Competency framework-based leadership development -Why is it NOT working? And what can you do to make it work?
For the last three decades, organizations have increasingly used the competency framework for leadership development. An estimated 80% of the large organizations use competencies to design and implement their learning and leadership development activities.
At the same time, the numbers on the effectiveness of leadership development initiatives are shocking and depressing.
The promise of competency framework based leadership development:
Here is the promise of using a competency framework for leadership development
- Identify the specific competencies (a combination of knowledge, skills, attitude, and traits essential for successful job performance) of successful leaders in a particular organization.
- Then define and refine these competencies to develop a competency framework (a list of competencies).
- This competency framework then becomes the benchmark against which the company selects, develops, rewards leaders. If a leader possesses many of the competencies on the list, they have a higher chance of succeeding in their roles.
- Leaders are assessed based on the competency framework. Any gaps are identified. The goal of leadership development is to close these competency gaps.
- All the learning and leadership development activities are designed to enhance one or more of these competencies.
How competency frameworks are defined
If a company, ABC widgets, wanted to adopt a competency framework, here is the typical process they would follow, usually with the help of an external consultant.
- Study what do the best leaders have in common
- Analyze performance management, 360-degree feedback, leaders’ behaviors, interviews, etc.
- Prepare a draft list of competencies specific to the organization
- Get inputs, buy-in, and confirmation from top executives (CEO and the C-suite)
- Finalize the list of competencies to be used organization-wide
This list of competencies or the competency framework becomes the holy grail against which all leadership development efforts would revolve.
On paper, this process seems logical, reasonable, and scientific.
Why hasn’t competency-based leadership development worked?
While the competency framework provided a structured approach to talent management, competency-based leadership development hasn’t lived up to its promise. The statistics on the effectiveness of leadership development initiatives are both shocking and depressing.
- In a recent survey, 80% of the CEOs thought leadership development initiatives in their own organizations had a little business impact.
- Kristi Hedges, a Forbes magazine contributor, wrote in her aptly titled article – “If you think most leadership development is a waste of time, you may be right.”
Despite being used for three decades, competency-based leadership development has yet to deliver on the promise of improving the effectiveness of leadership development.
Read: Is your leadership development effective? Or is the money going down the drain?
Authors Zenger and Folkman (in their book The Extraordinary leaders) list these four flaws in the competency-based leadership development movement. They present these findings based on large-scale studies of thousands of leaders in various organizations with diverse geographical locations.
Competency frameworks are too complex
It is quite common to see competency frameworks in organizations consisting of a dozen or more competencies. Each of these competencies has four to six associated behaviors.
These behaviors are different for different levels of leaders. Most companies have three or more levels – individual contributor, manager, function head, division head, etc.
Think about your organization. What is the total number of competencies? How many total corresponding behaviors do you have to be aware of?
How many different levels of leadership do you have to differentiate competencies for? Just do the math, and you will see that there may be dozens of competencies and hundreds of behaviors to understand and develop.
It is practically impossible to track and develop such a large number of behaviors for the individual leader, their manager, and the talent development team.
Competency frameworks are based on incorrect assumptions
Here are some incorrect assumptions about competencies
Each company has a distinctive competency framework: While there are some differences, the behavioral competency frameworks in most organizations are largely similar with just different semantics.
Each competency is discrete and distinct: Nearly all competencies are linked to other similar competencies. When a leader gets better in one competency, there is a spillover effect in one or more of the other competencies.
All competencies are of equal importance: Traditional way to develop leaders is to improve upon the competencies the leader got a low score. Unfortunately, this assumption of removing weaknesses is ineffective. It is much better to leverage two or three strengths that the leader possesses.
The only exception is if the competency gap is a “fatal flaw” that is so glaring that it distracts from the leader’s strengths.
Competency frameworks have unintended consequences
As the competency framework is complex and cumbersome, there are some unintended consequences. Here are just a few of the unintended consequences.
- It becomes a check-the-box activity for the leader and the talent development team.
- The focus is on removing deficiencies. The focus should be on leveraging a few strengths.
- It is a cookie-cutter approach that tries to fit everyone in similar boxes. In a rapidly changing world, having an entire team of identical people could be disastrous.
- Complacency – Leaders who get better than average scores within the organization become complacent. Companies end up with a lot of average leaders instead of aspiring them to become outstanding leaders.
Poor execution of the competency framework
Competencies aren’t selected based on rigorous research: The competency framework should ideally be created based on solid research that differentiates the top performers in a particular organization. However, this doesn’t really happen.
Consultants bring a standard list of competencies, eliminate a few low-priority competencies based on organization, and share the list with the top executives in the C-suite.
The CEO and the C-suite executive tinker around with the framework till they are satisfied. The consultants are usually happy to oblige. If a CEO says that a particular competency is important, it is simple and easy to add.
It focuses on what brought success in the past: Even when based on thorough research, competency frameworks focus on past successes. It tells you what made leaders successful in the past.
As we all know, in today’s VUCA – volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous – world companies are continuously undergoing transition. What worked well in the past is rapidly getting obsolete.
Companies have to adapt and change quickly. Adhering to a backward-looking competency framework may be a trap that may jeopardize future success.
Hiring and developing is still not competency-based: Although the human resources department is the custodian of competencies, they seldom find their way into the hiring process. With too many competencies and even more associated behaviors, it isn’t easy to integrate a competency framework in hiring and designing developmental activities.
How to get competency frameworks right
Here are some tips to get the competency framework right.
Identify and develop the right competencies
Which are the competencies that really matter? Has your organization done thorough, rigorous, and validated research to define which competencies matter? If that is not the case, it is best to use a standard set of well-researched and validated competencies.
We offer the GLA 360 instrument, which measures the 15 top competencies of today’s global leader. These competencies include a focus on both tasks and people. They also include timeless competencies to model past successes and emerging competencies to ensure future success.
Read: Measure 15 competencies of today’s global leaders with Global Leadership Assessment GLA 360
Compare scores with the Global norm group
Many organizations rate their own leaders on their standard competency framework. Then a leader’s score is compared with average scores for all leaders within the organization. This gives leaders a false sense that they are OK if they score above average.
If you are the best student in your own school, it is good. But when you compete at a University level, you are just one of the many best students of their own schools.
It raises the bar of performance. Don’t let them get complacent. Challenge your leaders to aspire to be the best.
Compare your leaders to a global norm group of leaders. Our GLA 360 helps your leaders compare where they stand against the global group of leaders.
Leverage strengths except in the case of “fatal flaws.”
Do you remember your last performance management review? Your boss probably complimented you, albeit briefly, about your strengths. Then immediately, he/she went on to discuss your “weaknesses” and advised you to improve upon them. Even for 360-degree report debriefing, the focus is on remedying weaknesses instead of leveraging strengths.
This is an inefficient approach to leadership development. To quote Albert Einstein – if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing it is stupid. It is easier and more efficient to teach a fish to swim better and faster than to teach it how to climb a tree!
Similarly, it is more effective for leaders to get better in their strengths instead of focusing on the improvement areas.
However, there is one exception. It is when the leader’s weakness is a “fatal flaw” or a “bottleneck.” Here is an example of a fatal flaw. When I say the name Bill Clinton, what comes to mind?
Although he was an extremely effective and popular president, the first thing that comes to people’s minds is his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
A fatal flaw casts a shadow on everything else a leader does. In such cases, it is important to work on the bottleneck or the fatal flaw. In all other cases, it is more effective to focus on leveraging the leader’s strengths.
Enroll and involve the leader’s team in leadership development
The leader’s team members are in the best position to judge whether the leader has changed her behavior. Whether or not the leader is improving.
They can also provide valuable inputs about what behaviors the leader should start or stop to improve a particular competency. Involving team members increases accountability and helps leaders improve quickly and efficiently.
Our NAL triple advantage coaching process is team-centered. It is highly efficient, with a success rate of 95%. It is based on the 15 competencies of today’s global leaders and it guarantees measurable leadership growth.
Read: A Coaching program with 95% success rate
Conclusion:
While the competency framework is a good start, it has severe practical limitations. Competency-based leadership development hasn’t lived up to its promise. Some workarounds will overcome the flaws and enhance the effectiveness of your competency-based leadership development initiatives.
We offer a GLA 360 assessment, which measures the leader on the top 15 competencies of today’s global leader. We also compare the leader’s ratings to a norm group of global leaders.
We also offer stakeholder-centered coaching for developing your leaders. While most leadership development fails to deliver measurable results and business impact, our approach guarantees it! If your leaders do not improve measurably, you don’t have to pay.
Read: What are the best executive coaching programs? Which are the top executive coaching firms?
Choose the right competencies and right approach to develop your leaders
We offer our New Age Leadership – NAL Triple Advantage Leadership Coaching that delivers guaranteed and measurable leadership growth. It is based on a stakeholder-centered coaching process with a 95% effectiveness rate (in a study or 11000 leaders on four continents). Companies ranging from startups to 150 of the Fortune 500 use this process to develop their leaders.
NAL Triple Advantage Leadership Coaching
We offer our New Age Leadership Triple advantage coaching that delivers guaranteed and measurable leadership growth. It is based on a stakeholder-centered coaching process with a 95% effectiveness rate (in a study or 11000 leaders on 4 continents).
It is used by companies ranging from startups to 150 of the Fortune 500 companies to develop their leaders.
Here are some of the salient benefits of NAL Triple Advantage Leadership Coaching
Time and resource-efficient: The leader does not have to leave work to attend training programs. We go to the leader and her team. And it only takes 1.5 hours per month. The rest of the time, the leader is working to implement with her team.
Separate and customized improvement areas for each leader: Every leader is different. One size fits all approach doesn’t work. Individual development areas for each leader aligned to the business strategy.
Involves entire team: Unlike most leadership programs, NAL Triple Advantage Leadership Coaching involves the leader’s entire team, and it has a cascading effect – increasing the team effectiveness and improving organizational culture.
The leader becomes the coach: for continuous improvement for leaders themselves and their teams. It is like kaizen for your leadership development.
Cost-Effective: Our entire one-year coaching engagement often costs less than sending the leader to a short-duration leadership program at any reputed B school.
Guaranteed and measurable leadership growth: as assessed – not by us – but anonymously rated by the leader’s own team members.
Pay us only after we deliver results! : We work with many of our clients on a pay for results basis. What does it mean? If the leaders don’t improve, you simply don’t have to pay us.
Schedule an exploratory 15-minute conversation with our leadership adviser today. No obligation and no sales pitch
Reference: The Extraordinary Leader by Zenger & Folkman
0 Comments