34. Working with competences; a good idea?

It appears that more and more organizations are working on an extensive and well-considered competence policy (1). Is that a good thing? Apparently, it’s like with democracy: in comparison with the past it certainly is; but compared to the future, it's just watered down coffee.

Looking at someone's competencies is better than simply relying on the person's diploma. This makes the assessment of the usefulness of that person for the organization a lot more realistic and respectful. After all, you take into account the unique characteristics of the person in question. If we then also base the person's 'casting' on this (content of the position, responsibilities and authorities/influences), then it can only be an improvement on two relevant areas: the results of the organization as a whole and the well-being of the person in question. After all, being allowed to do things that you are good at leads to self-confirmation, self-confidence and a sense of success. The implicit appreciation that this creates is, by the way, one of the things that is lacking in classical leadership. So that is progress! Especially if there is attention for the development of existing skills, there is also a growth opportunity, and that reinforces the positive effect, not only for the employee, but also for the organization. So, for a good casting; the right person in the right position. It is a considerable improvement compared to the past, where the unique characteristics of employees were not taken into account.

Where is the shortcoming then? If we pay a lot of attention to good casting, we will remain in an obedience model in the actual relationship. This does not differ from the hierarchical tradition where 'thinking' and 'doing' are separated in different roles. And that is clearly the next challenge in good leadership and personnel policy. Appropriate attention to competences is necessary for the development of an 'empowerment' relationship, but there is no guarantee that this will be the result. Therefore, compared to the future, focusing on competencies is no more than further perfecting the profitable use of employees, with a sometimes unwanted positive side effect of more recognition. What is also left unconsidered is the aspect of meaning, mission, mental contract, and organizational culture. In this vision, coaching could limit itself to discussing the 'casting' and the related possibilities and limitations. Nothing guaranties that more is being done than reviewing and adjusting the casting.

That organizations with a strong focus on competencies often still think strongly in the obedience model is convincingly demonstrated by the meaning given to the word 'competence'. It's viewed too often as an obligation of results, and not as a personal trait. ( 2 )

So there are still a lot of dimensions that require attention 'on top of the competencies' to evolve towards a leadership that is aimed at equality, cooperation, involvement in mission, openness and feedback, etc. Focus on competencies does not hinder, but neither offer any guarantee of further relational development of the organization. And that is much needed in the 21^st century! Nor does it help to identify these missing dimensions as a set of competencies, because then we unjustly shift responsibility to the employees . (2)

Conclusion: those who are satisfied with a competence-oriented personnel policy and the related leadership are in a conservative organizational paradigm!

(1)     On 10 Nov 2018 a report was published in “De Standaard” about an investigation from the SERF. This shows that 55% of the organizations in Flanders ‘already’ work in a competence-oriented way.

(2)     I have written a separate contribution about the misleading meaning of competences on hugoderkinderen.blogspot.be.

Hugo Der Kinderen

10/11/2018