Contribution-oriented competency systems, or integrating the cognitive dimension into standard competency systems

The problem

Just recently, it happened to me again. I explored with a client how they could take a new step in conducting performance appraisals in the fall. The company had contacted me because it felt it needed to do things differently. The initial enthusiasm at inception, now four years ago, had waned. The CEO thought the structured and competency-based approach to their performance reviews was counterproductive. In his view, something seemed wrong with the assumption that concrete and practical feedback encouraged employees to change their behavior and develop.

Especially in the past year, he noticed that employees wanted to please their "bosses" more than anything else. They started behaving according to the competency system without asking whether a particular behavior was appropriate in a specific situation. He saw, for example, that two executives reporting to him were very concerned with improving customer processes and therefore lost sight of the connection with other functions. One project leader, Dirk, had recently resigned with the message that his executive board member was focusing on the wrong issues. During the exit interview, it also appeared that he did not feel he was being judged on the proper criteria at all. The project leader was known for his critical questioning style. With this, he chased senior leaders into the trees when he was, in his view, trying to get them out of their fixed thinking patterns. He had received feedback that he created too little 'support,' while according to him, it was precisely the created friction that encouraged employees to change. After all, everything had to be questioned to realize the digital platform, including deeply held beliefs. Creating consensus was pointless, as it resulted in fragmented suboptimal solutions that would generate a lot of rework in a relatively short period of time. He had gotten the message repeatedly from his board member that he needed to reduce complexity to its essence - which for him was equivalent to oversimplifying - and deal more constructively with resistances. But when Dirk went on to ask what this meant very concretely in the project, the board member's answer failed to materialize. He had tried to behave according to the feedback received. However, this did not feel right at all. He was doing neither the company nor himself a favor, so he resigned. However, according to the CEO, this project leader was among the absolute top potentials with a distinctly authentic vision of the company's future.

This project leader's story was not an isolated one. Several employees testified about the fragmented competency system and questioned its relevance. Could you separate behaviors from the specific value-added creation in functions?

Based on my books "Practices of Dynamic Collaboration" (2020) and "Geen samenwerken zonder samendenken" (2022), the CEO wondered to what extent the competency system facilitated contribution-oriented work. Did the descriptions that had now served as a beacon for feedback for four years sufficiently stimulate his executives' focus on developing new business models (rather than focusing on partial dimensions (such as the customer, the product, and the service), coordinating an organization-wide portfolio of coherent change initiatives (rather than specific team and department goals), structuring ambiguity, and developing concepts and solution directions (rather than critically analyzing available data)?

The most important question he asked himself as CEO was about how the competency system helps employees observe themselves, develop a broader contribution within the organization and to customers, and deal more effectively with change processes. In short, how does the competency system encourage conscious decision making, and thus reflective action?

This case confronted me for the umpteenth time with the limitations of mainstream competency modeling.

The basics: self-observation and self-reflection

Actually, we need to give more thought to what in giving feedback leads to behavior change. We strongly believe that feedback, whether in the form of criticism or appreciation, leads to the desired adjustment. This feedback must then be specific, objectifiable, relevant, and timely. In most competency systems, the behavioral descriptions seem to meet these requirements. For example, in many competency systems, you can find statements such as "Maintains a helicopter view that focuses on the customer," "Maintains focus on goals, even in changing circumstances," or "Promotes active cooperation and involves and influences others in a changing context." The question we can ask here is about these statements' specific meanings. Do these statements mean the same to a senior, a middle, and a first-line manager?

In her book "No More Feedback," Carol Sanford points out feedback works, but not necessarily in the desired direction. She cites research findings indicating that feedback helps only some employees develop self-direction and breadth of consideration in problem management. In many cases, feedback inhibits the speed of change because employees align themselves with the expectations of others. This prevents them from thinking through problem situations and considering their role in creating and solving them. Feedback works when you couple it with self-observation and self-reflection.

In many competence approaches, the search for unambiguous descriptions is still central. This ignores that employees interpret competencies in their own way and that competencies acquire a different meaning anyway, depending on the specific context in which they are used. And actually, you can only find out if you ask what a specific behavioral skill concretely means for the person in the set of assignments he or she is entrusted with.

The notions of 'contribution' and 'development'

The nature of self-observation and self-reflection is determined by where a person stands in their development. We evolve throughout our lives in handling feedback (from dependent to self-directed) and building understanding (from fragmented logical thinking to more integrated systemic thinking).

One could say that we are evolving on a path from dependent functioning to self-direction. This is accompanied by a changing role of our ego in dealing with others. In dependent functioning, we identify with perspectives from third parties (teachers, authority figures, and confidants). The feedback that does not fit into the frameworks with which one identifies poses a threat to self-esteem and is rejected. Feedback is mainly accepted if it fits within a nascent understanding, preferably brought by authority figures or methodologies one respects.

In self-direction, self-concept is more tied to connecting your perspective with others and coming to a more holistic understanding. You can develop a meta-perspective of your ego. When you function from a "dependent script," you surrender control of your thinking to others, so to speak; your ego and the perspective of others coincide. Feedback here leads to a strengthening of the focus on the other and thereby limits your own reflection process and self-direction.

We also evolve in how we handle problem assessments and formulate solution directions. As we grow, the breadth of considerations increases, and the ways we make these considerations change.

In the breadth of considerations, we can distinguish a particular layering, namely from a focus on the immediate (the customer expectations as well as concrete service delivery), to improving the set of practices within your team, to rethinking practices across teams or services (often aimed at questioning the 'operational model', the 'value streams,' or 'end2end processes'), to 'remodeling the business model' (and thinking through 'future profitability'), and finally to 'interweaving ecosystems' (and developing collaborative models across 'organizations'). This stratification is also called contribution themes. Contribution themes clarify the core difference a job holder realizes in a function or role. Research shows that the immediate superior always focuses on the more comprehensive contribution theme in sustainably growing companies. Such a job design ensures executives can assume an effective sounding board role and continually add value to their direct reports.

Dirk, the person that had resigned, told me during a meeting after he had left the company that he worked mainly within the theme of 'business models/new profitability.' At the same time, the behavioral indicators from the competency system had little to do with this. Indeed, the indicators pushed him toward 'continuous improvement' and suboptimal, fragmented solutions for him. The senior leaders interpreted an indicator such as "Promotes active collaboration and involves and influences others in a changing context" as connecting employees by reaching consensus. Listening and creating dialogue was central to this. For Dirk, however, the description meant introducing new ways of seeing to allow the digital platform to enable the development of as-yet nonexistent business. The latter assumes that colleagues can think in evolving dynamics and scenarios and see how critical interdependencies were increasing or decreasing in importance and how this should be reflected in their basic responsibilities. This required breaking down boundaries between different teams and redefining operational processes. It had everything to do with redefining boundaries, which is particularly difficult in a context where employees are focused on maintaining their responsibilities.

The breadth of considerations, or the number of dimensions to be linked in each successive theme, increases. It logically follows that the complexity of behavioral descriptions increases as one works within more comprehensive contribution themes. A competency system consisting of overly simple descriptions will primarily encourage behavior within the contribution themes with which it aligns (and is often not made explicit) and thus be constricting for some, like Dirk. Self-observation and self-reflection then turn to actions that lead to inadequate functioning. Managers sense this and therefore do not relate the competency system to their own behavior.

In addition to the breadth of considerations, there is also the form of thought in which the thoughtful part of the action takes place. Indeed, the structure of thought determines what can be known and what options it gives. Indeed, there are different ways of giving meaning to situations. Otto Laske (2009) distinguishes four broad categories of thought forms: part/whole thinking, dynamic thinking, coherence thinking, and metamorphic thinking. These thought forms are meta-systemic and can be thought (see Jan De Visch, 2023).

In part/whole thinking, you assume that behavior derives its meaning from the larger context within which it occurs but also forms the context that enables other behaviors. 'Results orientation' within the contribution theme of 'new profitability' means the creation of organizational capabilities that achieve an optimal balance in allocating resources to various organizational functions to ensure sustainable development. Within the 'value streams' theme, 'Result orientation' can mean optimizing information flow processes and redefining boundaries between services. Typical of part/whole thinking is that the definitions make explicit functional relationships between partial elements within the larger whole.

In dynamic thinking, concepts derive meaning from the process of change in which they are embedded. To competency systems, this means including "dynamic components" in behavior framing. In standard competency systems, "bringing teams together and having dialogue around goals and expectations" often comes up as a behavioral dimension in creating support. This is a functional, static description peculiar to context abstraction. Including the dynamic component, for example, within the continuous improvement theme, leads to the following definition: 'discussing how partial approaches develop within the team, how choices arise, and which options can be reconsidered.' A description of this dynamic component in creating support within the domain of 'value streams' could be formulated as follows: 'discussing how conflicting expectations and patterns in team collaboration have emerged, and what alternative systems are developing that can break these patterns.' Dynamic thinking allows one to reframe one's perspective of the past, present and future and make different behavioral choices from there.

In coherence thinking, the focus is on the critical relationships, or what really needs to be viewed in coherence. It focuses attention on that which has common ground in seemingly contradictory viewpoints. As someone moves up the ladder - read: has to make a difference on a more comprehensive contribution topic - they will also have to deal more with apparent paradoxes, between short term and long term, between external and internal focus, between attention to employees and attention to technology, etc. Finding common ground requires different "modeling" (Roger Martin, 2007) and related reflection. In the description of a concrete competency, e.g., strategic thinking, this might mean within the theme of 'continuous improvement': 'understanding how own and team goals are mutually reinforcing and what is needed to adjust practices. Within the 'value streams' theme, it refers to another superordinate coherence: 'understanding how team goals reinforce cross-functional collaboration and what is needed to keep the constructive areas of tension manageable.' Coherence thinking assumes that everything is somehow connected to something else and connects its own components within itself. The coherences give an event, subject, or experience their meaning, thus directing our behavior.

Metamorphosis thinking is based on the natural change we are all subject to but turns this process into a consciously pursued, goal-driven change. This is the principle of done change, metamorphosis. It is more complex than the previous three because it combines the earlier thought forms. Metamorphosis is a developmental movement toward a new form that transcends but simultaneously integrates the previous one. From this train of thought, 'strategic thinking' within the domain of 'new profitability' could be described as follows: 'Uses information and alternative viewpoints and monitors information channels to understand emerging issues relevant to the governance of the company's strategic direction. Anticipates changes in the environment and positions the organization to take advantage of related opportunities and minimize threats. Catches critical information gaps. Uses the organization's knowledge to create the systemic conditions for change.' It is immediately noticeable that this is a more comprehensive definition where part/whole, dynamic, and coherent thinking are intertwined.

Research shows that individuals grow during their life course in the breadth of considerations (and thus the potential contribution theme on which a difference can be made) and the forms of thinking they employ (see also Jan De Visch, 2022). More comprehensive contributions are related to a growth in which part/whole thinking is essential to achieve self-direction within 'quality & service,' dynamic thinking is vital for 'continuous improvement,' coherence thinking is decisive for 'value streams' and metamorphosis thinking becomes very important in 'new profitability.' These are patterns, where ultimately combining the different ways of thinking within and between the categories of thought and its flexibility will strongly determine integrated decision-making and growth across leadership levels.

The weaknesses of standard competency approaches

Most standard competency approaches have four weaknesses:

(1)???The defined behaviors differentiate very strongly on the first two contribution themes, i.e., "quality & service" and "continuous improvement," and much less on the upper contribution themes. This explains why scoring outstanding on a particular competency does not predict functioning within a more comprehensive contribution theme (typically at a more senior leadership level).

(2)???Building a competency follows a path that begins at a junior position and evolves toward mastery. Mastery then means being able to transfer the competency to another person. This approach assumes that the definition of competency remains the same on the various contribution themes and actually evolves on a scale from "weaker/less" to "stronger/more. This is dangerous. Such a system focuses attention on "changing behavior" within a contribution theme, rather than on the question "who can I become?" By 'changing behavior,' a committed employee is trying to meet what is required by the external environment. The question 'Who can I become' stimulates one's reflection based on the natural steps one can take in a growth process and where the approach invites one to reflect on one's evolution towards self-management as well as the evolution in the breadth and form of the considerations one takes into account in problem management.

(3)???Clearly, in most competency systems, different competencies defined in equal categories (e.g., a "level 3") do not situate themselves within the same contribution theme (if you were to view them from a cognitive perspective). This complicates estimating one's near zone of development.

(4)???It is not clear how to develop a particular competency. The relationship between the "classical competency level" and the type of developmental tasks is based on the belief that a growth task will work, but not on scientifically based modeling. For many growth assignments, individuals do not take ownership because the person's "breadth of considerations" or "level of self-direction" is still too limited for what is required in the growth task.

The alternative: contribution-oriented competency models

An alternative is to redesign competency models based on the idea that thinking precedes behavior and where you link behavior to the complexity of the contribution topic within which one must make a difference.

I'd like to give two examples, summarized in the table below. The vertical axis is one in ascending complexity (from the 'least comprehensive' at the bottom to the 'most comprehensive' at the top). Horizontally, I have selected two "classic" competency dimensions, "Strategic orientation" and "Supporting productive working relationships." New behaviors are in bold, and increased complexity (and correlated use of thinking forms) is in italics.

Contribution themes

Strategic orientation

Supports productive working relationships

4. Essence within the theme of 'new profitability'.

Understands organizational goals and the linkages between business units, the organization, and the agendas of various external stakeholders. Considers multiple perspectives when assessing the impact of a wide range of issues. Anticipates priorities and develops long-term plans that address current and future requirements—Aligns activities of business units with strategic priorities.

Builds and maintains positive relationships within the organization and across companies with diverse external stakeholders. Anticipates and responds to changes in market/technology solutions. Seeks shared agendas and uses them to unite people to develop a different perspective, enabling breakthrough developments.

3 : Essence within the theme of 'value streams'.

Understands organizational goals and contributes to developing strategies and aligning plans to evolve cross-functional working methods. Identifies broader influences and considers the ramifications of issues and longer-term impact on the team's work goals and collaboration with other teams.

Builds and maintains positive relationships with a network of critical stakeholders, both internal and external. Anticipates and responds to customer needs and expectations changes by better-streamlining collaboration across services. Recognizes shared agendas and works toward mutually beneficial outcomes.

2 : Essence within the 'continuous improvement' theme.

Understands the work environment and actively contributes to developing work plans and progressively refining team goals. Demonstrates awareness of the implications of issues affecting own and team work goals and proactively addresses these issues.

Builds and maintains positive relationships with team members and customers. Responds to changes in customer needs and expectations by adjusting work practices. Engages colleagues to provide new solutions to customers collaboratively.

1 : Essence within the theme of 'quality and service.'

Understands the work environment and participates in formulating team goals. Demonstrates awareness of problems that may affect assigned assignments.

Builds and maintains positive relationships with team members and customers. Actively participates in teamwork and activities. Responds under leadership to customer needs and expectations.

?

You can apply this line of thinking to just about any competency, using your existing framework to create a competency system 2.0 that is contribution-oriented. In contribution-oriented competency models, there is an intertwining of the "thinking," the "behavior," and the specific value-added creation (nature of contribution).

Such a system gives employees a picture of a growth path, showing how behavioral alignments evolve with increasing complexity. You can additionally indicate within each contribution theme how relevant the competency is in current functioning (both for the manager and the subordinate), for example, on a scale of 1 to 3, where '1' represents 'not very relevant' and '3' means 'very relevant,' and then illustrate this relevance with examples as a starting point to reflect on how well this competency is developed. You also provide the "not applicable" category. This system encourages self-observation and self-reflection, especially if you probe for concrete examples to support the self-scoring. This leads to an honest conversation about the breadth of the job, how this job is evolving, and how you, as an employee, are evolving along with it.

The relevance total scores within the contribution themes across competencies also reflect a center of gravity in functioning. If your system consists of nine core competencies, each having a relevance scale from 1 to 3, then you know that a total score is 3 x 9 (competencies) within each contribution theme. Someone who has a score 6 (in quality and service), 14 (in continuous improvement), and 3 (in "value streams") contributes primarily to "continuous improvement. You can then also discuss which competency is still overused at an underlying level, and which competencies can serve as triggers for development (these are already more highly developed than the center of gravity). It gets even more interesting when you start comparing this with the contribution-oriented analysis of the job description. Listing tasks and result areas in job descriptions often masks the essence of added value creation. Via the Dynamic Collaboration Application (see references), you can objectify the value-added creation in functions and roles, thus determining whether employees are outgrowing their function or are too broad (because they still need to develop certain competencies sufficiently). This forms the basis for a reflection that takes place too infrequently in many companies.

In conclusion

Contribution-based competency upgrading leads in the companies where we applied it to more effective performance appraisals, with a different balance between mutual reflection and self-reflection. Its application creates a double impact: it confronts executives with the question of what difference they make in the hierarchy and, thus, where their attention should be compared to that of their direct reports. For direct reports, it is a framework that allows them to objectify where they stand in their development such that they can make conscious choices and take ownership. In my experience, this approach is liberating for employees close to their limits, and they more easily reconcile working within a particular contribution theme. In companies, it prevents employees from ending up in positions where they have yet to develop the breadth in thinking and interacting with others. Combined, it helps create organizational contexts where employees genuinely engage in their strengths, function in flow, and realize greater productivity.

References

De Visch, J. (2023) Next-level systemic thinking tools for leaders: facilitate integrated decision-making —more information on: https://connecttransform.be/dynamic-collaboration-coping-with-complexity/. The program is taught alternately in Dutch and English.

De Visch, J. (2022) No collaboration without thinking together. Lannoo Campus

De Visch, J. & Laske, O. (2020) Practices of Dynamic Collaboration. Springer.

Dynamic Collaboration Application (https://dynamiccollaboration.app). The application allows

(1)???Estimate the value-added creation of functions and roles (and related quality of organizational structure).

(2)???Objectify the way employees interpret their roles (and the related zone of near development)

(3)???Visualize the quality of team consultation (and related insights around the quality of decision-making at the team level).

Laske, O. (2009) Measuring Hidden Dimensions in Human Systems, Vol 2. Interdevelopmental Institute.

Martin, R. (2007) The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking. Harvard Business Press.

Sanford, C. (2018) No More Feedback. Cultivate Consciousness at Work. Interoctave.