Most progressive organizations are implementing integrated competency-based human resource management processes, tools and applications to support the achievement of their strategic and business goals. However, in their rush to reap the potential benefits, they may not have invested the time and effort Aup front@ to ensure that their competencies and competency framework are defensible (e.g. grievances, human rights complaints, or employment equity systems reviews).

Organizations use competencies to identify the gaps between their human resource needs and their employees' strengths and weaknesses. Based on these comparisons, important decisions are made about how to select, promote, manage and develop human resources to support the organization's success B decisions that impact on employees' careers and livelihoods. Therefore, the competencies and how they are used could be subject to review and close scrutiny if there is a challenge to the employment decision that was made. Courts, review boards or tribunals could ask employers to justify their employment decisions based on whether the competencies reflect the "bona fide" skills, knowledge, abilities or other requirements for effective performance in the job. It is important, therefore, that organizations take care to ensure that their competency profiles / models, and the methods by which they were developed, meet generally accepted standards.

Can you link the competencies to the work products, outcomes or tasks that employees must be able to perform to be successful in the organization or job?

Competencies by definition reflect the knowledge, skills, abilities or other attributes employees require for effective or successful performance. Employers must be prepared to justify that competencies that employees, or potential employees, are asked to possess are actually required for job effectiveness.

Employers must be prepared to demonstrate that the competencies used in making employment decisions represent only the key and important behaviours (i.e. non-trivial) that employees must display for success. Once the competency profiles have been developed in draft, analysts will often ask job / work content experts to rate the level of importance of the competencies (and associated behavioural indicators) and to identify any that may be missing.

Employers must be prepared to demonstrate that the competency requirements were identified based on the expert knowledge of those who understand the job or area being profiled, including the services, products or outcomes that lead to excellence. Typically, organizations seek information from a variety of sources to ensure that there is a consistent and well-rounded perspective on the competencies needed for success. Common sources of information about the types of behaviours that lead to success include:

• incumbents - who understand or exemplify the type and level of performance required;
• those who supervise the work;
• those reporting to the job being profiled;
• clients or recipients of the services being provided; and,
• individuals who understand any changes that may be occurring within the job or work area.

Were the job / work content experts representative of the stakeholders who understand the work?

In line with the need to have job / work content experts participating in the definition of the competency requirements, there is a need to ensure appropriate representation, especially when dealing with jobs, functions or work commonly performed across of the organization. This could be the case when there are many people performing one job, when a number of jobs contain common elements (e.g. management or supervisory responsibilities), or when identifying competencies that tend to be common or core to organizational areas or functions. Factors to consider in choosing expert participants include:

• who understands or typifies the job and desired level of performance;
• representation of different stakeholder interests; and,
• representation of the diversity of the role (geographically, functionally, culturally, size of operation, region vs HQ)

Organizations must consider very carefully the level of performance that the competency profile represents. Many providers of competency profiling services argue that because organizations are driven to excellence, the standard for the development of competency profiles should be the Asuperior@ performer. Competencies that document superior performance may be appropriate as standards or targets for employees who are seeking to improve (e.g. training and development). However, competencies defined at this level may not be appropriate if used to support recruitment and staffing decisions, especially if it is recognized that employees need time, training and /or development after appointment to become "superior" performers. Organizations, therefore, need to consider carefully the level of competency that will be described in the competency model within the context of the types of processes, employment decisions or applications they are being developed to support.

Organizations often find that particular groups predominate in certain jobs or areas of the organization B for example, it is still the norm to find senior management positions in North America predominantly occupied by white males, often with similar cultural and social backgrounds. If the participants in the job profiling process are from the dominant group, it is likely that the behaviours included in the competency will be those behaviours that lead to success for dominant group (e.g "white males" operating as managers). However, success can often be achieved through a variety of behavioural and communication styles. For example, it is generally accepted and well supported by research that men in managerial roles are more likely to take a "command and control" approach to leading others, whereas women are more likely to use "collaborative" and "participatory" leadership styles. Both styles may lead to success under different circumstances, but the competencies which have been developed based on input from the dominant group (in this example white men) may tend to favour white men over women and other cultural and ethnic groups when they are used for making employment decisions.

Organizations, therefore, should take precautions to ensure that the competencies are not defined in a way that will disadvantage certain groups. Ways in which this can be accomplished include:

• ensuring appropriate representation from groups who are not from the majority group for the work being profiled. In Canada, this would typically mean representation as appropriate, from women, visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples and disabled persons; and,
• reviewing the competencies to determine whether the wording of the competencies could act to unfairly exclude certain groups.

Did you use expert "analysts"?

In reviewing complaints or challenges, courts and tribunals will often assess whether the analysts were qualified to undertake the competency profiling process. If the employer cannot demonstrate that the analyst had the necessary knowledge and competence to undertake the profiling process, the employer=s defense of the outcome (competency model / profile) will be in question. Typically, courts or tribunals will examine:

• the experience and training of the analyst in conducting job analysis and competency profiling processes; and,
• whether the analyst followed generally accepted and well-researched methodologies and standards - e.g. minimum standards / guidelines published by professional bodies (e.g. Canadian Psychological Association).

Was the competency profiling process fully documented?

To demonstrate defensibility, the organization must be prepared to describe how the competency profiling was undertaken. Often, challenges occur sometime after the competency profiling process was completed when the job analyst(s) are no longer available. If challenged, the organization must be in a position to demonstrate how the competencies reflect the "bona fide" requirements for effective performance. To do this, the organization must be able to describe the processes that were followed in determining the competencies. If it cannot, the organization runs the risk of a decision being made against the employer, even though the competencies may reflect the true requirements for performance in the job or area of work.

Using off-the-shelf tools and processes

One final note, organizations often will buy Aoff-the-shelf@ or ready made tools and processes. For example, full circle or multi-source (360 degree) questionnaires or services. These tools and processes are built on a predetermined model and set of assumptions about the competencies that lead to success, but they may or may not be appropriate to your organization. Do your research and establish whether the competencies being assessed through the tool or process are the ones that are key and important for success for the area of your organization in which they will be applied.