Competencies: test for the average

I have watched with horror (and even participated in the nightmare) the advancement of the competition movement. It is closely followed by another complete waste of effort: the vocational movement, which in turn was preceded by another fad that consumed a forest of shapes and pencils: the quality movement. All I can say is that while many companies are following a particular trend, that does not mean that it is valid or of practical use. I have a feeling that it has more to do with a) the lack of internal perception to separate myth from reality, b) the need for quick solutions to complicated problems, and c) the need we all have to want to believe in the emperor. clothing.

The answer to performance improvement, whether individual or corporate, lies within, not adopting someone else's dubious formula.

There is an obsession with competitions. Each company has its list of 25 competencies for managers, 35 competencies for salespeople, and 101 competencies for cleaners. Competencies are used in selection processes, development centers and evaluation processes, except for senior management. The latter have stayed out of the process and, although it pains me to say so, they may be the only ones who show a certain level of common sense.

Do the competitions work? They do it in magazine articles and books. They do it at budget meetings. They do it in seminars. The problem I have is that I know many competent salespeople who are not on target. I know of many competent managers who could not inspire me to archive a clip. I find the whole process of identifying and implementing competencies very, very boring. Am I the only one in the western world willing to say it?

There are some fundamental flaws in the entire Competency Dictionary. 1. Comparative competency descriptions are often so low that they are useless. 2. The person who matches the full list of competencies only exists at the lowest common denominator level (haven't we learned anything from the failure of comprehensive education?) 3. Competencies only measure whether something exists or not, not whether is it of some use or how well it is done.

Let's compare the usual approach to identifying and monitoring competencies at work with some other professions such as acting, music, dance, and sports. To save time and space, I will only produce one competition per profession:

Guitarist: Play the G chord.

I can play the G chord. The Rolling Stones haven't phoned me yet to appear on their next album.

Actor: Recites the Romeo and Juliet speech without missing a word.

Have you ever seen an amateur performance of a Shakespeare play? Enough talk!

Dancer: Correctly performs all steps in a waltz sequence.

I once took 15 dance lessons. I was a competent dancer. I was a terrible dancer too!

Athlete: Run 100 m in 11 seconds.

It comes at the end.

The fact is, competencies flatly refuse to measure success. I have yet to see a management competition that says, 'Inspire the team to exceed all corporate goals', which if not achieved results in dismissal. I would love to see just one competition for sellers: 'Go above target ethically'.

Labeling people competent rewards mediocrity. Like the vocational movement, it focuses on average artists.

There is nothing wrong with identifying the elements that make up job performance. However, achieving that low benchmark should be something that people bring with them, not something to aspire to. Management's job is not to focus on the mediocre, but to train people to reach their potential by giving them a vision of excellence and the talent found in everyone.