The second aricle in this focusses on what the most used competencies are
This is the year of research, where compelling ideas and insights are shared with all! Having conducted multiple research analyses for clients, I thought it was time that we, at HFMtalentindex, shared the information and insights gained through these research requests with the HR community. The idea is to focus on a specific topic, whereby an article is written and which is followed with an interview of a person working within the HR work field. This is meant to infuse hard data with a more human touch! The article mainly focuses on the research elements and what the results mean, which is followed by an interview, which can place these results in a more relevant real life context.
By Jair Shankar, MSc
The second article in this series focusses on what the most used competencies are. Competencies are combined to create a profile, which an individual is assessed on. These profiles are used for two main purposes. The first is selection, where the assessor is able to hire the best person for the function based on their score on the profile. The second is for development, where the candidate gets a score on their potential for the function and where their strengths and weaknesses are based on feedback from those they work with.
The goal of this article is not to only state what the most used competencies are for both selection and development, but to use our in house psychologist’s expertise to evaluate what is being seen. The analysis was also taken a step further, by categorising profiles into themes and investigating what the differences are between selection and development. For instance, looking at leadership profiles, financial sector profiles, or IT/Technical profiles.
For this introductory article, the results will only focus on the overall picture, which included profiles from all levels within a company and from all sectors. To give some perspective, there were a total of 2,051 unique profiles that were used for selection, with 552 unique development profiles.
For the overall picture, the top six most used competencies for both selection and development are very similar. The most popular competencies are Result-Oriented, Cooperation, and Client Focus. Taking the analysis a step further, we looked into where selection and development deviated from each other. The goal was to look into where competencies were least likely to be used for one and where they were more likely to be used for the other.
The high performance teams generally consist of individuals who score higher on Learning Agility than the population average. The opposite is true for the low performance teams, with team members generally scoring lower on Learning Agility than average. These findings are quite exciting, as they illustrate that Learning Agility may be able to conveniently predict team success. The findings indicate that for a team to be successful, it needs to consist of people who score above average on Learning Agility and its domains. It shows that teams that score high on Learning Agility are likely to perform better than teams that score low on Learning Agility.
The biggest contributors to the differences between the two types of teams were Results Agility, Self-Awareness, and Change Agility respectively. These domains of Learning Agility represent the ability to keep goals clearly set and defined (Results Agility), being aware of one’s strengths and weaknesses (Self-Awareness) and the willingness to explore and experience new things (Change Agility).
We looked deeper into each performance group by creating breakdowns for the separate teams. For both the high and low performing groups, the analysis showed that teams within the groups have a common profile. Each of the high performing teams had a similar dynamic between team members and the same goes for each of the low performing teams.
When plotted out in graphs, it proved fairly easy to see which teams were the high performing team and which were the low performing team. The teams, as well as individual team members, either score above or below average on Learning Agility. The majority of team members from teams within the high performing group score around or above the population average. Ideally, these are the individuals that companies are looking for.
With that, the analysis provides a benchmark for team success or, for those who see the glass half empty, a benchmark for failure. However, with the help of Learning Agility, teams are also able to indicate in which domains a low performing individual needs to grow in order to succeed, and thus for their team to succeed.
