The fight for talent is on and will continue. The Great Resignation, Great Hiring, and Quiet Quitting are evidence that organizations must and will continue to invest heavily in personnel management programs. Certain differentiators of strong personnel management systems include recognizing and placing the right individuals in important jobs.
HR Technology News: Pandemic-driven Work Changes are Becoming Permanent as Competition for Talent Continues
In addition, talent privileges have altered dramatically in recent years. Organizations must grasp what identifies and motivates today’s talent and accept that these might shift over time as a result of their experiences and external market conditions. Given this complication, how can a company accurately identify high-potential talent? This essay seeks to answer the ongoing argument over whether skills or attributes are the more relevant talent yardstick for today’s organizations.
History of assessments
Traditionally, talent assessment approaches concentrated on job-related skills and progressed to aptitude and personality assessments over time.
As a result, behaviors are now seen as the most crucial component of comprehending what motivates us, our actions, and, eventually, our successes/failures.
Seymour Epstein examined and analyzed the Person- Situation argument extensively in the 1980s and afterward to establish if human behavior was fundamental to a person or was influenced by certain events.
Traditionally, talent assessment approaches concentrated on job-related skills and progressed to aptitude and personality assessments over time.
As a result, behaviors are now seen as the most crucial component of comprehending what motivates us, our actions, and, eventually, our successes/failures.
Seymour Epstein examined and analyzed the Person- Situation argument extensively in the 1980s and afterward to establish if human behavior was fundamental to a person or was influenced by certain events.
The person-situation argument has changed several times because both sides have shown themselves to be correct. The scenario side is correct in terms of instantaneous behaviors: the normal individual’s behavior may be very varied. However, when it comes to forecasting behavioral patterns (e.g., a person’s normal manner of acting), the person side is correct: intrinsic personality and characteristics predict and characterize behavior very well over extended periods of time, and a trait approach may be used to discriminate between individuals.
Many businesses are turning to behavioral science research to better their recruiting methods and assess top talent, with a particular focus on trait-based evaluations.
Simultaneously, and for more than four decades, competency models and competency-based practices have gained widespread attention from organizations as a means of optimizing personal and organizational efficiency—not just for selection. However, it is also useful for training, evaluation, development, talent management, and strategic planning.
Approach based on competencies
David McClelland authored a landmark study on ‘Testing for Competence rather than Intelligence’ in the 1970s. It was a departure (and, perhaps, an improvement) from the popular models of the time, which focused on general intellect and abilities as indicators of potential.
There have been several definitions and additions to the competence model in industrial psychology since then. Recently, Bartram, Robertson, and Callinan (2002) presented competencies as collections of behaviors that aid in achieving desired goals or outcomes.
Competencies are a person’s understanding and behaviors that contribute to work success. Simply said, competencies are the collection of skills, talents, and information required to achieve outstanding results in a certain profession or work situation.
Although competencies are utilized to assess present performance and job preparedness, the argument for high-potential identification is that better proficiency levels of competencies may be exploited for it. Individual contributors are often evaluated for greater levels of people management abilities at most selection/development centers.
Since competencies have added structure and enhanced the function of assessment and development, they are also subject to a lack of universal definition, and researchers frequently have differing interpretations and conclusions about them. There are certain limitations to employing competency-based strategies that should be considered.
HR Technology News: JD.com Included in 2023 Bloomberg Gender-Equality Index
Competency limitations
First and foremost, the emphasis is mostly on tangibles, while the less easily apparent interior traits that lie beneath the surface, such as preferences, attitudes, emotions, and personal life experiences, are usually ignored. This has resulted in an emphasis on fragments or specific behaviors rather than on an individual as a whole entity.
Another issue with competence models is that they place too much emphasis on an individual’s prior performance in recognizing past actions that worked, rather than the attitude required for the future. To make this approach work, leaders must constantly stick to their previous tactics, no matter how much things change over time—which isn’t always doable!
Thirdly, competencies have been prone to diverse interpretations, and if inadequately defined in a given organizational context, the accompanying evaluation or development initiatives would suffer as well. On the other hand, in our experience, organizations have created extensive and detailed competence papers that might be difficult for line managers to follow.
Finally, behavioral competence models presume that human behavior is consistent, but is past behavior the greatest predictor of future behavior? This approach rejects or minimizes the potential of individuals to change. It also undervalues the significance of learning and change, which can be difficult and time-consuming but are both feasible and desired.
Trait-based approach
A “trait” is a distinctive attribute or quality, particularly of one’s personal nature. These are more intrinsic to a person and more genuine to one’s qualities and attributes. For example, someone who is “articulate” may have the competency of ‘being able to talk clearly’ or ‘understanding how to write effectively’.
Traits influence how individuals evolve—what comes naturally to them and what requires more effort. They are the most persistent qualities of a person, with a substantial impact on behavior when confronted with new events or contexts. They provide a larger and deeper insight into the individual’s psyche, which is especially useful for future evaluation. For example, ‘learning agility’ is now included in most modern models for prospective assessment as an underlying trait covering other linked talents and qualities.
Traits limitations
Although attributes are closer and more precise evaluations of our psychological and inner circuitry, there remain limitations in terms of how we behave and respond to diverse settings. Fundamentally, qualities are far more difficult to quantify than capabilities. They are highly subjective and do not lend themselves easily to judgment. To further quantify them, we recommend doing numerous evaluations and examining qualities, behaviors, and underlying value drivers. Any psychometric instrument’s findings must be confirmed by expert interviews.
HR Technology News: Sinequa’s Workplace Search Arrives to Transforms Employee Experience
Closing Thoughts
Thus, traits are more correct, but competencies are more visible. So, how do organizations make their decisions?
Traits, it turns out, manifest as actions and may be witnessed or confirmed with linked competencies. Someone who is collaborative (a quality), for example, will most likely be more effective in exhibiting teamwork abilities. A related competency description is: Effectively collaborates across teams and with team members to solve problems.”
Traits may permit, coexist with, or even influence a competency demonstration.
Certain competencies, on the other hand, may emphasize certain attributes.
This has practical consequences and applications that experts and practitioners may employ.
As practitioners, we provide the following insights from which organizations may benefit and use based on the use case:
Working with competencies gives greater advantages when assessing for success in the current workplace environment or role fit today. When organizations analyze potential, however, natural features become more important in identifying persistent talents and behaviors that can lead to future success in more difficult jobs. Making a profile of a successful leader in terms of attributes, competencies, and experiences would assist in sharpening and concentrating the tests.
Organizations can choose from a variety of high-validity assessments, such as in-basket exercises, case study simulations, scenario judgment exams, forced-choice questionnaires, and so on, to measure qualities and skills.
Competencies may be learned and practiced as skills and abilities. Traits establish our style and inherent preferences; they are tough to change but may be controlled. It would be impossible to “teach” determination, but it might be effectively role modeled and adjusted via coaching and feedback. For example, a determination is frequently regarded as a positive quality; yet, someone might benefit from coaching to gain an understanding and awareness that being overly determined can result in a stuck attitude in specific situations. In fact, the majority of our practice’s efforts in leadership development center on developing and practicing self-awareness in order for leaders to be able to counter-balance certain tendencies and modify desired behavior.
With new frontiers being explored in the area of assessment and development approaches such as neuroscience, contemplative practices, and positive psychology, we may anticipate novel, more embedded processes of potential assessment and development to be theorized and practiced, bringing the field ahead beyond skills to place more emphasis on drives and attributes.
After all, human complexity necessitates delving deeper to distinguish between internal orientation and external stimuli as co-creators of behaviors, with characteristics being the more durable, steadfast reflectors of ‘who we are’ and skills being the fluctuating but more obvious reflectors of ‘what we do’.
[To share your insights with us, please write to sghosh@martechseries.com]