by relying on those who have performed the Job till date.
In contrast CM NAS a Touch on ten Torture, Decease It communicates now a Joy snouts be interpreted and performed from now on regardless of past behavior. TAX takes a bottom-up approach relying on information obtained from employees performing the job, while CM takes a top-down approach by communicating generic behavioral themes identified by leaders who are also responsible for strategic planning.
Furthermore, the authors interject that TAX outlines day-to-day operational capabilities that have facilitated the survival of the organization till date, while CM concerns itself with change-oriented competencies that encourage employees to demonstrate certain behavioral characteristics that may facilitate growth and hang. In essence, CM allows employees to better understand how their specific Job assignments contribute to the organization’s strategic initiatives and when provided with the right incentives, employees are more likely to change their behaviors that align with these strategies going in to the future.
Providing employees with a sense of purpose and direction that facilitates the firm’s future growth is more likely to encourage behaviors that go above and beyond an employee’s basic duties in serving the customers which may in turn serve the organization as well. Last but not the least, the distinct performance level addressed by TAX and CM is of particular significance because it allows us to understand what will bring out the best from employees in an organization.
While TAX addresses the typical’ requirements needed to perform the work assignments, CM focuses on ‘maximal’ performance by encouraging a series of loosely coupled behavioral themes that go beyond the operational efficiency of basic aspects of a Job. This distinction is significant because if managers wish to encourage employees to perform at a level hat goes beyond the typical day-to-day responsibilities, they must excel at implicitly communicating these behavioral themes to others in the organization.
These themes tend to be generic so they transcend across all Job titles within the organization and bear on the interpersonal aspects of the manner in which the Job ought to be performed. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, those seeking career advancement have a clear idea of what sort of behavior will result in favorable outcomes and that optimizing day-to-day operations alone will not serve them or the organization in the long run.