This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (October 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (October 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

A competency dictionary is a tool or data structure that includes all or most of the general competencies needed to cover all job families and competencies that are core or common to all jobs within an organization (e.g., teamwork; adaptability; communication). They may also include competencies that are more closely related to the knowledge and skills needed for specific jobs or functions (e.g., IT skills, financial administration skills).^[1]

Comprehensive

A typical comprehensive competency dictionary should include a broad range of competencies developed through extensive literature search, review of best practices as well as ongoing refinement based on field research with various client groups. The competencies in the dictionary are required by a broad range of employees functioning within a wide variety of private and public sector organizations. The demonstration of these competencies by employees and managers is related to increased performance at the individual, team, and organizational levels.

Each competency has a general definition, which provides the user with a general understanding of the type of behavior addressed by a particular competency. Each competency includes up to five proficiency levels and each level has an associated brief statement describing how that particular level is distinct from the other levels within that competency. The behavioral indicators at each proficiency level are illustrative of the proficiency level as opposed to representing a definitive list of all possible behaviors at each level.

Finally, the defined levels of proficiency for each competency are incremental and additive so that employees demonstrating proficiency at a particular level can be assumed to perform effectively at all competency levels below.

Many Comprehensive Competency Dictionaries are divided into two sets of competencies:^[2]

General job competencies – common across many jobs and demonstrate the key behaviors required for success regardless of position.
Job-specific competencies – these are required for success in particular functions or jobs.^[3]

Proficiency levels

Organizations typically include incremental competency proficiency scales as part of the overall competency structure. These scales reflect the amount of proficiency typically required by the organization within a competency area. For example, communication skills may be a requirement for most entry-level jobs as well as at the executive levels; however, the amount of communication proficiency needed at these two levels may be quite different.

The proficiency scales serve two purposes:

They facilitate planning and development for improvement within current roles or jobs; and
They allow for comparisons to occur across jobs, roles and levels, not only in terms of the competencies required, but also the proficiency levels needed using a common incremental scale for defining the competencies.

Thus, having competency proficiency scales supports career development, succession management and human resource planning activities within the organization.

General Work competencies are most often expressed as incremental competency proficiency scales – in other words, proficiency at one level assumes proficiency at all levels below that level on the scale. Work Specific competencies, on the other hand, may be expressed as common group requirements and, where required, differences in proficiency requirements (by level of responsibility in a specified field of work) may be noted.

Target proficiency levels

Organizations typically define in their competency profiles the levels of performance (proficiency) to be attained for each competency. These are often driven by the use to be made of the competency profiles. For example:

Entry – is the standard expected of employees on entry into a role. This is often used when the new entrant must learn or be trained to be able to perform to the standards required within the role.
Fully Effective – is level required of employees who are performing at the standard expected for their role.
Stretch / Mastery – is typically displayed by employees who have mastered their role. These employees are often sought out by other employees and supervisors to provide advice or assistance.

It is important to define what standard (or standards) of performance will be modeled in the competency profiles as a component of the competency architecture. An example of how these standards for employee performance relate to competency proficiency is shown below.

Dictionary options

Building versus purchasing a dictionary

Organizations may choose to create their own competency dictionaries, or purchase one that has been developed by experts in competency profiling and competency-based management. The advantage of developing a competency dictionary is that it will reflect which competencies are required for success in the organization and it will expressed in a way that reflects the values, vision and way of communicating within the organization. On the other hand, this option is very costly and time-consuming, and most do not have the internal expertise to complete this task

Purchasing

Purchasing a competency dictionary from a reputable company has the advantage of providing the organization with a well-developed and researched dictionary that can be used in a timely manner to support profile development and implementation. The disadvantage is that the dictionary may not reflect the full range of competencies needed, nor reflect them in a language that is suitable for the organization.

Hybrid option

Organizations often achieve a compromise by customizing a purchased competency dictionary (e.g., adding competencies, modifying the language slightly to reflect the organization's style of communicating and including additional behavioural indicators to reflect performance expectations of the organization). This provides a quick and cost-effective solution, and results in a Competency Dictionary that is targeted to the organization's specific needs.

References

Books

Dubois, D., & Rothwell, W. (2004). Competency-Based Human Resource Management. Davies–Black Publishing
Dubois, D., & Rothwell, W. (2000). The Competency Toolkit (Volumes 1 & 2). HRD Press
Lucia, A., & Lepsinger, R. (1999). The Art and Science of Competency Models: Pinpointing Critical Success Factors in Organizations. Pfeiffer
Shandler, D. (2000). Competency and the Learning Organization. Crisp Learning.
Spencer, L M. in Cherniss, C. and D. Goleman, eds. (2001) “The economic value of emotional intelligence competencies and EIC-based HR programs”, in The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: How to Select for, Measure, and Improve Emotional Intelligence in Individuals, Groups and Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley
Spencer, L., & Spencer, S. (1993). Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance. Wiley
Ulrich, D. and Brockbank, W. (2005) The HR Value Proposition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Wood. R., & Payne, T. (1998). Competency-Based Recruitment and Selection. Wiley

Articles

Bartram, D. (2005) The Great Eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1185–1203
Catano, V., Darr, M., & Campbell, C. (2007). Performance appraisal of behaviour-based competencies: A reliable and valid procedure. Personnel Psychology, 60, 201–230
Cheng, M. I., &. Dainty, R. I. J. (2005). Toward a multidimensional competency-based managerial performance framework: A hybrid approach. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 380–396
Draganidis, F., & Mentzas, G. (2006). Competency-based management: A review of systems and approaches. Information Management &Computer Security, 14, 51–64
Homer, M. (2001). Skills and competency management. Industrial and Commercial training, 33/2, 59–62
Horton, S. (2000). Introduction- the competency-based movement: Its origins and impact on the public sector. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13, 306–318
Kochanski, J. T.,& Ruse, D. H. (1996). Designing a competency-based human resources organization. Human Resource Management, 35, 19–34
McEvoy, G., Hayton, J., Wrnick, A., Mumford, T., Hanks, S., & Blahna, M. (2005). A competency-based model for developing human resource professionals. Journal of Management Education, 29, 383–402
Rausch, E., Sherman, H., & Washbush, J. B. (2002). Defining and assessing competencies for competency-based, outcome focused management development. The Journal of Management Development, 21, 184–200
Sanchez, J. I., &. Levine, E. L. (2009). What is (or should be) the difference between competency modeling and traditional job analysis? Human Resource Management Review, 19, 53–63
Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practice and theoretical implications of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274
Shippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., Kehoe, J., Pearlman, K., & Sanchez, J. I. (2000). The practice of competency modeling, Personnel Psychology, 53, 703–740.
Spencer, L. M. (2004). Competency Model Statistical Validation and Business Case Development, HR Technologies White Paper http://www.hrcompass.com/validation.html